Lord of the Rings

[thegreekdog]

The movies are fantastic.

I plan to read the books sometime soon.

If you enjoyed the movies, chances are you're not going like the books. Conversation is stale, you'll drown in poetry and combat is almost non-existent.
Don't take me wrong, I love the books, but I think you have to completely forget about the movies if you're going to read the book. Otherwise, you will be disappointed.

If you enjoy fantasy literature with a little more spice I advise you to read RR Martin's work. You know, that papery version of Game of Thrones. With all the sex.

I liked both the books and the movies.

And if you like Martin, you should also read Joe Abercrombie, Glenn Cook, Steven Erikson, and Scott Bakker (who are all better writers than Martin in my opinion).

Which of the first three would you recommend to check out first?
(I looked at Bakker's 2nd Apocalypse wiki page (or rather, Prince of Nothing's, since 2nd has no page), it didn't exactly grasp my interest.)

If you like visceral visuals without too much ridiculous background detail, I would go with Abercrombie first. I think he's my second favorite.
Erikson is the best, in my opinion. His Malazan series is the best fantasy I've ever read. It's tough to get into though, especially the first book. Plot-wise and thematically it's very complex.
I'm reading Bakker now and he's my least favorite.
Glenn Cook's Empire series is my favorite of his books, but most people talk about the Black Company (also good, but not as good).

So, I would suggest:
(1) Abercrombie
(2) Cook
(3) Erikson
(4) Bakker

If I had to rate favorites, I would go:
(1) Erikson
(2) Abercrombie
(3) Cook
(4) GRRM
(5) Bakker (but only because I just started).

[aage]

If you like visceral visuals without too much ridiculous background detail, I would go with Abercrombie first. I think he's my second favorite.
Erikson is the best, in my opinion. His Malazan series is the best fantasy I've ever read. It's tough to get into though, especially the first book. Plot-wise and thematically it's very complex.

Complex backgrounds isn't a problem, I think I will be arrogant enough to say I can handle it. Thanks for your advice, I will definitely consider this.

[thegreekdog]

If you like visceral visuals without too much ridiculous background detail, I would go with Abercrombie first. I think he's my second favorite.
Erikson is the best, in my opinion. His Malazan series is the best fantasy I've ever read. It's tough to get into though, especially the first book. Plot-wise and thematically it's very complex.

Complex backgrounds isn't a problem, I think I will be arrogant enough to say I can handle it. Thanks for your advice, I will definitely consider this.

I guess my point was that Abercrombie is easier to get into. Also, Abercrombie's later books are better than his trilogy, but probably a better idea to read the trilogy first.

[MegaProphet]

Tolkien is a fantastic writer. He not only created a world, but brought it to life. I've read The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit several times and last year I read The Silmarillion. It takes awhile to remember who all the characters are, but the stories are fantastic.

[bedub1]

<Removed>

[nietzsche]

How many times have I posted this vid?



i don't care for star trek or wars or whatever either.

[macbone]

Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece. The movies are good, but the books are so much better.

[Viceroy63]

How does that riddle go?

Featherless, Flutters
Wingless, Flights
Mouthless, Mutters
Toothless, Bites

What am I?

If you guess it then please post a new riddle. =)

[aage]

How many times have I posted this vid?



i don't care for star trek or wars or whatever either.

Haha. Sweet.

They are gay, though.

[x-raider]

Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece. The movies are good, but the books are so much better.

QFT

[PLAYER57832]

I thought the books were boring. I thought the movies were terrible. I know I'm in the minority. Anybody else tired of LOTR shit?

The movies were terrible. I enjoyed the books, but Tolkien gets credit for basically creating a genre and doing so with early credibility (Jules Verne made history by is almost laughable in his ideas by today's standards. Tolkien's world "works" today as well as decades ago). Some of Tolkien might seem "boring" today, simply because so many other writers have essentially copied Tolkien's basic ideas and structure so that the theme is very familiar to you already. Its sort of like if you were to see West Side Story and then look at Romeo And Juliet as a mere copy.

Beyond that... you might try rereading at least the Hobbit. It could be you read it when you were too young and missed a lot. Or, it could be that the antiquated language made it tough.

[PLAYER57832]

How does that riddle go?

Featherless, Flutters
Wingless, Flights
Mouthless, Mutters
Toothless, Bites

What am I?

If you guess it then please post a new riddle. =)

rumors or gossip.

[Dukasaur]

>just war movies
>good scenes cut down

Dukasaur confirmed for Canadian.

Hey, I like a good war movie too. But if you're not going to develop the characters in between fight scenes, the audience really isn't going to care whether they live or die.

[jonesthecurl]

I thought the books were boring. I thought the movies were terrible. I know I'm in the minority. Anybody else tired of LOTR shit?

The movies were terrible. I enjoyed the books, but Tolkien gets credit for basically creating a genre and doing so with early credibility (Jules Verne made history by is almost laughable in his ideas by today's standards. Tolkien's world "works" today as well as decades ago). Some of Tolkien might seem "boring" today, simply because so many other writers have essentially copied Tolkien's basic ideas and structure so that the theme is very familiar to you already. Its sort of like if you were to see West Side Story and then look at Romeo And Juliet as a mere copy.

Beyond that... you might try rereading at least the Hobbit. It could be you read it when you were too young and missed a lot. Or, it could be that the antiquated language made it tough.

Tolkien did not by any means create the genre.
Or even the plot.
Try E R Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros for example - dark lord in a dark tower, epic journey, small band of good guys, it's basically all there. Different and very enjoyable ending. I won't spoil it by revealing anything.

[macbone]

The movies were terrible? I shall now quote perhaps irrelevant statistics based mostly on subjective opinions:

The Fellowship of the Ring:
IMDB - 8.8
Rotten Tomatoes - 92%
Metacritic - 92
Roger Ebert - 3 stars

The Two Towers:
IMDB - 8.7
Rotten Tomatoes - 96%
Metacritic - 88
Roger Ebert - 3 stars

The Return of the King:
IMDB - 8.9
Rotten Tomatoes - 94%
Metacritic - 94
Roger Ebert - 3 1/2 stars

Oh, and there's this, the list of most mentions in critics' best of 2000-2009. Return and Two Towers tied for 5th, and Fellowship was shared 8th place: http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film- ... the-decade

Pretty good for terrible movies. =) Ebert didn't give 'em 4 stars, though, and the man does rate pretty high these days, so there's that.

From his Return of the King review:

At last the full arc is visible, and the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy comes into final focus. I admire it more as a whole than in its parts. The second film was inconclusive, and lost its way in the midst of spectacle. But "Return of the King" dispatches its characters to their destinies with a grand and eloquent confidence.This is the best of the three, redeems the earlier meandering, and certifies the "Ring" trilogy as a work of bold ambition at a time of cinematic timidity.

That it falls a little shy of greatness is perhaps inevitable. The story is just a little too silly to carry the emotional weight of a masterpiece.

His Fellowship review is spot on, I think:

If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by the end "Fellowship" adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. Tolkien.

The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to it. But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not.

[Dukasaur]

If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by the end "Fellowship" adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. Tolkien.

The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to it. But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not.

That's pretty much exactly the nub of it.

[aage]

If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by the end "Fellowship" adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. Tolkien.

The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to it. But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not.

That's pretty much exactly the nub of it.

I disagree with his first line. The quest of the Ring isn't Frodo's, it's Gandalf's. Frodo is the carrier because Gandalf cannot be, and because he was "meant to" in the movie.

Also, no, Tolkien didn't invent the genre, and also he stole lots of stuff from older tales (myths, romances, etcetera), but he did do a pretty good job. Reading texts like Arthur's sagas or Beowulf makes you realise that.


Oh, and Fellowship was the best movie and the best book. Discuss.