Lord of the Rings

Boy, would I love it if Tom expanded and compiled all his various AVClub essays into a book.

Speaking of expansion, I can't even remember when I last saw the theatrical versions of these films. I've always felt the expanded versions were an improvement in every way, or at least that there was nothing added that I would take back out, but I honestly can't recall what's new or not. Is there anyone that prefers the theatrical versions?

As tolkien himself said, the only criticism of the books is that they are roo short, makes sense that the movies expanding with legit content improves them *no bonus warg/zombies ffs

Well tolkien said "too short" but in the movies jackson obv had to put a twist on it for they tourism board money

Is there anyone that prefers the theatrical versions?

AFAICR, the Fellowship EE does nothing but improve, the Two Towers extra scenes are hit and miss, and the Return EE mainly just pads out an already overlong movie.

I prefer the theatrical FOTR, it’s not that good a film that I want to watch more of it, even as someone who had read all the books multiple times by the time it came out. Actually I hate when there is only the extended edition available somewhere.

Killer in the return is how long they have for the rubbish, and how they cut the absolutely critical scouring of the shire

*watch that much more of *, ffs. My own scouring, isn’t it

the scouring of the shire might be my favorite part of rotk the book. i liked how bleak it was, and how it showed that things weren't just sunshine and rainbows in the shire during the war like the hobbits imagined it might be. also, gave the hobbits a chance to demonstrate how formidable they became as a result of their adventures.

i get why they cut it, though it echoes with my main criticism with the trilogy as an adaptation: the increased focus on battle sequences diminished the role of the hobbits in the final two films.

Iirc, the only part of King that really drags is the ending(s), and given I don't think that's what's (further) padded out in the extended cut - it's *already* extended in the theatrical - I don't remember anything else dragging the movie down further. For some reason I recall the second and third movies in particular gaining conclusions to various storylines, establishing otherwise absent motives, that sort of thing, all improvements to the story if not necessarily improvements to the films.

I think Tom's observation in his column that the series benefitted from being shot all at once was otm. There was no fiddling with tone or pacing or pleasing test audiences or whatever in between films, and even as far as the extended stuff goes, needed or not it's all of the same quality and fits right in.

I think it serves well as the antidote to the saccharine/comedy flavour the hobbits mainly inhabit as pointed out above too

Its the heartpiece of the entire story four each of the four central characters (and in three very different ways) and as a story of war written by a veteran it hits home very strongly indeed and to drop it for any reason is imo leaden at best but obv actually unforgivable

"Scouring of the Shire" is wonderful as a reader, as a last conflict during those bittersweet chapters as the book is finally winding down. Working it into a long movie would have been a challenge.

(xxp)

Viggo has surprisingly few lines, especially in the first film, I noticed. But he is definitely a strong presence

They definitely did adjust things in response to audience reactions over time -- thus while the two 'big' Legolas moments in TTT were part of the original filming (Legolas getting on the horse, though they had to figure that out in post, and the shield-as-surfboard), the 'that still only counts as one!' sequence in ROTK was specifically dreamed up for the final touch-up shoots on that in summer 2003 precisely because of how well those TTT moments had gone over. But yeah, it's generally consistent.

As I'm sure deems will agree, this is one reason why the radio series works so well -- the Scouring is there in depth, if not in full.

idk jmm, there's many decent templates for how to run a "returning home" close to a war movie and there's not much different to this

My friend & I are doing a mini bookclub re-reading of the LOTR series

The thing that def stands out is whats been noted above re specificity of weather, environment, geography etc. And i did see something somewhere that tolkien essentially started w the map/s and wrote the story according to the map

Also his style of writing feels confounding at times, like x thing happens that is then retold by other characters in a following chapter, or like starting Two Towers with...walking
Where you’d normally be “well why would a writer do that” but he’s drawing on medieval storytelling and he’s also chronicling

The thing that I have found most enjoyable about the books is the slow, gentle pace combined with the underpinning (or overpinning) of utmost dread & grim tidings. And the sense of history, the ancient lands theyre journeying upon & the constant reminder that time is a wheel, etc

The characterization of Merry & Pippin, or at least Merry, in the movie is v different. Merry is not at all comic relief, very intuitive & clever & at times almost a leader of the hobbit group early on, Pippin is foolish at times yes but both of them far from slapstick idiots.

And Aragorn not at all conflicted about being King the way they play it up for emo- drama in the movie. he embraces it very matter of factly but is just seeming to sort of want to be of use in his Strider role & have some adventure before he has to do the boring job of ruling (vastly over simplified obv - we joked Aragorn in the books is basically enjoying his “gap year”)

I understand ~most~ of the choices for the LOTR movies & dont personally feel crazy strongly about the differences for the most part but I appreciate Deems holding the line
(I dont disagree on the elves)

Btw, still blows my mind that Viggo was once married to Exene from X.

LOTR is about four english lads from a pretty well off village well entrenched in the victorian class system pulled to war they dont understand and coming back stronger, wounded, wiser

Jacksons LOTR is about orlando bloom surfing a cgi elephant

The characterization of Merry & Pippin, or at least Merry, in the movie is v different. Merry is not at all comic relief, very intuitive & clever & at times almost a leader of the hobbit group early on, Pippin is foolish at times yes but both of them far from slapstick idiots.

✓✓✓✓✓✓

Viggo role that kills me is his carlitos way blink-and-miss-it

Mainly because carlitos way always, always lives in my head as a movie made in 1979 tbh

igh i guffed this part up

Also his style of writing feels confounding at times, like x thing happens that is then retold by other characters in a following chapter, or like starting Two Towers with...walking
Where you’d normally be “well why would a writer do that” but he’s drawing on medieval storytelling and he’s also chronicling

My garbled point was that he is approaching fantasy as a medieval scholar so as a reader my own kneejerk modern desire for narrative & dramatic tension eventually get wrestled to the ground & i really very much enjoy his style where hes almost writing for his own enjoyment & edification, and me the audience just go along for the ride rather than being grabbed by structural tricks etc

again oversimplified but i love him is the upshot

Tolkien a v big walker iirc?

There's something to the heft of the books that many emulators dont manage and the movie misses also in his expertise being language and his hobby being rambling.

Tolkien's days spent on the march, his having bilbo and frodo as walking explorers as a pastime, his orc-driven nightmare runs and the limbo hopelessness of following in its wake, the ashy trudge across mordor which may as well be a continent in the timeless impossibility of it- this is a guy that knows walking like the proverbial eskimo knows snow, this is a guy who could describe gait and step like a wine writer

totally

every now and again he says that the hobbits are “running” and i’m like.. damn. with those packs! just running for hours nbd

he is approaching fantasy as a medieval scholar

Very key. An element which emerges in interesting fashion is his deep love of the Icelandic saga form, which famously generally has its characters and main figures described externally -- IOW, you don't get what makes a character tick from an omniscient narrator sharing internal thoughts, it's all done via outside observation of action and speech, sometimes very flatly. (Characters will die suddenly or brutally and it'll seem like you're just reading along without a change in tone.) Obviously this isn't the entire case -- we get a lot of Sam's internal thoughts the closer we get to the end, for example -- but other characters we're never 'inside' in ways we're more familiar with. Boromir is never a POV character, for instance.

xpost otm

also no one is at his level for giving you specific plant names in any given environment, to the point where if you are up on your botany you can literally see what he’s telling you is being seen

Request lotr board tbh

Someone else do it im cooking

xpost You have reminded me this book is a beautiful indulgence:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/flora-of-middle-earth-9780190276317?cc=us&lang=en&

Father/son team, dad's the academic botanist, son is the hardcore Tolkien fan, and the whole thing is a detailed but also sober-minded treat, suggesting real world analogues as needed and so forth. I learned a lot!

the Icelandic sagas def helps understand his style of storytelling

re medieval stuff, its funny bc both me and my bookclub friend studied Tolkien’s translation of Gawain in college etc & minored in middle english but until now never really pulled all the threads together between the medieval stuff and LOTR etc #lifelonglearning

wow that Flora book looks awesome

We did the Gawain translation for the podcast back in June -- it was good to go back to that, there was a lot I'd forgotten. A very strange work!

I'd say offhand the key non-Tolkien-written books that serve as useful/informative addenda are Carpenter's biography -- though a deeper and more complete study with material and facts that weren't in there is long overdue -- Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth -- Christopher Tolkien used it himself! -- Fonstad's editions of The Atlas of Middle-earth and Wayne Hammond/Christina Scull's editing of Tolkien's artwork and the reader's companion to LOTR. But the Flora book is a real treat too.

i am def interested in reading the biography at some point

Obviously this isn't the entire case -- we get a lot of Sam's internal thoughts the closer we get to the end, for example -- but other characters we're never 'inside' in ways we're more familiar with. Boromir is never a POV character, for instance.

The only POV characters are the hobbits I think? We follow the chase party after Merry & Pippin are kidnapped, but there's nothing internal there, just external description of what's happening. Actually we might get some of Gimli's POV in the Paths of the Dead sequence, but other than that the whole saga really is (largely) written in hobbit-view.

i’ve been reading the nibelungenlied (nbd) and that feels like a big source - german originally but with a scandinavian offshoot that preserves more of its archaic original story than the german version which permuted more. a ring of power, a small creature who forswore love to possess it etc. (lots more women in the nibelung saga tho!)

Tolkien knew it well and translated some portions of it. But when asked about more specific connections he famously replied, "Both rings were round, and that is all."

Yeah but he dismissed everything tbf, i think he rather showily disliked speculation on the meanings of it all

In a few letters i read of his to Auden & others etc, he seemed to have be v self-conscious about his writing, like he was adverse to ascribing highminded motivations & talking about his “craft” bc he didnt want to seem like he was putting on airs

or that was impression i got

at least as far as LOTR etc went

He was definitely cautious, per deems. I think part of him was still surprised the outgrowth of his 'secret vice' turned out to be such a phenomenon. (Which itself is interesting because he'd already had a substantial hit with The Hobbit in the first place.)

for reasons i’m not entirely clear on i started reading the fellowship of the ring the other day.

1 the early conversations between gandalf, bilbo and frodo etc are really charming. i make this observation because of how bad the films are at this tone, managing a sort of imbecile joviality or theatrical menace. one of the pleasant things in the book is the adult to adult conversation between the two and exchanges like this on gollum:

‘

No, and I don’t want to,’ said Frodo. ‘I can’t understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.’

‘Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.

now maybe to read the thread lol. i didn’t realise there were so many posts from today.

nice in a sort of yes! otm! way seeing both deems and VG making the same point about the ambulatory pace (and yes the writing by detailed map is v evident if agree)

Tracer covered the snoozeworthiness of the council of elrond upthread tbf

The cloak-and-dagger feeling of that pre-Rivendell section is some of my favourite stuff - evading the shadowy enemy agents to smuggle the secret weapon out of the country.

The movie absolutely nails it, too

Tracer covered the snoozeworthiness of the council of elrond upthread tbf

Fonstad's editions of The Atlas of Middle-earth

I still have my first edition hardcover of this with the dustjacket. It played such a huge role in my love of Middle Earth because I loved maps and they were so insanely detailed. The white, brown, black scheme also made little me think the maps were somehow insanely old. You could just spend an afternoon looking at the travel maps and it was like reading the trilogy over again in a couple of hours.

Agreed that the flight from the Shire is best part of the books and movies.

Gandalf and then Bilbo in turn leaving the young hobbits totally underprepared works beautifully for the adolescent reader, feeds into the success of the narrative unfolding in a manageable way

I still have my first edition hardcover of this with the dustjacket. It played such a huge role in my love of Middle Earth because I loved maps and they were so insanely detailed.

I had that as well, and what a treasure. I do wish there'd been hardcovers of the updated ones. (Fonstad's other atlases, even for series of less-than-notable stuff, were also treats -- she passed too early but I'm glad she got to see the films and appear in some of the supplements.)

Gandalf and then Bilbo in turn leaving the young hobbits totally underprepared works beautifully for the adolescent reader, feeds into the success of the narrative unfolding in a manageable way