I started this thinking they would be better than the movies because of how much Marvel-tier action is in the second and third ones but just 2 chapters in its astonishing how much better the movie is at least in the opening. Jackson mines so much more intrigue, nuance, drama, character work, and urgency out of the first two chapters of this book than Tolkien does. Does it get better or are these books actually just famous for the ideas and worldbuilding while the writing it mid? Is it even worth reading in the big ‘26? I do find the world of LOTR charming but I’m sensing a major slog on the horizon.
>>25080067The movies are better. Yes, the writing is mid.
>>25080067Music makes the movies better. Tolkien's writing is pretty mediocre at best.
>>25080067He really goes over the top on describing the landscape at the start of Fellowship. It's absolutely worth reading.
>>25080067You'll grow to appreciate the gradual, deliberate pace. Or you will if you're not terminally brainrotted.
>>25080147It’s over for me.t. picrel
>>25080067He’s a christcuck that has no originality whatsoever so ever that he designed the dwarves to be inspired by the jews
>>25080079Tolkien is a philologist. You aren't going to fully absorb hos magic if you aren't saying it aloud or marking the feet. The whole thing is poetry
>>25080067It's just a straight rip off of classic d&d, he has like zero imagination.
>>25080071>>25080079>>25080088Thanks for the takes I will read this first one then decide if I want to finish all three.>>25080147Not really about the pace. Maybe pointing out the lack of urgency was wrong but the scenes in the movie are way better designed at the beginning. Just small moments that put so much more drama and weight on the action. For example, Bilbo not telling Gandalf and Frodo about his little stunt with the ring beforehand already makes for a more interesting scene. Then, when Gandalf is talking to Bilbo about leaving the ring behind, Jackson’s direction mines so much more drama out of the scene than Tolkien:Book:>”I think, Bilbo, you should leave it behind. Dont you want to?”>“well yes - and no. Now it comes to it, I dont want to part with it at all, I may say. And I dont really see why I should. Why do you want me too?” He asked, and a curious change came over his voice. It was sharp with suspicious and annoyance. “You are always badgering me about my ring; but you have never bothered me about the other things that I got on my journey.”>”No, but I had to badger you,” said Gandalf. “I wanted the truth. It was important. Magic rings are - well, magical; and they are rare and curious. I was professionally interested in your ring, you may say; and I still am. I should like to know where it is, if you go wandering again. Also I think you have had it quite long enough. You wont need it any more. Bilbo, unless I’m quite mistaken”Movie:>”I think you should leave the ring behind Bilbo. Is that so hard?”>”well no…”>Biblo turns to the ring>close up on his face and the gold band>his voice much lower and ominous: ”and yes….”The rest of the scene plays with a few selected dialogues from the book scene, but its just a way punchier moment, less like a blabby conversation and more like a scene with a push and pull of drama. I realize film is a different medium and has the benefit of visuals, music, and acting but Tolkein’s version is way less concerned with dramatic action or intrigue than just the back and forth conversation and description of events. Another example in the same scene: the scene ending with Biblo letting the ring slip from his hand to the floor is a way better moment to the scene than him putting it back in the envelope and on the mantle. Then the scene ends with another improvement: Bilbo’s line of saying “I’ve thought of an ending to my book: and he lived happily ever afterwards to the end of his days” comes at the end of the scene after he relinquishes the burden of the ring, rather than the beginning of the scene when Gandalf first appears in his home. These are just tiny things on top of the arduous way Tolkein describes every detail, but I’m hoping as the story goes on I will fall into the different pace of the story and stop comparing the scenes to the movies.
>>25080067I have been struggling to get through this book. I started at least 4 years ago. I start and stop to the 250 pages I have managed. I have since read about 30 other books, including the hobbit (only 150 pages in), which I never read, but it fell in my lap and I hoped it would give some perspective on Fellowship. It did, somewhat.
>>25080277Oh and another moment in that scene which I found better in the movie: after Gandalf uses his magic to shout Bilbo down, Bilbo snaps out of it and, frightened, runs over to Gandalf and hugs him. This is just a great character moment that says a lot about their relationship and Gandalf’s stature. In the book the conversation basically just happens with no action other than the moment where Bilbo goes to leave and Gandalf reminds him he still has the ring on him.
>>25080067I’m afraid there’s no hope for you.
>>25080245Can't tell if b8 or you're just retardedEither way here is a (you)
>>25080277You're absolutely right and Peter Jackson's work is genuinely transformative in a very good way. You've also got to keep in mind the movies were made with 50 years more understanding not just of writing but in movies and TV shows, which has accelerated everything we understand about storywriting. Because we can get real time metrics about what works, not just "how many books sold".Tolkien is revolutionary for his time. The same way that famous bands from 30+ years ago were revolutionary but now there's a dozen new bands that do exactly the same sound but a million times better. Some people will always defend the old classics, some people just want the best. It is what it is.
This board is like in another dimension
There will always be superficial people who love Lord of the Rings, Mario, and Zelda.
Tolkien gave an excellent social construct to distract attention from reality for stupid people.
Harry Potter is better desu
>>25080585Lmao
Harry Potter doesn't make you feel elite.
>>25080067The sublime is closed to you.
You too are inaccessible to the sublime if you read a history summary of all the myths of England, instead of reading the original myths of England
>>25080067>>25080071The movies are overrated grabage
>>25080665The original myths are meh. Sublime literature comes from individual geniuses, not an illiterate rabble.
I appreciate the world building but I had a lot more fun reading Titus Groan.
>>25080657>sunday morning show writing>sublimeTolkien is only relevant because he was the first to copy paste history, myths and legends into making his own fiction with a mid story. At shis point you could also call George Lucas a genius writer. Both of them are shit writers, mediocre storytellers but fantastic showmen.
>>25080067>>25080277Not to say you are stupid, because you are technically correct in what you are saying, but you really just aren’t understanding the books at all. Yes, the movies are more dramatic, and yes the books are generally unconcerned with making things as dramatic as possible. If you want to understand why the movies are different (and worse) than the books you should read Roger Ebert’s review of Fellowship of the Ring. He perfectly describes what the books are actually going for and why the movies did not capture it.
>>25081776>Roger Ebert review >The books were great. There were so many mountains, valleys, streams, villages, caves, residences, grottos, bowers, fields, high roads, and low roads to visit.>why is this movie showing me so many places?>the acting is great but it’s distracting me from the hobbits who aren’t how I pictured them in my head except for that twinkle in Frodo’s eye.>Why does the balrog scene have to be so long? It’s only 500 words in the book.>the special effects are great.Geez this dude was cooked by 2001.
>>25080067I could not read it, too much descriptive, the movies are cool.Nothing happens in his book, he describes endless shit but there isn't characters in so much descriptive ambience, I only read until the chapter that was something like "the mushroom roads" it's when they are living the shire and they first encounter the the "dark knight on the horse".I just watched the movie, I don't think I'd miss anything, the movie are good because it was nostalgic euro-hopium and my life was truly nice, so it comes with those feelings of optimism and not all were delusional, it was truly great to be an european.
>>25081800Pretty kek but I meant more about his framing of LOTR as a (intentionally) more antiquated and innocent work. That its closer to The Wizard of Oz than it is to Gladiator is a correct observation.
>>25080523I love all of those things. I also love ancient Greek and German Romantic poetry, Hegelian philosophy, listen to classical and modern pop music and hip hop. And I also count movies like Bicycle Thieves and Pather Panchali along with LotR as my favorites. Basically, people are allowed to have eclectic tastes and you're a little faggot.
>>25080277>>25080290I agree and disagree. As someone who somehow read the books before watching the films, I love both and both have their strengths and weaknesses.The medium of film is able to bring out suspense/fear/anxiety in the audience in a way that reading rarely does. I have been awed by sudden twists in books, but never to the point of literally flinching like I have in movies (i.e. the scene in Rivendell where Bilbo wants the ring).But at the same time, film is unable to give the work the same sort of specific *attention* to detail that is possible in writing (though admittedly sometimes for worse). A movie can show a 30 second shot of a room that artists have put an unbearable amount of skill and work into designing, but the end experience is not the same for the viewer as if they were to absorb each detail in written form (one word after the other).One thing I found interesting about reading the book first vs watching the movies after, was Bilbo and Sam's journey felt WAY more grueling and drawn out in the books than it seemed in the movies. An absolute trudge across a desolate wasteland while dying of thirst, hunger, and exposure. Writing this also brings to mind the smells that are missing in the movie adaptions that imo added a lot the book. I remember very clearly that the orc armour Sam and Frodo take from the tower in Mordor smelled horribly of sweat and general body stink, but in the movies its just a kind of comic moment where they put on silly armour. I also remember clearly the description of the herbs Sam collects when he prepares the rabbit/coney for Frodo before being taken by Farimir. Anyway, apples and oranges and all that shit, pic related is a a film photo I took at Hobbiton last month.
>>25080067If you can't appreciate the description of simple country living then I'm afraid you have no soul.
Daily reminder that zoomers were a mistake.
>>25080487Back in my day, we recognized that people would sometimes write facetious posts as a "joke" and we wouldn't assume it was meant to troll.
>>25081982Yeah but I'm retarded and the other guy is a zoomer. Bad combination
I kind of agree and most people who don't are probably pseudes. So many scenes in the movie are more intriguing and so much slop is cut out.If Jackson didn't marvelslop it up before marvel even existed and had someone with more of a sense for the eerie and mystical it would have been perfect.
I tried reading fellowship in like 4th grade after reading the hobbit some time prior. I got to Bree or weathertop and just put the book down, I couldn’t get with the slow (yet beautiful) pacing. I saw all the movies in theater when they came out , never really thinking of the books again. Now I’m an old fart with kids and watching the trilogy this past Christmas made me think again of the books, primarily because reading is about the only hobby I have time for anymore. So I’m reading fellowship again with the movies fresh in my mind and doing some comparisons here and there:The movies happen so fast! I had forgotten it takes Frodo nearly 20 years to get out of the shire upon receipt of the ring. I had forgotten all about ol Tom Bombadil. So many things to savor and enjoy, all of the songs and poems (maybe a bit much and tiresome late at night) all of the detailed description. I love the movies but they just don’t compare to the written work. Probably because it’s like comparing peas and pears. Both have their merits. I’d say finish the first book like you plan, with an open mind and you’ll find that you’ll want to pick up the second book. Happy reading anon
Tolkien's writing has some truly beautiful sentences in it. The real trouble is structural. Poor pacing, lack of characterisation, introducing characters that go nowhere or that undercut the tension, having the plotlines split between book halves, instead of intertwining them together, not having even a single scene with Sauron, etc. Overall he was a cool ideas guy but all the best stuff is secondary material inspired by his books, not the books themselves. Not just Jackson's films but the great illustrators like Alan Lee, the great games like War in the North, Shadow of Mordor/War, BFME2, and even the tie-in games, and fan-inspired stuff like music (e.g. Clamavi de Profundis) or blacksmithing.
>creates a race of man-like creatures that can think, feel and have free will>make them "evil" and "irredeemable" >the "good guys" can kill a billion of them with no consequences or even a hint at guiltWhat did he mean by this?
>>25080277Tolkein isnt writing punchy tv dialog, he is setting a tone and writing for melody of reading.
>>25080067lmao hang yourself midwit
>>25082270That he was creating a fantasy world where his dislike of modernity could be clothed into a literal struggle
>>25080277>book is compressed into a movie>suddenly it has less words and faster pacewooooooah really?
>>25082101>introducing characters that go nowherethat only adds to the realism, not everyone needs an arc within the story
>>25080067the first movie is better, the middle one is meh in both, the third movie is worse than the book because the book gives you the pay offs
>>25080513>You're absolutely right and Peter Jackson's work is genuinely transformative in a very good way.you mean bakshi?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t7KSarpfFM
>>25082548The narrative satisfaction of an arc vastly outweighs any realism gained by not having an arc
Books were made for EuropeansMovies were made for Americans.It's really that simple.
>>25084653American here. I've read close to 2k books. I disagree with you most heartedly
>>25084653But Bongs are just east Americans.
>>25080067OP really didn't think this whole thing through
The implication of Gollum stalking Frodo/the ring since before Rivendell in the books as opposed to showing up as an endearing whacky little goober middle of the second movie is reason enough that the books are superior. Not to mention Old Tom Bombadil !
>>25085540Gandalf said in the movies that he had been following them since Rivendell, they just didn't show him
>>25085641>>25085540Gollum shows up in the Fellowship in the mines of Moria, you see only his eyes (at least in the extended movies)Frodo says Bilbo should've just killed him when he had the chance, to which Gandalf says >Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment...even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.
>>25086278>for good or illimagine if it was the latter, that would be quite a fuckup from Gandalf
>>25080665>myths of England>The Poetic EddaUhhhh?
The movies aggrandize the kind of things that make a movie entertaining for slop masses like the battle scenes, the magic, the war, and misunderstands characters from the books like Faramir and Aragorn.
