business vision articles new vision business opportunities finance vision deposit money vision making art loan vision deposits make vision your home good income vision outcome issue medicine vision drugs market vision money trends self vision roof repairing market vision online secure vision skin tools wedding vision jewellery newspaper vision for magazine geo vision places business vision design Car vision and Jips production vision business ladies vision cosmetics sector sport vision and fat burn vat vision insurance price fitness vision program furniture vision at home which vision insurance firms new vision devoloping technology healthy vision nutrition dress vision up company vision income insurance vision and life dream vision home create vision new business individual vision loan form cooking vision ingredients which vision firms is good choosing vision most efficient business comment vision on goods technology vision business secret vision of business company vision redirects credits vision in business guide vision for business cheap vision insurance tips selling vision abroad protein vision diets improve vision your home security vision importance

With 10 Miles Behind Me and 10,000 More to Go

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Overappreciated Gems | Comments (106)



lotrfellow.png

Peter Jackson proved his worth as a gifted director long before The Lord of the Rings trilogy. He first developed a cult following with horror comedies like Meet the Feebles and the brilliant Dead Alive, and then found a modicum of mainstream success with the gloriously dark, beautiful and awe-inspiring Heavenly Creatures, which he later followed up with the surprisingly effective supernatural black-comedy, The Frighteners. And at some point between 1996 and 2001, when The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was released, Peter Jackson developed one of the best technical minds in film, and became a master of special effects wizardry. Unfortunately, as his mechanical gifts blossomed, his sense of humor and ability to craft relatable and likeable characters withered on the vine. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Jackson perfectly captured the vision of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth, shifting the precise landscapes and images from the page to the screen. Unfortunately, the magic and whimsy of Tolkien’s novels never translated. What remains onscreen is a gorgeous, but ultimately empty movie that moves glacially towards an unsatisfactory bookmark, only three hours into an interminable epic that could never end big enough to justify its ultimate 10-hour runtime.

To be fair, it’s not entirely Jackson’s fault; while the imagery of Tolkien’s masterpieces lends itself well to cinema, the storyline never has. And Jackson’s movies suffer from the weaknesses inherent in Tolkien’s books: Magnificent world and meticulously conceived mythology but nothing to do with the characters except move them from station to station, like players in in an elaborate, expensive board game whose only motivation seems to be, “The card told me to move three spaces ahead.” Jackson’s movies only exacerbate that flaw — left without a world to imagine inside your head, the focus turns to the narrative, and that is where The Fellowship of the Ring is most lacking.

George Carlin used to have a routine about what a meaningless sport golf is. He said, “It’s a mindless game. Think of the intellect it must take to draw pleasure from this activity: Hitting a ball with a crooked stick. And then, walking after it … and then! Hitting it again!” It’s the perfect metaphor for how I feel about The Fellowship of the Ring: Frodo walks a few miles, gets in a fight and nearly dies, and then walks a few more miles. The Fellowship of the Rings is not driven so much by a plot, but by a series of obstacles Frodo and the gang must combat before walking some more. It’s like a daytime soap opera — if you watched a week’s worth of episodes and tuned in six months later, you’d still know what was going on. Likewise, if you tune in at the forty-five minute mark or the two-and-a-half minute mark (or even halfway through Return of the King) you’d still know what was going on: They’re walking. Still trying to destroy that ring. Trying to get to Mount Doom. And Frodo is still trying not to succumb to the ring’s power. Nothing in the trilogy ever happens to change that permanent dynamic. And given what you know at the start of The Fellowship of the Ring (either you’ve read the books, or at the very least, you know that there are two more movies in the trilogy), it feels like watching a baseball game you’ve already seen. Sure, the ballpark is beautiful, but with an outcome never honestly in doubt, there’s no real tension to propel the narrative forward. It’s a series of set pieces, an excuse for Jackson to show off his considerable technical skills in lieu of a storyline.

Just in case you are among the very few uninitiated: For a three-hour movie, the plot of Fellowship of the Ring is remarkably simple. Within the first seven-minutes of voiceover dialogue, we learn that the hobbit, Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) came into possession of a ring — the One Ring, which Sauron the Dark Lord once used to subdue and rule over Middle Earth. At his 111th birthday party, Bilbo disappears and leaves the ring to his nephew, Frodo (Elijah Wood). The Wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) tells Frodo to leave immediately with the ring, as the life force of Sauron is still attached to it, so his spirit (and Sauron’s henchman) will soon be coming for it. So, Frodo grabs the ring and gets the hell out of Shire, taking along fellow hobbits Sam Gamgee (Sean Astin), Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd).

And then they walk. Man, do they walk. Bad people come after them. They walk some more. Along the way, they pick up Aragorn (Viggo Mortenson), who helps them fight battles with the bad people when they are not walking. And then they walk some more. At one point, Frodo is nearly killed, but he’s taken by the elf Arwen (Liv Tyler) to the Elven haven of Rivendell, where Frodo heals and discovers that he needs to take the Ring to Mount Doom and throw it in, as that’s the only way to destroy it. So, now accompanied by Elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom), Dwarf Gimli (John Rhys Davies), and Boromir (Sean Bean), they walk some more, stopping occasionally to battle bad guys before walking some more.

Who are these bad creatures? They’re just bad creatures. Why are they bad? They just are. Because they were born hideous looking, and that’s what hideous looking creatures do: They become bad. That’s one of the things that bothers me most about The Lord of the Rings. It’s based on mythic archetypes: The good are good, and the bad people are bad, just because they are. There’s no explanation as to why this is; it just is. We don’t have any real understanding of what drives anyone to do what they do. It’s a problem that plagues all three films; we understand Frodo must destroy the ring, but we never really understand what compels him to do so. Likewise, in Fellowship of the Rings, we never get a clear understanding of Sauron; he’s just a bad motherfucker who wants to regain power.

Star Wars works with the same archetypes, but adds a veneer of complexity. The characters in Star Wars (at least IV - V) have personalities. Though limited, they have motivations. And occasional senses of humor. And crushes. There are no wisecracks in Fellowship of the Ring. There is no romance. It’s just a series of self-serious characters whispering ominous things to one another about the evils of that ring and then walking. There’s no subtlety — everything is spelled out, repeatedly (in case you didn’t understand the evils of the ring the first 47 times Gandalf explained it). There’s nothing relatable about the characters. And there’s nothing in the storyline that resonates with our modern world. Worse still, Jackson is arrogant and presumptuous enough to believe that his vision is so amazing that he’s doing us a favor by giving us a three hour movie, when he could’ve bored us just as effectively in two hours.

Some have argued that Peter Jackson is like Steven Spielberg without the cloying sentimentality. And that, in my opinion, is what’s wrong with Peter Jackson post since the first Lord of the Rings movie (and this, too, includes King Kong). Spielberg’s Peter Pan syndrome can get heavy-handed at times, but it’s that sentimentality that humanizes his characters, that gives them something the viewer can latch onto (Del Toro, in my opinion, is the perfect combination of the two). Putting aside the fact that there’s barely any forward momentum in Fellowship of the Ring (after three hours, they still have the goddamn ring), there’s nothing in those characters that resonates with me. Sure, Aragorn is bad ass, Boromir is heroic, and Frodo is kind of a whiny damsel, but the rest are mere set pieces, characters that Jackson manipulates with the same dispassionate approach he takes to the special effects. And for all the fireworks in The Fellowship of the Ring, there’s very little magic.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. You may begin throwing things at him … now.









Star Trek IV, V, VI | The Best Video Games of All Time













Comments

"Boromir (Billy Bean)"

That's funny even if it's not intentional.

Posted by: annoyingmouse at April 8, 2009 3:16 PM

Dammit Rowles, you just continue to piss all over everything I love. Why don't you go after the Sandman comics or something next. You can misspell Gaiman's name repeatedly, it'll be a blast.

Posted by: phaedawg at April 8, 2009 3:20 PM

My date fell asleep in the theater. I took a walk in the middle of the movie to stretch my legs. I never watched the other two installments. I'm glad it was actually boring; after all the hype I honestly thought the only reason we didn't like it is because we're black.

Posted by: Clee Shay at April 8, 2009 3:21 PM

Yeah, yeah, you don't like the LOTR, you want to lick RR's abs, and you're a jaded lawyer. Tell me something I don't know, like how many toes you have, or whether or not this job is going to call me back. Damn them!

Posted by: the_wakeful at April 8, 2009 3:22 PM

I love these movies, but I'm not going to argue with you about them. I will, however, point out that the Dark Lord's name is Sauron. "Suaron" sounds like somebody who would rule Middle Earth with his sexy dance moves. Probably while wearing some variety of cummerbund.

Posted by: Sean at April 8, 2009 3:22 PM

What, no mention of Randall's LOTR speech in clerks 2?

Posted by: Alli at April 8, 2009 3:22 PM

As Randall pointed out in Clerks 2, even the effing TREES walked in this movie!

Posted by: superEdna at April 8, 2009 3:23 PM

Damn these slow fingers. Alli beat me to it.

Posted by: superEdna at April 8, 2009 3:24 PM

This will always be where I adamantly disagree with you the most. I don't understand at all why you hate these movies so much. It's like you made up your mind before you saw them and have stuck with it for the last (approximately) 10 years. But hey, I have my own things I've done that with, and also still stick with them to this day.

And what are you talking about there being no romance?! I'm beginning to think you've never actually seen these movies.

Posted by: katy at April 8, 2009 3:24 PM

I don't remember which film stated this, but the "hideous creatures" were Orcs (formerly men), and they became that way because of their desire for the ring. It corrupted their souls, and transformed their appearance.

Can't stay long b/c I'm at work but I hated Heavenly Creatures. It was weird, depressing crap. I didn't care how much their lives sucked, I didn't feel bad for them at the end of the film.

Posted by: Brie at April 8, 2009 3:24 PM

I know this franchise is big and empty and mostly reviled around these parts, but I just can't hate them. They are so pretty, and I loved the Tolkien books so much. I'm a fantasy buff, it's a part of who I am, and everything I like about fantasy was channeled by Tolkien first.

"Let them come. There is one dwarf yet in Moria who still draws breath!"

Posted by: Snath at April 8, 2009 3:25 PM

I feel your pain phaedawg.

My extended editions of all three movies are some of my most treasured possessions. I can't think of anything better than watching all of 'em back to back. When I get bored of the walking (Frodo was always the weakest link in my opinion), I can just gaze at the pretty, pretty people....bliss.

Course, my boyfriend seems to share Rowles' opinion, so picking a movie to watch at our house can be combative to say the least - until we just end up watching Galaxy Quest again instead.

Posted by: Lisa S at April 8, 2009 3:25 PM

I'll also add that in the books, there's a lot more exposition to account for the characters' motivations toward each other. And although it's a staggeringly difficult read, The Silmarillion is basically the entire history of the world of Middle Earth; it further clarifies the motivations.

Posted by: Sean at April 8, 2009 3:26 PM

I really enjoy the LOTR trilogy, but now that Dustin has explained the reasoning behind his apathy towards these movies I kind of sort of agree a little.

Posted by: Julie at April 8, 2009 3:26 PM

I do find is strange that someone who hates so much of geek culture worships at Kevin Smith's throne; how can you enjoy his films if you don't get the references, Dustin ?

Posted by: cockroach at April 8, 2009 3:27 PM

Not only do I love these movies, but this one is my favorite of the three. Of course, I went to see it with Mrs. TK, and afterward we had the following exchange:

Me: "Christopher Lee really nailed Saruman."
Her: "Which one was that?"
Me: "The bad guy? Old guy, beard, evil?"
Her: "Wait, I thought that was Ian McKellan."
Me: "Um... no. He was the good guy with the beard."
Her: "Wait... there were two old guys with beards?"
Me: [stunned silence] "THEY FOUGHT EACH OTHER!"
Her: "... I might have slept through that part."

As you can see, we don't always see eye to eye.

Posted by: TK at April 8, 2009 3:29 PM

Eh, this work needs no defense. Jackson took a literary work that was, for decades, considered unfilmable and not only turned it into a beloved piece of pop culture, but also won an Oscar. The Oscar was a bit much, probably, but I've watched each of them at least three times, and they're highly enjoyable.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at April 8, 2009 3:33 PM

And yes, I know the Oscar wasn't for this installment.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at April 8, 2009 3:34 PM

I sometimes think that with the ~12 editions of every part of LOTR out already, they might as well release the "Epic Shit Edition." It would simply be the normal movies without Frodo's scenes.

Posted by: muzz at April 8, 2009 3:36 PM

I have to say that I think the movies actually improved on the books, cutting out a lot of the flab that didn't further the plot (Tom Bombadil, anyone ) It works well on screen because it is so linear, and all the description that makes it hard to read without falling asleep translates into evocative scenery. So what if it isn't a deep meditation on the nature of good versus evil, not every film has to be.

Posted by: cockroach at April 8, 2009 3:38 PM

Well-said, Ted. My only real gripe with the book-to-film transition is that in the movies, there's no real connection built between Frodo/Sam and Merry and Pippin. They just kind of pop in go along.

Posted by: Sean at April 8, 2009 3:38 PM

So awesome to reference James Taylor. Best. Songwriter. Ever.

Posted by: AbroadThankGod at April 8, 2009 3:42 PM

Sauron is not just a bad guy who's bad for no reason, he's the Tolkien equiavalent of a fallen angel, a la Satan. It's just regrettable that the story does sound simplistic for people who don't know the history in The Silmarillion, but what can you do? I think I'll just cry about it.

Posted by: Kelly at April 8, 2009 3:43 PM

They didn't always walk, sometimes they rode horses or paddled boats. Maybe if there is a remake they will drive 1969 Cameros. Would that make you happier? I love me some LOTR and don't mind admitting it. I was petrified that I would die before the last movie was released. Even quit drinking and smoking to improve my chances. Once I realized I was gonna make it I promptly reverted to my old ways.

Posted by: rene at April 8, 2009 3:45 PM

I agree with what you're saying. However, the moments inbetween the walking are enough to keep me loving these movies.

I couldn't make it through the books though. I tried really hard, I did. But I just couldn't do it.

Posted by: Jeni at April 8, 2009 3:47 PM

I thought Fellowship was okay, because Jackson didn't have any battles to salivate over and wreck the story, but both Two Towers and Return of the King were horrible films that ruined the entire point of the books they were based on. I shan't write a 2000 word comment completely off topic, but just to get the bile out of my system:

1. The interminable battle of Helm's Deep is half the film but only a single 20 page chapter out of a 400 page novel.

2. The Scouring of the Shire is the entire point of the trilogy, and Jackson cut it in order to have more room for big battles and homoerotic hugs.

Rock on Randall.

Posted by: Steven Lloyd Wilson at April 8, 2009 3:47 PM

I agree with Sean and Ted's points that Jackson did well considering the substantial source material, and while some make look for more background on this or that, that would typically mean injecting more running time. Two Towers was still my favorite.

it feels like watching a baseball game you’ve already seen.

Let's change that to "it feels like watching a KC Royals baseball game." That way you retain the inevitable result.

Posted by: branded at April 8, 2009 3:48 PM

2. The Scouring of the Shire is the entire point of the trilogy, and Jackson cut it in order to have more room for big battles and homoerotic hugs.

Okay, that's a gripe too. Kinda forgot about that one. Thanks, stipe.

Posted by: Sean at April 8, 2009 3:49 PM

After observing all this backlash, I'm thinking that maybe I am just too black to like them...

But then again, I love Arthur (in spite of Liza Minelli). And Tiffany. And hummus! What is WRONG with me?!

Posted by: Clee Shay at April 8, 2009 3:51 PM

"It's just regrettable that the story does sound simplistic for people who don't know the history in The Silmarillion, but what can you do?"

And that's sort of the problem with these movies for me. In 10 hours there wasn't any way to really bring in any of that exposition and form a back story? It's a complicated tale simplified to base good/evil. Unless you've read all of the books, and the Hobbit, and Silmarillion it's just not involving enough to be drawn out over that much film. I don't have that sort of time to make myself care about a set of movies.

I didn't really care for any of the characters until Sam in the last hour of the last movie. In fact, I can't even tell you most of the recurring characters names that were in all 3 movies. That's as sure a sign as any that I just didn't give a shit.

This trilogy is gorgeous, but I'll never watch it again. Unless it's on TBS when I'm hungover on a Sunday and can drift in and out.

Posted by: ernesto at April 8, 2009 3:53 PM


Almost all of Dustin's complaints/criticisms are not aimed towards the film, but rather are aimed directly at the source material. Jackson didn't construct the plot or how it advanced or the simply nature of the battle between good vs. evil. If anything, the movies are vast improvement over the books in many of these instances. I think the films have stronger characters, better dialogue and are more dramatic and exciting than the books.

The movies cut out a lot of nonsense. Take Tom Bombadil, for example. You have this huge build up about the Ring, how powerful it is, how important it is to keep secret and safe and destroy and all that. Then basically the first guy the hobbits run into outside the Shire takes it, looks at it, laughs a hearty chuckle with a twinkle in his eye and sings some lame-ass song with Goldberry. I loathe Bombadil...

The scouring of the Shire was another thing. I never really liked the scouring of the Shire. I just seemed so anti-climatic to everything that proceeded it. I know what Tolkien was trying to do, I just didn't agree with it.

There are a number of specific changes that Jackson made that also improved the films over the books. I liked the elves coming to Helms Deep. I think having Eomer ride down with Gandalf to save Helms Deep is much more dramatic and better for the character of Eomer than having him run around inside the keep.

I think having Arwen be the elf who saves Frodo and does the whole River as Horses flood thing, again, is a big improvement story-wide and for that character than having some random elf named Glorfindel pull it off.

Even the one change I hated (Faramir almost falling prey to the Ring) was pretty well explained by Jackson, et al. I buy it.

The movies also stream-lined the dialogue and made it much more effective and dramatic. "I am no man" is a much better line then whatever soliloquy Eowyn gives in the book.

There were a number of other things they did in the movie that weren't in the book or that were changed that I liked more. I felt like all the characters came across much better in the movie. Gimli and Legolas did little for me in the books. Though Gimli sort of skewed a bit too far into comic relief land, Legolas was freaking awesome. No one benefitted from these movies like he did. He was always an "eh" character. But woah man did he whup some ass. Aragorn was also cooler in the movies. In the book (I don't want to go all Eliane Bennis on you, but) Tolkien uses way too many exclamation marks when Aragorn is speaking. It just ruins it for me.

Also, go back and read the seige on Helms Deep. It's like 10 pages long or so. There's very little there. The movie really brought it to life.

Some of Jackson's techniques may be a bit over the top. I mean, I hated HATED King Kong, but I loved this trilogy. They are masterpieces. There are still some scenes that, to this day, still give me the shivers.

These movies are what the Star Wars prequels should have been.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at April 8, 2009 3:54 PM

These 3 movies were 9 hours of my life that I'll never get back. For that alone they have earned my eternal hatred.

Even worse, I also read the novels. LOTR, the book, is fucking stupid and boring. I've never understood the appeal. "Oooo, but Tolkien invented entire histories and languages!" Big whoop. Children do that. It's easy coming up with fake shit.

If anything, I get annoyed whenever I have to read fake history. I could have spent that time learning real history. It's like people who learn fake languages like Elfish or Klingon. There are hundreds of real languages to learn which will actually be enriching to yourself and others.

Posted by: mark at April 8, 2009 3:54 PM

The Scouring of the Shire is the entire point of the trilogy, and Jackson cut it in order to have more room for big battles and homoerotic hugs.

Absolutely agree, that's my one major, major gripe about the films. I do enjoy them a great deal, but The Scouring of the Shire is such a key piece of the mythos. The time concern is just bullshit, as the interminable goodbye sequences took so long they almost sapped the life out of Part III. The Scouring could have been done effectively in a half-hour, and with some judicious cuts earlier in the film, the running time would have been unaffected.

But you can't have everything. Where would you put it?

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at April 8, 2009 3:57 PM

Where would you put it?

In a mythical land full of hollow trees inhabited by short people with giant, hairy feet. Obviously.

/bashes face on desk

Posted by: Sean at April 8, 2009 4:03 PM

THANK YOU Rowles! You just put into words the various reasons I find these films, as stories, to be way overrated. Sure, the effects are out-fucking-standing, and visually they're perfection, but they're so. FUCKING. Slow! Given that the characters don't develop, just meander from battle to battle, really kills any non-event based narrative effort. Jackson cut out a lot of things from the books (like that throwaway character Tom Bombadil - WTF was that supposed to be? And Aragorn having the power to heal all along - what the hell kinda half-baked idea was that? Did Tolkein never hear of an editor? - Gasp! Heresy! Loud noises! I'm just sayin'..) but still needed to cut more to create a more motivating story arc. Watching that series repeatedly has shown me that it's more an exercise of endurance than a labour of love. It's also shown me that ladyhelmet has an incredible sense of patience, often wanting to do marathons of the super-duper-your-life-is-over-looooong versions. Plus:

Frodo is kind of a whiny damsel
Combined with Sam his gay lover really kills it for me. Whenever those DVD's come out I think how much better V for Vendetta is, and how much more I'd rather watch it.

Posted by: lordhelmet at April 8, 2009 4:03 PM

But you can't have everything. Where would you put it?

Cut out 30 minutes of Helm's Deep, shove Shelob's Lair back into Two Towers (Jackson ran so long that he stuck parts of the Two Towers into the final film), that should give you enough to work in the Scouring of the Shire fairly easily.

Posted by: Steven Lloyd Wilson at April 8, 2009 4:04 PM

I think the films have stronger characters, better dialogue and are more dramatic and exciting than the books.

Okay, let's all take a deep breath here. This reminds me of a challenge I threw out a year ago: What 20th Century work of art has had more cultural impact than Tolkien's LOTR trilogy? I'm not being facetious; I've pondered this from time to time and have trouble even thinking of possibilities, much less a clear winner. Whether one likes the work is not relevant; the question is, what other work of art from the 1900s has had greater influence around the world?

LOTR, the book, is fucking stupid and boring. I've never understood the appeal. "Oooo, but Tolkien invented entire histories and languages!" Big whoop. Children do that. It's easy coming up with fake shit.

Please. Tolkien was a brilliant linguist who didn't "just make up shit." This kind of criticism is empty, ignorant, insulting, and, I'm sorry, "fucking stupid and boring." Many distinguished authors have tried to emulate Tolkien's work, and the success rate is quite low. If just anyone could do this, I'm sure you'd be sitting on a pile of thousand-dollar bills right now instead fo dismissing a work that is studied around the world as literature. Numerous brilliant writers and filmmakers have cited Tolkien as a core influence, and I'm going to have to trust them over you.

If anything, I get annoyed whenever I have to read fake history. I could have spent that time learning real history.

It's not fake history. It's an allegorical history. I guess we better wake up Homer and tell him that whole Odysseus thing was fucking stupid and boring and a waste of time.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at April 8, 2009 4:06 PM

socalledonlycousins
The Scouring of the Shire is the entire point of the trilogy, and Jackson cut it in order to have more room for big battles and homoerotic hugs.

Absolutely agree, that's my one major, major gripe about the films. I do enjoy them a great deal, but The Scouring of the Shire is such a key piece of the mythos.

I've heard this many times before, but could actually explain why it's so important?

To me it just seems extraneous (anti industrial theme has already been shown clearly with the building of Saurman's army and the Ents) and I have no idea how you could not view it as anticlimactic.

Posted by: cockroach at April 8, 2009 4:07 PM

to reference James Taylor

That explains a whole lot.

Posted by: Jay at April 8, 2009 4:11 PM

What 20th Century work of art has had more cultural impact than Tolkien's LOTR trilogy?

I would be hard pressed to think of any. That doesn't mean that certain aspects of it like character, dialogue, and drama couldn't be improved upon, especially when being translated to film. Certain things that work on the page (either in words or in comic form), simply don't translate that well to screen.

Tweaking things, shifting dialogue, streamlining characters, and the like are all sort of cosmetic improvements. The insides, the engine, the original design and all that made it what it was is still all there, the paint job just got touched up a bit, it got some new wheels, or whatever else you'd like to add to this automobile metaphor.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at April 8, 2009 4:12 PM

What 20th Century work of art has had more cultural impact than Tolkien's LOTR trilogy?

The da Vinci Code... I kid. I kid.

Posted by: ernesto at April 8, 2009 4:14 PM

OMG, in about 9th grade I did this English project on LOTR:FOTR that was supposed to be like a creative version of a book report and I made a board game. Like, roll the dice, go somewhere, get attacked, make it out. Roll again, go somewhere else, get attacked again, make it out. Go backwards, go forwards, it's all the same. I don't think I knew then that it was insightful.

Incidentally I love the books, though. Movies are a tad much with the CGI and the slow-mo. Never have been a fan of those. And Frodo's creepy ENORMOUS eyes.

Posted by: Abbey Road at April 8, 2009 4:15 PM

but could actually explain why it's so important?

Because the hobbits are the ones who develop over the course of the story. Gandalf, Aragorn, even Sauron, etc. are all static archetypes. The hobbits evolve from being scared of their own shadows and running from their homes in the middle of the night, to returning home swords in hands to face down evil themselves, with no big bad archetypes to back them up.

The emotional impact of Merry and Pippin kicking ass and taking names is ten times that of the giant battles. The big battles (and all the walking) are just backdrops, elaborate scenery for the evolution of the characters of the hobbits.

Posted by: Steven Lloyd Wilson at April 8, 2009 4:15 PM

@cockroach: I could write a thesis on this, but the short version will have to do.

A couple of Tolkien's overarching themes throughout his work are that even the smallest of us can make a mighty difference in great events and that apathy and distraction are greater dangers than the most evil outsider -- he was greatly influenced by WWII, of course, and while he denied that LOTR was a direct allegory to WWII, the symbolic correlations are overwhelming.

The hobbits were always described as lovers of food and fun and wanting to keep to themselves from the outside world -- they were suspicious and even hostile toward the wizards and Rangers who preserved their safety. So when the hobbits returned from the Great War, they discovered that the apathy and willfully blindered nature of their kin had finally come home to roost. The protectors had been called to a greater need, leaving the Shire undefended and its inhabitants unprepared to take over the duty.

Tolkien's point was that even the most protected of Edens will come to evil if its residents don't pay attention to the outside world and participate in events shaping their destiny. Gandalf makes oblique references to this possibility throughout their journey, and Frodo glimpses it while looking into Galadriel's pool.

Sitting in one's home, smoking good weed, drinking good wine, and reading a good book is all well and fine, as long as we don't take for granted that someone won't come along to take it away from us. Some part of us must be dedicated to vigilance and preparation.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at April 8, 2009 4:19 PM

A little late to party, but I also want vent my frustration at the totally superficial dismissal of these films that seems to be the status quo in some parts.

The big complaing?

"Nothing happens. All the do is walk, fight, and walk."

Um, did you watch the movies? Are there not struggles between the characters, between the kingdoms that supposedly are allied against the forces of Sauron, and within each character as well? Is there not a rather densely plotted political conflict at the heart of the stories of both Rohan and Gondor, whose respective leaders must overcome old age and the loss of a son, and, in the case of Gondor's steward, insanity?

There are a lot of legitimate issues with these films, but to just announce that they have no plot or character-driven story just means you weren't paying attention.

Posted by: Macafee at April 8, 2009 4:22 PM

I would say the absence of the Scouring of the Shire, and Sharkey, neuters any development of Merry & Pippin. They leave home as dumbass jokesters, and come back as dumbass jokesters, after watching a battle from a walking tree's branches and getting kidnapped. There's no badassery without them doing their own dirty work, and that element was excised. As for Frodo and Sam, one moped around in an emo funk for 3 movies, and the other tried to curry his favour in hopes of one night of passion while doing all the donkey work. Sadly, their love was not to be and Sam went bi, getting married and having kids. The fact that character development was minimal is only part of the problem - there's minimal attachment to the characters to make a viewer care about whether or not they develop.

Posted by: lordhelmet at April 8, 2009 4:23 PM

Abbey Road, I did the same thing for The Hobbit in eighth grade. Seriously.

Posted by: Sean at April 8, 2009 4:23 PM


but could actually explain why it's so important

I will take another stab at this:

In addition to the industrial theme, the Scouring of the Shire is also a call to social action. What good is it, Tolkien asks, if we send a few good men—the youth of an entire generation, in the case of World War I—to fight in a foreign land if we foster corruption and abuse at home? What we ask in that case is for the survivors to fight yet another war when they return.

It also shows that the great battles are not just fought "over there"—the battles that really matter are those closest to home.

Because the hobbits are the ones who develop over the course of the story.

I think we got a good enough taste of that in the films without the tacked on Scouring of the Shire. Pippin and Merry are definitely shown to have grown and changed. They are two of the first "men" who charge out at the end to fight.

Also, I think this point comes across very well in one of (the far too many) end scenes. There's the scene where all four of the hobbits are back in the pub in the Shire. All the rest of the hobbits are laughing and carrying on like nothing ever happened, but the four at the table just sort of sit there staring at each other like they are unsure what to do. It's just a moment and then Sam, as he should, breaks it. It's a great moment that I think conveys this point quite well without delving into the whole "Sharkey's Men" sub-plot.

When I read the books, it always felt like it was tacked on and unnecessary. I think it's largely because I never really cared for hobbits, in general, all that much.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at April 8, 2009 4:23 PM

They leave home as dumbass jokesters, and come back as dumbass jokesters, after watching a battle from a walking tree's branches and getting kidnapped. There's no badassery without them doing their own dirty work, and that element was excised.

Agree, this was another very legit gripe. In the books, they drink the Ent draught and actually grow taller (a metaphor for the growth experience of traveling), along with muscling up in their respective military service. When they return to the Shire, it's Merry and Pippin, not Frodo and Sam, who lead the resistance.

In the films, they're reduced to comic relief morons, except for a couple of battle scenes (Pippin has a nice moment saving Miranda Otto from a Black Rider). It didn't detract from the experience so much as to render it unenjoyable (for me anyway), but it was dispiriting.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at April 8, 2009 4:31 PM

You didn't like it because Sauron had no character development? Wow. And I thought I had a hard time suspending disbelief.

I completely agree with Steven Lloyd Wilson's take on the films. Mr. Wilson, should you ever put your vision to film, please notify me.

I think Fellowship is the best of the trilogy, because despite all the "walking" (another gripe, in a quest movie...sheesh), it did the best job of cutting the weaker bits from the plot. I'd have personally not blown up the part of Arwen so unnecessarily, but, there you have it. Not a major issue to me in this installment.

This is the literary work that spawned a million bad emulations, and a few good ones, too. It didn't follow the formula, it essentially developed it. Either you buy into the simplistic, fantasy world of good versus evil, or you don't. And it works because it is so obviously set in a fantasy world, because we all know in the real world things are never that cut and dry.

I'm willing to trade in this case. Complicated characters and realistic actions be damned. There are other movies and other books to fill that niche. In this one, I'll happily enjoy the pretty pictures, the pretty people, and the stirring overblown speeches and release my inner fourteen-year-old girl.

Posted by: Wednesday at April 8, 2009 4:32 PM

I love this movie and nothing you can say will change my mind.

That's okay, we can agree to disagree.

Posted by: tamatha at April 8, 2009 4:39 PM

In the films, they're reduced to comic relief morons, except for a couple of battle scenes (Pippin has a nice moment saving Miranda Otto from a Black Rider).

I disagree. (For what it's worth, I think Pippin saved Gandalf from an Orc in Minas Tirith and Merry was the one who saved Mirando Otto from a Black Rider).

Pippin is always supposed to be a goof. That's how he was written. I think he comes along quite nicely in the movies, espcially during the siege in Minas Tirith. By that point he's certainly grown past "comic relief moron" stage.

Merry never really was a "comic relief moron" and he also grows during his time with Mirana Otto.

I think the one legitimate "comic relief moron" claim would be that of Gimli. He's really the one character who was totally hammed up for comic relief where it was pretty much unnecessary and not in tune with the book. Some of the stuff I didn't mind (like the whole "Toss me" bit, I liked that), but other stuff like him burping or randomly falling of the horse was just a bit over the top and unnecessary.

I think it's purely a matter of preference, but I'd rather watch an extra 10-15 minutes of Helm's Deep than watch a bunch of hobbits go to war in the Shire. The main characters in the story aside, hobbits and their affairs just don't really interest me.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at April 8, 2009 4:42 PM

I agree with you Wednesday that LOTR basically created the formula, but that doesn't make it the best incarnation of that formula. While not without its weaknesses, I find the Wheel of Time series to be superior in many ways while still paying some form of homage to the refined fantasy genre that Tolkein inspired.

I find LOTR to be more like Star Trek, all grand speeches and dramatic action with idealised characters, while WoT carries a more gritty, realistic (and epic) Battlestar feel to it.

Posted by: lordhelmet at April 8, 2009 4:42 PM

Lordhelmet: WoT was wonderful for four books. Then he wrote 8 more books in which NOTHING happened and topped it off by dying without finishing the last book.

Song of Ice and Fire is what you really want for the BSG comparison. Darker than dark. Good guys die. Just when you really hate a bad guy, half a book is told from his point of view.

Posted by: Steven Lloyd Wilson at April 8, 2009 4:50 PM

I'll give Dustin this credit though. I'm sure he knows that Randal is an intense Star Wars fan, so it'd be disingenuous to quote his argument.

Posted by: Jay at April 8, 2009 4:55 PM

Song of Ice and Fire

Now this. This is a series. And, in my opinion, the best fantasy series I've read, though we'll see how Martin handles things. This long, long delay makes me nervous. I think he's really written himself into some corners that he's having a very difficult time getting out of.

And I agree with the original statement. Tolkien started this whole thing. He provided the ground work and, for that, he'll always be a legend, but folks have improved upon his ideas.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at April 8, 2009 4:57 PM

SLW, the last book or two of WoT have improved a bunch over some of the other snoozers, and you can't really fault the guy for kicking the bucket prematurely. He left notes, hopefully the ending is appropriately awesome. Thanks for the book idea, when I have time I'll try get into it.

And may I just say I really appreciate your reviews, writing, and thinking/arguing style.

Posted by: lordhelmet at April 8, 2009 4:59 PM

Longtime lurker, one of my first comments. I'll admit that I've read each of these books about 10 times (plus about 20 for the Silmarillion) and seen each movie several times, but even a single viewing should have established the point that Dustin seems to be missing -- the endless walking is the entire point of the story.

I disagree with those who think the Scouring of the Shire is the most important part of the trilogy (in its place I would nominate Frodo's hesitation at the Crack of Doom or Frodo's inability to return to his normal life, but that's not an exhaustive list), but regardless of how you feel about that, the message of the LOTR trilogy is that some things are so important, they just have to be done, costs be damned. Frodo's a nobody who stumbled upon something important, and he had to undertake the impossible mission. The scene at Rivendell towards the end is instructive: an assemblage of the greatest leaders in Middle-Earth, from the son of Gondor's ruling Steward to the heir of the Elvish high-kings (and including a Maiar masquerading as an old wizard), all of whom abdicate responsibility to do the one thing they all realize must be done. Their reasons for refusing to bear the ring are noble but irrelevant -- Frodo has to walk the 10,000 miles with a burden that men far better than he were afraid to carry themselves.

Posted by: Upstate at April 8, 2009 5:02 PM

I love the novel LOTR. It's not a trilogy and neither are the movies. It's one very long book / movie broken into 3 parts for easier viewing. The book was broken into 3 parts to make it cheaper to publish and less expensive to buy when it first came out. The publisher came up with the names for the 3 parts. Tolkien didn't.

Anyway, when I first heard that they were making the book into a movie, my first thought was, "No! They're ruin it just like Ralph Bashi did." Then I saw the first installment, and I agreed with the Wall Street Journal reviewer. "Jackson didn't fuck it up."

He did bring to life what I had in my head and I love it for that. The extended version, all 12 hours of it, is actually better than the theatre 9 hour version because it explains more and doesn't speed up the action in the fight scenes.

I didn't mind most of the changes Jackson made, but I did miss the scouring of the Shire. The whole point of the ending was that the Shire was not spared, and the hobbits still had to clean up the mess and get rid of Saruman who was sitting in Bag End with Wormtongue.

Still, I think if you don't care for the book or never read it, then the movie is meaningless to you. It's a movie for people who want to see what they've read. It's not really a standalone movie.

Posted by: BWeaves at April 8, 2009 5:04 PM

I read these books a long time ago, so I'm hazy on some of the details. I always wondered why Bilbo did not have the same issues with the ring that Frodo had. He finds/acquires the ring from Gollum, has his adventure with killing the dragon in "The Hobbit," and retires to the Shire. Apparently the ring's power went dormant until Tolkein was ready to write the trilogy.

Posted by: rlr260 at April 8, 2009 5:05 PM

@Forbiddendonut: he'll always be a legend, but folks have improved upon his ideas

Totes magotes. The way of the world. As silly as Star Wars looks 30 years later, and as much as it is not among my favorite movies, it changed everything and deserves much respect. No Star Wars = no Blade Runner, no Serenity, no Matrix, at least not the way those works actually came to pass as films. There would have been sci-fi, of course, but Star Wars made it an honorable venture to do real, big budget drama set in the future and/or in space.

Re Merry and Pippin, I thought the books treated them as carefree goofs in the beginning, then matured them through the journey with the grave, dangerous things that happened, especially their kidnapping. The movie versions struck me as more superficial, like "look at these stubby idiots, aren't they funny?" But you're right, Gimli suffered the most from those changes.

Ultimately, this comparison is just as fruitless as any book/movie comparison. The media are so distanced from each other that it's just impossible to make a meaningful comparison. They really have be judged on their own as independent works (which seriously undermines my statement that Jackson needs no defending because he filmed the unfilmable. Ah well, live and learn, even on the same comment thread.)

Re Song of Ice and Fire: You promise? You promise I'll like it?

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at April 8, 2009 5:07 PM

I think a lot of the problems with the movies are inherent in the books. I recently had a cold and managed to watch all three extended editions over a weekend. I wound up fast forwarding a lot, mostly through the Frodo/Sam "we are walking/we are rock climbing" scenes. After watching the movies I decided to re-read The Return of the King to see how it stacked up and honestly Jackson did a fantastic job of turning the book into the movie. But as I read the book, I also found myself skimming through the Frodo/Sam walking stuff. It is just not that exciting. So long story short (too late), I think Jackson did a great job based on the source material and if he had strayed too far from it to spice it up, the nerd hordes would have killed him and his movies.

Posted by: DaveKan at April 8, 2009 5:08 PM

One more thing -- the archetypes are there, sure, but it's not quite as simple as "bad guys are just bad" or "ugly things grow up to be bad guys." The ring is power, and the novel is a 100,000 word exposition on Lord Acton's theorem. The Nazgul were lords of men corrupted by their lust for power, enslaved by their rings which served the One. Dwarves and elves, while better able to resist, were still drawn to Sauron by the same mechanism, and despite their knowledge of his malevolence, he is still able to manipulate Elrond and Galadriel through their overweaning pride. It's entirely possible that the Witch-King of Angmar was a good man with good intentions that was corrupted by his ring (imagine what might've happened had Boromir succeded in getting his hands on the One Ring before his death on the banks of the Anduin). The Orcs were created by Sauron's mentor, Melkor, out of a desire on his part to display the powers of HIS superior (Eru, who created Elves and men).

In the end, the only way to end this lust for power that encompasses all beings is for Frodo to turn his back on the power the One ring offers him -- and he can't do it. The ring calls to him even after his quest, even after he's done the impossible, throbbing in an invisible stab wound and coursing with ancient poison through his veins. The appetite for power, stoked by memory of the ring, remains with him, and he leaves in search of balm in Gilead, so to speak, in Valinor where the ring would have no sway.

Posted by: Upstate at April 8, 2009 5:08 PM

I agree with ernesto. LOTR were boring books I didn't care to read all the way through because I don't care about fake history. My ideal sci-fi or fantasy novels or films simply put the characters in the world with minimal exposition, or at least some subtly.With the books, I just went to sleep whenever someone started singing another song.

Although they make pretty good movies. I just don't want to see them that often.

Posted by: kelsy at April 8, 2009 5:14 PM

Apparently the ring's power went dormant until Tolkein was ready to write the trilogy.

@rlr260: My recollection is that Bilbo carried the Ring during a time when Sauron was building his power and searching for the Ring -- The Hobbit refers to Sauron as "The Necromancer," an evil wizard who imprisons Gandalf for a time (I think, a little hazy on the old history). At that point, Sauron is more like Saruman in strength, not yet powerful enough to track down Bilbo. The Necromancer's power waxed until he was prepared to reveal himself and re-take Mordor, at which time he began searching for the Ring in earnest and without reserve, causing Gandalf to kick off LOTR.

That's another strength of these works -- they cohere internally pretty darned well.

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at April 8, 2009 5:15 PM

Thanks, socalled. I definitely need to re-read these books.

Posted by: rlr260 at April 8, 2009 5:21 PM

Re Song of Ice and Fire: You promise? You promise I'll like it?

socalledonlycousins, while it's impossible to promise something like that, if I had to gun to my head, yes, I'd promise you'd like it. In fact, I'd be willing to buy you a copy of it to back it up. (A cheap, used paperback, but a copy nonetheless). The only person who I have recommended to read it and didn't like it was a super religious guy who didn't care for all the vulgarity (of which there is a lot for a fantasy series).

I have read all four books 2 or 3 times and have been listening to them on my iPod for the last 2 years or so (it helps pass the time when doing chores, walking the dog, etc.) and I have never grown sick or bored. It's a cast of thousands. It's very detailed. The characters are complex and interesting. The world is incredibly rich and vivid.

I also have never read a series in which the world had such an amazing history to it. The events of the past loom large over many of the characters and there historical legends, who have been dead some 30 years before the series starts, and who are only talked about, but in such a way that they are as interesting and alive as main characters in lesser series.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at April 8, 2009 5:24 PM

Hey Kelsy - don't put the not wanting to read fake history on me. That wasn't me nor my point at all.

My point was you can't make a completely different art form based on another and have it be engrossing, without at least alluding to the back stories and reasoning of the prior works in some way. I like so called "fake history".

Posted by: ernesto at April 8, 2009 5:26 PM

I would gladly trade all the extra elf crap for the Scouring of the Shire. Look, I enjoy dirges chanting and wacky camera angles as much as the next guy, but the elves and their march to the West is the least interesting part of the book, and unless I'm mistaken, Jackson greatly bulked up their prescence in the movies.
I understand the Tom Bombadil hate, but wasn't the point of that little excursion to get the hobbits their knives? Having Aragorn dump them on the ground like he just got them at a yard sale really didn't have the same impact. These were ancient if not epic weapons, with the ability to harm the Nazgul, and all that was lost.

Posted by: Mrcreosote at April 8, 2009 6:03 PM

Ok, Forbiddendonut, Amazon is now $10.88 richer. It was on sale!

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at April 8, 2009 6:06 PM

{nerd}So now that all that's settled, where's my movie of The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever? Now that's some good readin'!{/nerd}

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at April 8, 2009 6:09 PM

Ok, Forbiddendonut, Amazon is now $10.88 richer. It was on sale!

Sweet! I hope you enjoy it. Looking forward to your thoughts and I'm always (always) up for a discussion.

By the way, if you like it enough to get A Clash of Kings, try half.com. It's the super cheap way to get old books. You could've gotten Thrones for $3.50, shipping included. Though probably not quite as quick.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at April 8, 2009 6:24 PM

Pippin was awesome, Frodo made me stop freaking caring about the ring and wishing he'd just put in on all ready, enough with the whining!

The movies were good, but since I've never read the books, it's not a huge thing to me. If they make a Sweet Valley High movie, then it is ON.

Posted by: TWoP Fan at April 8, 2009 6:47 PM

The story was not about the ring, it was about the hobbits. And the ending of that story is the Battle of Bywater. Jackson said he did not include the fight in the shire because of time constrants, but I call shenanigans. He had time to include that god aweful opening that looked like a bad SNL skit, and time for that 30 minutes of pedarifpic hobbit hugging goodbyes. Jackson fucked up the epic by completely missing the point of the story.

Posted by: EricD at April 8, 2009 7:20 PM

I realize my bitches belong with a review of The Return of the King. But I don't see them as three seperate movies, just one overlong movie without an ending.

Posted by: EricD at April 8, 2009 7:28 PM

I agree with Carlin about golf. I've given instructions to my family that, should I ever take an interest in it, they are free to poison my drink.

As for LOTR, Mr. Snuggie and I are big geeks, so we saw all three in the theater and it was a good experience. Then we bought the DVDs, special edition collection or whatever. We've never watched them. We think about it, a lot! But then we just get sort of tired imagining even watching one and put in Best of Show or Father Ted or something.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at April 8, 2009 7:30 PM

I knew you would do this Dustin, your 8 toed liberal hillbilly! Fuck you! For once a movie I genuinely thought was the best of the year (I know it was the sequel, shut up.) won the best picture Oscar. The only other times that has happened in my 16 year existance was with No Country and The Departed, and you had to shit all over this.

I was an 8 year old kid when I saw this film. And if I as an 8 year old can sit through a film, then you sure as hell have no excuse not to do the same.

It's high time I stop with the insults at what you should watch and shit all over what you love. You know what, Final Destination was not that great! Sure it had some good deaths, but that doesn't justify the piss poor acting, shitty characters, writing, lack of thorough campiness, and not killing of motherfucking Ali Larter! I waited two fucking hours for her to have her head explode like a rotten orange, and I got fucking nothing!

And I could defend the film of its merits, such as killing Stifler with a train, but you never do with these kinds of films, so why should I care?

And one more thing, fuck Mystic River!

Posted by: George at April 8, 2009 7:33 PM

My God, Pookie is actually George twenty years from now, come back in time for vengeance...

That said, George I'll defend and define the hate a bit. Judging a film has to be both relative and absolute. On the absolute level most simply: is the film good? Yes, I think Jackson's LotR are pretty good.

But does the film succeed relative to what it seeks to be? Final Destination is a cheesy popcorn flick. It fundamentally succeeds as a film if it manages that. LotR is trying to put to film one of the greatest pieces of literature of the twentieth century. It fails to translate what many of us see as the entire point of the books, and thus fails as a film, regardless of how good the films might be on an absolute level.

Posted by: Steven Lloyd Wilson at April 8, 2009 8:02 PM

Posted by: Jay at April 8, 2009 8:04 PM

I'll also promise that you'll enjoy Song of Fire & Ice , and it is a wonder to behold, but I don't see it as the ultimate in the genre. To me, Fire and Ice is a political thriller, first and foremost. The fantasy setting just lets Martin get away with imagined scenarios and discourse on religion and politics without being corrected by hard current facts.

Don't get me wrong, I love the series and can't wait for the next installment, but LOTR is more like a first love than a lifelong commitment.

Posted by: Wednesday at April 8, 2009 8:08 PM

Posted by: Jay at April 8, 2009 8:11 PM

I endured all three with ,daughter, who had read the books several times each. Besides being bored, I was baffled (I never read the books) and kept pestering her with questions like "If Sauron is all-powerful and has a huge eye on a mountaintop, how come he can't see Frodo with the ring climbing the volcano?"

She'd say "Shhhhh."

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at April 8, 2009 8:19 PM

I go overboard often stripe. Truth be told, Final Destination wasn't as bad as it should have been, but the original needed to be worse. The sequels were much better, because they were much worse, and didn't have Ali Larter.

What we've reached here is a fundamental difference between Pajibans, can you enjoy a 3 hour movie. I already knew Dustin was incapable of enjoying any movie that went on for 3 hours (with the possible exception of Godfather II), but I went after him anyway because I hold these films really dear to myself.

I also am way to hard on Mystic River. Truthfully, I've never even seen it. It's all intentional though. I will see Mystic River, he'll, I'll probably love it, but I'll still mock it mercilessly for losing to the movie I love. It's just like how I hate Annie Hall for beating Star Wars for the best picture Oscar and the acclaim it recieves over Star Wars. Sorry Clint Eastwood, you made your film in the wrong year.

Posted by: George at April 8, 2009 8:23 PM

Oops! Sorry ernesto. I meant to shout out to mark.

Posted by: kelsy at April 8, 2009 9:19 PM

I always found Aragorn and Sam to be somewhat relatable, and Pippin and Merry were funny, so to be honest I don't really agree.
The LOTR movies weren't the greatest I've ever seen, but I still use them as the only example that I know of where movies are better than the books they are based on.

Posted by: Chugga at April 8, 2009 9:34 PM

the only example that I know of where movies are better than the books they are based on

Gack ... ach-hack ... choke

[gives up on humanity; expires]

Posted by: socalledonlycousins at April 8, 2009 9:41 PM

Format Snob!

Posted by: Jay at April 8, 2009 10:23 PM

I was always just angry that real Legolas took all the credit for CGI Legolas' hard work. Everyone lauds these movies for their supposed fantastic special effects, I don't see it.

Posted by: James at April 8, 2009 10:23 PM

I strongly suggest a H ot place
_____T a llmeet com_____ , Find rich true love here. The

users on that site said
Rihanna has an account on that site.

Posted by: yx at April 8, 2009 10:26 PM

Apart of me wants to tell some of you that you don't get it, but I also hate that phrase and think it's not the right thing to say here.

In creating the world of Middle Earth, Tolkien was so much concerned with writing a fantasy story, but with writing history. And not just any history, but an alternate history of OUR earth; an explanation of why things are the way they are. All of his books lead up to letting us know why we're afraid of the dark, even though we live in an age that has surpassed early man's wildest dreams. It lets us know why we seem to have everything we want, but we still crave the magic of the mists, and the moonlight, and the shaded forest glens, and the refracted rainbows radiating around a waterfall.

I've read very few authors (I would say none, since none come to mind . . . except, as I write this, possibly Marion Zimmer Bradley's "The Mists of Avalon"), who have been able to fully recreate this longing, whole cloth. I have seen it in the dry writings of Edith Hamilton's Mythology, but she merely transcribed what she already knew. Tolkien took the knowledge he had accumulated and distilled it into the forms of these books. Yes, they are wordy. Yes, they are long, and yes the Silmarillon is hard to read, but that doesn't detract from the utter human experience that he made. Authors like Piers Anthony, Robert Jordan, and Mercedes Lackey (I still have a special place in my heart for two of these authors, but still) have great imaginations, but are working on a foundation laid by Tolkien (yes, and others), and lack his enduring nature. The more I learn about the world and about history, the more I appreciate LOTR, et al, and the more Piers Anthony becomes unreadable.

I enjoyed Peter Jackson's movies. I felt, though, that there were a lot of things wrong/I would have done differently (I'm still pissed about how he treated Eowen), and yet I was still taken up by his vision. However, when I return to Middle Earth, it's not through the movies, who's beauty merely reflects, like the faded light of the Silmarils. I prefer the undiluted glory of Tolkien's vision, captured and personalized by my mind.

Posted by: Rowen at April 9, 2009 12:00 AM

I am glad to see fellow Tom Bombadil haters out there. I really expected him to reappear in the books and he never did. What a waste. I said this in another thread, and I think got a death threat, but I think a little editing could have gone a long way...

I read the books (well, the three books.) I saw the movies. I remember actually being eager to see the second movie. But by the end of the third, I left the theater thinking that I never needed to re-visit Middle Earth ever again.

As far as influential works go, I... guess that LOTR is influential. But I can't see it being more influential than a metric shit-ton of other things. Off the top of my head, I'd pick 1984 for the sheer amount of terms that entered our vernacular, and for the way it has colored our relationship with central government, technology, privacy, media, etc. Hell, "Big Brother" is a TV show in, what, a dozen countries? More? I don't mean to argue that it's had nearly as many readers as LOTR (and maybe that's a point in favor of its influence in and of itself), but it also hasn't had three blockbuster movies and a huge marketing budget, either.

Posted by: The Wandering Parakeet at April 9, 2009 12:06 AM

But I can't see it being more influential than a metric shit-ton of other things.

Go to the fantasy section of a book store. Without LotR it does not exist. I cannot name another entire genre of book that has a single originator, let alone such a recent point of origin.

Posted by: Steven Lloyd Wilson at April 9, 2009 12:18 AM

you know what dustin i kinda agree with you...

Posted by: nayen at April 9, 2009 12:48 AM

A few things:

1) How did Dustin get his grubby hands on this review?

2) If you don't think the books are emotionally riveting (and the films, to a lesser degree), you are dead inside. Emotion doesn't always have to be thrown in your face and angsty and fucked up. Sometimes it can be admirable and honorable and subdued. The friendships in the LOTR was what hooked me. I wasn't even that much of a fantasy fan when I read them (I was a little kid and just knew they made me feel something).

3) TK, your recap of your conversation with your wife killed me. My boyfriend was the same way. He'd never seen these, so we had a movie marathon one weekend and I, of course, got all caught up in them AGAIN while he dozed on and off throughout all of it.

Posted by: tt_marie at April 9, 2009 9:50 AM

Oh, and I'm largely convinced that Dustin does this mostly to be different and/or controversial.

Posted by: tt_marie at April 9, 2009 10:19 AM

Steven, that's probably why I'm so dubious--I haven't gone to the fantasy section of my bookstore. This may be a totally ignorant statement, but how isn't LOTR just a modern epic poem like those of northern Europe? I can accept that LOTR really blew the doors of fantasy in popular culture, but not that it invented the genre.

I cheated and read up on the fantasy genre on Wikipedia, and besides the children's fantasy works like Alice in Wonderland, Conan the Barbarian had been created in the 1930s.

Posted by: The Wandering Parakeet at April 9, 2009 10:25 AM

The Wandering Parakeet: any genre of course has multiple antecedents, but I'd argue that while fantastic literature existed prior to Tolkein, it did not exist as an independent genre, more as a sub-genre of action/adventure literature genre. But in any case, fantasy literature post-Tolkein overwhelmingly follows his structure like a roadmap: the precise medieval setting, his particular conceptions of elves, dwarves, and wizards (which have become stereotypes in our day, but were unconventional when Tolkein wrote).

It is true that on a certain level LotR is simply a modernized epic poem, Tolkein was in particular a scholar of Beowulf, but it's sort of a disingenuous point, since all literature is interconnected on some level. One could likewise claim that all novels are just modernizations of Dickens.

Posted by: Steven Lloyd Wilson at April 9, 2009 11:17 AM

I went into this review knowing full well of your hatred for LOTR, but this isn't a review of the movie, this a long whine about why you don't like the story, or the characters, or ...anything that has to do with LOTR. I've been a Tolkien fan for almost 30 years, and had major trepidations about a cinematic version (especially after the clusterfuck that was Ralph Bakshi's animated version) but I have NEVER experienced a movie adaptation that was so completely the same as how I envisioned the reality of the novel.I had read Fellowship to my son the summer before the movie came out, and we both could not wait for the sequels. Jackson did something I didn't think was possible, and for you to piss all over it because the story never grabbed you in the first place is just shitty reviewing skills.

Posted by: Brite at April 9, 2009 11:31 AM

Steven, thanks for the information. I don't mean to disagree with you, and I really don't mean to criticize LOTR; I'm a "to each, their own" sort of guy. I do rankle when people assume that I don't get it, or that I have to like or love it. I don't want to shit on anybody's love of a book. I can't really claim to be a fan of fantasy literature, so for me LOTR exists on its own, but I wholly admit that that is a limited viewpoint. Thanks for the discussion.

Posted by: The Wandering Parakeet at April 9, 2009 11:52 AM

Damn, I am so mad that I missed this post & conversation yesterday! I have little to add, as socalled, Upstate, Sean & Forbiddendonut seem to have said it all. I'll only add that you should definitely pick up The Silmarillion, Dustin. I found it more interesting & entertaining to learn the history of Middle Earth and all the characters in it than what happens in LOTR.

Posted by: Kolby at April 9, 2009 11:53 AM

Longtime LOTR geek here. I was sceptical when I heard the movies were being made, because I was convinced they couldn't be done.

I was wrong.

The movies rekindled my love for Tolkien and fantasy. They were a perfect package of art, cinematography, casting and music - I was literally blown away from the first teaser trailer and never looked back. They made me feel like I was 12 and discovering the books for the first time all over again.

And jesus, when you watch the extras and look at the level of obssessive detail and love and sheer geek determination that went on behind the scenes, well, it's pretty hard not to appreciate Jackson for assembling such a kick ass crew, and realizing how lucky we were not to get a totally Hollywood-ized version of the story.

You know, I can understand not everyone loving them. But to dismiss them as characterless makes me wonder what movies you watched, because I look at the relationships between Aragorn and Arwen and Elrond, Frodo and Sam, Merry and Pippin, Eowyn and Théoden, Faramir and Denethor, and how so many of them learned painful lessons about themselves and the ones they loved, and I shake my head. And to say they're bare of romance and humour? I don't know. It's like you judged them before you saw them (which hey, I've done the same myself, but at least I try to be honest about it).

I think they're pretty darn close to perfect, in terms of bringing Tolkien to the screen. I don't have an issue with most of the changes Jackson made (good riddance, Tom Bombadil!), and to be honest I didn't miss the Scouring of the Shire. I don't think it works cinematically, and it's even awkward (plotwise) in the book. The message is important, but it's like a sequel to the main story. I think one of Jackson's strengths was showing character development and referencing omitted plot lines in subtle ways, and a perfect example is that end scene in the pub where the four heroes sit quietly and are ignored by the clueless citizens who will never know and never understand what sacrifices have been made for them.

And really, the conversation between Gandalf and Pippin where they talk about death and courage is about as heartbreaking as it gets - and beautifully foreshadows Frodo's fate. Can you really tell me that Pippin at this point is still just a buffoon and comic relief?

There's a great deal of beauty and character in the films, if you let yourself see it.

But I'll stop now.

P.S. And a huge YES to the Song of Ice and Fire books. Martin is brilliant.

Posted by: west at April 9, 2009 4:52 PM

The interminable golfiness of the trilogy is why I never bothered finishing it and much prefer The Hobbit. But that's the book, not the movie.

Me sitting down with some people watching the end of the third movie:
"What are those, trolls?"
"Orcs."
"Why are they evil and trying to kill everyone?"
"Because they just are. That's what they were told to do."
"Oh that makes sense. And of course the bad guys are ugly, dumb trolls, because ugly people can never be heroic."
Then everyone told me to shut up, and with my bitching outlet taken away, I struggled to stay awake for the rest of it.

Posted by: SaBrina at April 10, 2009 9:56 AM

Martin is a sexist hack and if he can manage to wrap up all of his plot points before he croaks, I will be seriously surprised.

The best was Neil Gaimen's interview on The Colbert Report.
Colbert: "You love LotR? Who is your favorite character?"
Neil: "Anyone but Tom Bombadil."

Posted by: Levee at April 10, 2009 10:53 PM

Merry and Pippin get plenty of good stuff to do even without the Scouring of the Shire. Merry helps kill the freaking Witch King! Pippin saves Faramir's life! Sauron doesn't see Frodo climbing up the side of the volcano because he's distracted by the army massing at his gate. (He can't even conceive of someone trying to destroy the ring.) And Shelob's lair was moved to ROTK because of the time sequence. It would have made no sense in TTT.

There.

Posted by: Marv at April 11, 2009 2:42 AM

Was it really necessary to review this again? I don't even remember seeing the final one because the middle trilogy bored me to tears. You're a 100% correct Dustin, Tolkein's novels for the most part do not lend well to cinema. But I did sort of like The Hobbit cartoon that came out in the 80s (70s?) as a child. Maybe an animation would have been more apropos and shortened the length of each part of the movie in its entirety.

Posted by: ph at April 11, 2009 10:04 PM

You liked the Rankin & Bass Hobbit, but not Jackson's LOTR?

Posted by: Marv at April 12, 2009 3:45 AM














Recent Reviews









Recent News






business vision articles new vision business opportunities finance vision deposit money vision making art loan vision deposits make vision your home good income vision outcome issue medicine vision drugs market vision money trends self vision roof repairing market vision online secure vision skin tools wedding vision jewellery newspaper vision for magazine geo vision places business vision design Car vision and Jips production vision business ladies vision cosmetics sector sport vision and fat burn vat vision insurance price fitness vision program furniture vision at home which vision insurance firms new vision devoloping technology healthy vision nutrition dress vision up company vision income insurance vision and life dream vision home create vision new business individual vision loan form cooking vision ingredients which vision firms is good choosing vision most efficient business comment vision on goods technology vision business secret vision of business company vision redirects credits vision in business guide vision for business cheap vision insurance tips selling vision abroad protein vision diets improve vision your home security vision importance





Privacy Policy