Lord of the Rings

[David_Zampino]

You mean when Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf, and the Elves take the last ship to the Undying Lands? Life Everlasting for a job well done!!

The West is “The Undying Lands” because of those who live there – not because the land itself has any special properties. Elves were created to be immortal (unless they were killed, and then could sometimes be re-born) as was Gandalf (who was Olorin the Maiar).

Tolkien, in his letters, makes it very clear that for Bilbo and Frodo, the West would be a place of healing – but that death would indeed come for them.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

The West is “The Undying Lands” because of those who live there – not because the land itself has any special properties. Elves were created to be immortal (unless they were killed, and then could sometimes be re-born) as was Gandalf (who was Olorin the Maiar).

Tolkien, in his letters, makes it very clear that for Bilbo and Frodo, the West would be a place of healing – but that death would indeed come for them.

Thank you for posting. I did not completely understand this, thought that they were going off to their reward and this makes it a lot clearer.

 

[Truly_Beloved]

Tolkien, in his letters, makes it very clear that for Bilbo and Frodo, the West would be a place of healing – but that death would indeed come for them.

Thank you! I have not read his letters, so I did not know this. The movie definitely gives you the impression that they’re going to live with the Elves in eternal bliss. At least, that’s the conclusion my husband and I came to (basing our decision on only the film).

 

[David_Zampino]

Thank you! I have not read his letters, so I did not know this. The movie definitely gives you the impression that they’re going to live with the Elves in eternal bliss. At least, that’s the conclusion my husband and I came to (basing our decision on only the film).

I highly recommend “The Letters of JRR Tolkien” edited by Humphrey Carpenter, Tolkien’s authorized biographer. The letters range from his early married life to advice for his children to commentary on his fiction to correspondence with other Inklings, etc. His views on the Eucharist were quite traditional and very profound. His letter to his daughter on the occasion of CS Lewis’s death was most moving. The insights into “The Lord of the Rings” will bring delight – and cause thought – to every fan.

Again, HIGHLY recommended! Incidentally, Carpenter wrote an excellent biography of Tolkien as well. Also recommended.

 

[Contarini]

I loved the movies, there were all great but I think they progressively get better and the last one, Return of the King, was best because it brings it all to a satifying and spectacluar conclusion. It won the oscar for Best Picture which was much deserved.

Interesting. Because I thought the first movie was definitely the best. This may be mostly because I’m comparing the movies with the books. When I can see Two Towers just as a movie I like it–when I think of it as an adaptation of the book it annoys me. Same with RotK. The flaws there annoyed me less at first (than in TT) but more on repeated viewings. They really trashed Denethor. In fact the only member of that unfortunate family to whom Jackson did full justice was Boromir. I like the treatment of Faramir better than I did when I first saw the movie (and RotK helps there).

I guess with RotK nothing can live up to the book. I can separate out the virtues of TT as a movie from its faults as an adaptation better than I can with RotK.

That being said, there are some marvellous moments in RotK. The scene at the gates of Minas Morgul is wonderful. Faramir’s hopeless charge combined with Pippin’s song would be incredible if it weren’t for that stupid tomato-chewing business. The slaying of the Lord of the Nazgul would probably be great in my imagination if it weren’t competing with Tolkien’s narrative. That is one place where the images produced by the original narrative simply wash out the images of the movie. Somewhat the same is true of Shelob. Both are good scenes, but they can’t do what Tolkien’s words do.

Edwin

 

[AnthonyM2]

Interesting. Because I thought the first movie was definitely the best. This may be mostly because I’m comparing the movies with the books. When I can see Two Towers just as a movie I like it–when I think of it as an adaptation of the book it annoys me. Same with RotK…

I guess with RotK nothing can live up to the book. I can separate out the virtues of TT as a movie from its faults as an adaptation better than I can with RotK…

Edwin

I know what you mean, a book is most of the time, better than the movie. Maybe because I had not read the books before I saw the movies, is why I enjoyed them as they were, since I had nothing to compare them to at the time.

But I have begun reading them now, and I’m sure I will enjoy the books even better than the films. And I see the first one so far, is living up to that promise. I’m up to the part where Frodo meets Strider (Aragorn) at the Prancing Pony Inn… Must get back to it soon.

 

[Kuryakyn]

Interesting. Because I thought the first movie was definitely the best. This may be mostly because I’m comparing the movies with the books.

I was thinking this too when I first saw the movies. Unfortunately, I believe it is incredibly difficult-- and sometimes impossible-- for any long and/or “deep” book to be transferred well to the screen. As my brother and I were saying, for PJ to have done full justice to all of LOTR as Tolkien wrote it the movies would have ot be two or three times as long.

Even worse, I found myself saying, “What’s wrong with a movie like that?”

 

[David_Zampino]

I was thinking this too when I first saw the movies. Unfortunately, I believe it is incredibly difficult-- and sometimes impossible-- for any long and/or “deep” book to be transferred well to the screen. As my brother and I were saying, for PJ to have done full justice to all of LOTR as Tolkien wrote it the movies would have ot be two or three times as long.

Even worse, I found myself saying, “What’s wrong with a movie like that?”

I agree with you – and this is one reason why Tolkien was very uncomfortable with the idea of making movies of his books.

 

[Setlew]

Even worse, I found myself saying, “What’s wrong with a movie like that?”

I once got into an argument with a close friend after I had seen the Fellowship (theater version) for the first time, after he had seen it several times. I stated my ‘firm belief’ that it was TOO SHORT - it was good, but there were so many little details it left out. My friend pointed out that it would cost a huge amount of money to film everything, and that each movie would be several hours long.

My response? “GOOD!”

Man, I love that trilogy. Books as well as films.

 

[CarlosG]

The one part I can think of that I thought the movie got it better than the book was the scene on the bridge of Khazad Dum with Gandalf. When he “dies” in the book it seems too rushed, which I think Tolkien did on purpose because they were rushing through and wanted to leave his dissapearing act unclosed etc etc, but still, I liked the movie better and I think the book should have dedicated at least a paragraph or two about the battle.

 

[CarlosG]

I once got into an argument with a close friend after I had seen the Fellowship (theater version) for the first time, after he had seen it several times. I stated my ‘firm belief’ that it was TOO SHORT - it was good, but there were so many little details it left out. My friend pointed out that it would cost a huge amount of money to film everything, and that each movie would be several hours long.

My response? “GOOD!”

Man, I love that trilogy. Books as well as films.

They have extended versions of the film as well, still nowhere as long as I wished they were though, I think they are all roughly 3.5 hours long? somethin like that. a big:thumbsup: for them.

EDIT: bleh, maybe I should read the whole thread since this was already mentioned

 

[AnthonyM2]

For a movie to be so exceedingly long would (as expressed on this thread) would not do well at the box office, I don’t think, because there would be less showings of it on any given day, so it would make less money. Plus the general public is not going to sit through so many hours and not fall asleep at some point (I must admit I even dozed off at times watching the LotR movies ).

Too much detail can be boring when translated to the screen. You want keep people’s attention, especially the ones who have never read the books before. At a reasonable length, they may enjoy the film enough to then go and get the books to read for themselves. That’s better than giving it all away on screen.

It’s all right for the die hard fans of the books, but I don’t think they are enough of a demographic for a five hour+ movie to make enough money to break even. Maybe a TV mini-series would do it more justice, except it wouldn’t be as captivating as on the big screen.

Ultimately, books and movies are different media that don’t always transition well from one to the other. But, IMO these Rings films were very well done as they were.

 

[Kuryakyn]

For a movie to be so exceedingly long would (as expressed on this thread) would not do well at the box office, I don’t think, because there would be less showings of it on any given day, so it would make less money. Plus the general public is not going to sit through so many hours and not fall asleep at some point (I must admit I even dozed off at times watching the LotR movies ).

Too much detail can be boring when translated to the screen. You want keep people’s attention, especially the ones who have never read the books before. At a reasonable length, they may enjoy the film enough to then go and get the books to read for themselves. That’s better than giving it all away on screen.

It’s all right for the die hard fans of the books, but I don’t think they are enough of a demographic for a five hour+ movie to make enough money to break even. Maybe a TV mini-series would do it more justice, except it wouldn’t be as captivating as on the big screen.

Ultimately, books and movies are different media that don’t always transition well from one to the other. But, IMO these Rings films were very well done as they were.

All of what you say is very true…I think I even noted that about the difficulty of transitioning a book to a movie. But hey, you can let us dream, can’t you? I’ll admit, a movie that was twice as long would probably never work, it would drag on too much… :crying:

 

[AnthonyM2]

All of what you say is very true…I think I even noted that about the difficulty of transitioning a book to a movie. But hey, you can let us dream, can’t you? I’ll admit, a movie that was twice as long would probably never work, it would drag on too much… :crying:

Yes, I understand. I think it’s always better how we imagine the story while reading it than how a movie tries to portray it and not always live up to our own picture of it.

 

[Brian_Reeves]

I have read the books and have the extended DVD which I’ve watched several times. Although I have read articles that say the whole thing is totally evil, I just cannot agree. I believe that they come at a time when the world is sinking fast and I believe that these have been inspired by God to talk to the fringe and get them thinking. Tolkien was not only a Roman Catholic but was on the committee that edited the original Jerusalem Bible. His English is inspirational and so is his theology. But notice how he comes back from destroying the ring only to discover that the land of the Hobits has dramatically deteriorated to what he knew when he went away, which I see as the equivalent of Jesus going through the passion only to discover that mankind eventually
sinks even lower, despite all that He has done.
The ball is well and truly, totally in our court, as is Our Lady saying at Medjugorje and why the feet of the ascended Lord are still nailed to the cross and His side is literally, and miraculously, weeping real tears. “Pray, pray, pray” Our Lady says, so lets get down on our knees NOW !!!

 

[MHalsey]

I have read the books and have the extended DVD which I’ve watched several times. Although I have read articles that say the whole thing is totally evil, I just cannot agree. I believe that they come at a time when the world is sinking fast and I believe that these have been inspired by God to talk to the fringe and get them thinking. Tolkien was not only a Roman Catholic but was on the committee that edited the original Jerusalem Bible. His English is inspirational and so is his theology. But notice how he comes back from destroying the ring only to discover that the land of the Hobits has dramatically deteriorated to what he knew when he went away, which I see as the equivalent of Jesus going through the passion only to discover that mankind eventually
sinks even lower, despite all that He has done.
The ball is well and truly, totally in our court, as is Our Lady saying at Medjugorje and why the feet of the ascended Lord are still nailed to the cross and His side is literally, and miraculously, weeping real tears. “Pray, pray, pray” Our Lady says, so lets get down on our knees NOW !!!

Unfortunately, the movies don’t depict this at all. They return to the Shire and it is as they had left it.

 

[Brian_Reeves]

Isn’t that amazing, but that’s not how I remember it, mind you my memory !! Now I will have to look at it this evening.
Brian.

 

[DaughterOfGod82]

I saw all the 3 movies. They are all very cool. Watch them at the original order: #1: The Fellowship of the Ring; #2: The Two Towers and #3: The Return of the King. Enjoy them!

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Did anyone in here mention that The Hobbit will be made into a movie?

imdb.com/title/tt0903624/