OMG LOTR: The Return of the King is a ridiculous movie!

[Numenorean]

Just a moment now, she does not take down the witch king, no how, no way, without Merry hamstringing his ass first. And Merry was not mankind, dig?

Even the mankind implication is a leap, because spells in that genre of fiction are often quite specific. Let me put it this way, it is often a impish thing in such stories, to have loopholes that can cost a character dearly.

Also he was stabbed with an Elvish blade by Merry.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Also he was stabbed with an Elvish blade by Merry.

It has been quite some time since I read the novels. I do remember the blades came from burial mounds/crypts? though, and not how they got them in the movie. Those were of elvish craftsmanship?

 

[TehMac]

It has been quite some time since I read the novels. I do remember the blades came from burial mounds/crypts? though, and not how they got them in the movie. Those were of elvish craftsmanship?

They weren't elvish, and Tolkien takes the role of a Bard who himself is improvising.

So sometimes he is omniscient and sometimes he is limited omniscient etc.

The blades were "blessed with spells by the Men of Arnor..."

so apparently the Men of Arnor (the Numenoreans who settled in the North and later got their homeland torn down by the Witch King) were able to cast a few spells in their heyday, but nothing like what the Elves were capable of. Still, in the right hands it looks like they did the trick.

Also, the people criticizing Tolkien's language are about on the same intellectual level as the Australopithecenes who wank off to animie and consider "hai, me want 2 fuk u" great writing.

 

[Numenorean]

It has been quite some time since I read the novels. I do remember the blades came from burial mounds/crypts? though, and not how they got them in the movie. Those were of elvish craftsmanship?

Well if we are talking about the movie, they are Elvish. If we are talking about the book, see above.

 

[zerocool84]

I have never and will never read a book that became a movie. I hate reading so I will never do it.

 

[Numenorean]

I have never and will never read a book that became a movie. I hate reading so I will never do it.

You are missing a lot. LOTR is better. Jurassic Park and The Lost World are both better than the movie. So are all of the Clancy books which got made into movies. And I'm sure many more.

 

[Kirby]

Dan Brown was a semi-popular summer author before Da Vinci Code. And Da Vinci code exploded well before the Catholic Church got all pissy, thus increasing his exposure. Anyway, it's inaccurate to claim that he would not be popular without the controversy. Da Vinci Code is basically the Name of the Rose (Eco) for the wider lay audience. It's an easy detective sort of read, without the literary implications and stylistic twists that tend to confound the casual reader with an author like Eco.

Brown and Rowling have reached a mass audience--many ages, and far more than a simple stratified fan base. For whatever reason, they seem to appeal to all personalities. Tolkien has, and will always only remain popular to a niche crowd. The movies have exposed him to a wider audience, sure, but he really only appeals to the fantasy/D&D, younger crowd (and those that have grown, and fondly remember reading him when young). He simply doesn't have as wide appeal and never will. Assumptions otherwise just speak of an unwillingness to see beyond the fan appeal. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm just saying it's hard to see beyond his limited appeal when one invests so much attachment into something that they love so much. Naturally, a fan would assume anyone else would love it just as much.

Again, I much prefer Tolkien, but in terms of literary merit, his style isn't any more complex than what you get with someone like Dan Brown and unfortunately, his characters are just as flat, and perhaps even more typed, which sucks. He did exist within academia, but was always sort of a dark horse, trying harder than he should have to really get "in." But he always stuck to his guns despite the advice of his colleagues to stay away from "fantasy trivials." Few people consider the fact that de didn't even have a fan base at that point, so he was literally on his own, with no one to please but the academics whom he was determined to prove wrong--but would essentially fail at doing. That takes balls.

The only thing I'm trying to say is that calling Tolkien a literary stalwart is like calling Jim Morrison a poet. Fans will always say such things because their frame of reference--their ability to actually compare among many artists (or whatever) of the claimed genre--is quite minimal. Tolkien is a god in the fantasy/sci-fi, young adult realm that simply would not exist as it does today without him. He is barely a blip in the wide literary map, however.

I don't disagree with everything you say, but Brown and Rowling? Shit, maybe Capote or that hack Hemingway. I wouldn't judge his literary merit by his appeal to the general public. What modern author would you consider a sizeable blip in the wide literary map?

 

[darkswordsman17]

Dan Brown was a semi-popular summer author before Da Vinci Code. And Da Vinci code exploded well before the Catholic Church got all pissy, thus increasing his exposure. Anyway, it's inaccurate to claim that he would not be popular without the controversy. Da Vinci Code is basically the Name of the Rose (Eco) for the wider lay audience. It's an easy detective sort of read, without the literary implications and stylistic twists that tend to confound the casual reader with an author like Eco.

Brown and Rowling have reached a mass audience--many ages, and far more than a simple stratified fan base. For whatever reason, they seem to appeal to all personalities. Tolkien has, and will always only remain popular to a niche crowd. The movies have exposed him to a wider audience, sure, but he really only appeals to the fantasy/D&D, younger crowd (and those that have grown, and fondly remember reading him when young). He simply doesn't have as wide appeal and never will. Assumptions otherwise just speak of an unwillingness to see beyond the fan appeal. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm just saying it's hard to see beyond his limited appeal when one invests so much attachment into something that they love so much. Naturally, a fan would assume anyone else would love it just as much.

Again, I much prefer Tolkien, but in terms of literary merit, his style isn't any more complex than what you get with someone like Dan Brown and unfortunately, his characters are just as flat, and perhaps even more typed, which sucks. He did exist within academia, but was always sort of a dark horse, trying harder than he should have to really get "in." But he always stuck to his guns despite the advice of his colleagues to stay away from "fantasy trivials." Few people consider the fact that de didn't even have a fan base at that point, so he was literally on his own, with no one to please but the academics whom he was determined to prove wrong--but would essentially fail at doing. That takes balls.

The only thing I'm trying to say is that calling Tolkien a literary stalwart is like calling Jim Morrison a poet. Fans will always say such things because their frame of reference--their ability to actually compare among many artists (or whatever) of the claimed genre--is quite minimal. Tolkien is a god in the fantasy/sci-fi, young adult realm that simply would not exist as it does today without him. He is barely a blip in the wide literary map, however.

I'm still just completely baffled at you comparing Tolkien and Dan Brown. To me, they're some of the least comparable authors (and their work) I can think of.

I'm also confused how you're saying he's not popular but then somehow are relating him to 2 of the more popular writers of our time. I don't even know what your point there is in fact, and that's besides the fact that I think you're outright wrong in saying he's just popular with a certain audience. In fact, I don't know how much more popular you can get than having sold untold millions of books, your work turned into some of the highest grossing (and one, critically acclaimed) movies of all time, and widespread appeal to match any "societal phenomenon". [Its a well established fact that I overused the word fact in this paragraph.]

I'm not saying he's Shakespeare or Dickens, and readily admit that I wouldn't call him a stellar writer, but that's not all that important. He's really most known for the world he created, the rich history he intertwined into his writings. You don't even have to actually read his books to appreciate it. Very few authors achieve this in any genre. Its a big part of why his books got popular.

Jim Morrison? Huh?

And sorry, but I think you're way off in your more eloquent manner of just saying people who like Tolkien are fanboys, or making claims about frames-of-reference. I absolutely can see the faults in his work. I'm pretty well read, and appreciate a wide variety of books, but I would say his writing isn't any worse than half the books that I've read that have been passed as classics or literary works of art. I guess all the writers that say his works were incredible don't have a clue about what they're talking about either.

There's plenty that's been written about the importance of his writing, and all manner of comparisons to other major literature/storytelling, so if you're so inclined you can read up if you want.

Lastly, I think both of our "sides" are being pushed much further than where they actually reside. You actually said you enjoy his works, you just don't find them to be very good writing. I wouldn't even really disagree with that, I just feel like you're giving him very little credit.

You obviously haven't read the books. Or if you did, they went so far above your head you couldn't hear the whooshing sound.

I think you're the one that is missing the whooshing over your head.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tongue-in-cheek

 

[zerocool84]

You are missing a lot. LOTR is better. Jurassic Park and The Lost World are both better than the movie. So are all of the Clancy books which got made into movies. And I'm sure many more.

Everyone ALWAYS says the books are better than the movie. Well duh. You can fit a lot more info and detail in a book than a movie. Plus you make up everything in your own imagination. I for one hate reading and will never read another book.

 

[foghorn67]

You are missing a lot. LOTR is better. Jurassic Park and The Lost World are both better than the movie. So are all of the Clancy books which got made into movies. And I'm sure many more.

I really don't think the books are better than the movies when it comes to LOTR. Honestly, the books weren't great as novels. I do however, think it rocked as far as the depth of the world Tolkien created, and the story is awesome. I love attention to detail, but that is the predominant theme in LOTR. It feels oddly disconnected in many other ways.
I think highly of Tolkien and Lewis because they are opposites. Lewis is great at writing, and can convey emotions in an awesome and simple way. What can take even the most gifted writers paragraphs to describe, Lewis can do the same in one sentence. However, sometimes I wish his books were a bit longer. The Narnia series was awesome, but somehow I feel like I wanted more because they are so short.
I suck at writing, but I think I am okay at reading different styles and appreciating almost everything. But LOTR is an imaginative world caught in unnecessary traps.
Now Jurassic Park and Lost World, I would have to agree. The books were far better than the movies.

The Hunt for Red October was the only book/movie comparison I can see as being equals. The scope of the book was way more involving and precarious. However the movie made up for it in top notch pacing, dialog and editing.
It's an example of what you can do with film that isn't quite so feasible in a book. I love the scene where Ramius is talking to Borodin, and Jonesey is tracking his "phantom boat". Or when Ramius is casually talking about Admiral Halsey with Ryan while there is a madman shooting torpedoes at them.

 

[Lummex]

Fuck you. Read the books. LOTR is one of the best series ever written. And usually I don't think movies to a good job of portraying the books, but these are one of the exceptions.

 

[0roo0roo]

"oddly disconnected " is correct, it was like you were watching some fantasy type thing, but it was cold and just had no connection to a narrative that would make you feel anything. Saying you have to read the books is bs, i have, and that doesn't make the films any better, it only proves the films were just fan service and don't stand on their own merits.

 

[sdifox]

Everyone ALWAYS says the books are better than the movie. Well duh. You can fit a lot more info and detail in a book than a movie. Plus you make up everything in your own imagination. I for one hate reading and will never read another book.

It shows.

 

[IronWing]

"oddly disconnected " is correct, it was like you were watching some fantasy type thing, but it was cold and just had no connection to a narrative that would make you feel anything. Saying you have to read the books is bs, i have, and that doesn't make the films any better, it only proves the films were just fan service and don't stand on their own merits.

The movies were vignettes of the books, produced in much the same spirit as movies about bible stories. In this, the director passed up good movie making in favor of accuracy to the books. Unfortunately since he couldn't perfectly match the books, he failed the nerd fans he was trying to please while failing to deliver as good a movie as was possible from the underlying story.

 

[Numenorean]

The Hunt for Red October was the only book/movie comparison I can see as being equals. The scope of the book was way more involving and precarious. However the movie made up for it in top notch pacing, dialog and editing.
It's an example of what you can do with film that isn't quite so feasible in a book. I love the scene where Ramius is talking to Borodin, and Jonesey is tracking his "phantom boat". Or when Ramius is casually talking about Admiral Halsey with Ryan while there is a madman shooting torpedoes at them.

That was a good movie, except for the fact that they totally cast Jack Ryan incorrectly. Baldwin made a HORRIBLE Ryan.