OP
OP
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
TolkienERA |OT| Renewed shall be the blade that was broken
- Thread starter Loxley
- Start date
Happy New Year everyone - just thought I'd stop in and say hi. Recently got back into the LOTR/Hobbit films after a family member went on a trip to New Zealand. So, I looked up LOTR on Era and I was pleasantly surprised to find this OT!
I've never really gotten into Tolkien's written works only having read the Hobbit but looking forward to discussion in this thread.
I've never really gotten into Tolkien's written works only having read the Hobbit but looking forward to discussion in this thread.
Happy New Year to you and welcome to our humble little Tolkien community. If you need any advice on Tolkien's written works, just ask.
So I just decided to re-watch the films (that horrible Fellowship troll thread motivated me), and I really want to read the books. I tried years ago, and the only one I could get through was The Hobbit (which I adore and made the films a disappointment. Still haven't seen the second or all of the third). I have a feeling I'll be able to now, but the sheer density is daunting. Still, I've started listening to a podcast dedicated to Tolkein's works (specifically TH and TLotR) called "There and Back Again". It's quite delightful.
So I may pop into this thread from time to time. I'm going to try to get to the books soonish, but I also read a lot of comics and boy do I have a hefty backlog of those.
So I may pop into this thread from time to time. I'm going to try to get to the books soonish, but I also read a lot of comics and boy do I have a hefty backlog of those.
I hope you enjoy LOTR when you're able to get to it! All three of Tolkien's major works (TH, LOTR, and The Silmarillion) have their own distinctive features and there's no guarantee that anyone who likes one will enjoy the others, but I (perhaps needless to say) think there's a lot to love about LOTR especially. I'd love to hear your thoughts as you go through it, if you feel like sharing them. I can't really remember what my first time reading LOTR was like so I sometimes wish I could go through it blind again. Fellowship starts off closer in tone to The Hobbit but that begins to change relatively early on. The pace also picks up progressively throughout the book (all of LOTR I mean).
I wasn't expecting such density in the Fellowship when I forst read it. I was like "the hell? Are they still in the Shire? Oh my god." Of course that was quite some time ago, and age has changed my preferences and tastes.
The movies are some of my favorite of all time. One thing I'm curious about: do they go into the seeing stones more at all? They never really touch on them outside of the one scene in TFotR when Gandalf goes to Saruman. Granted you get all you need from it, but I've always been curious about them.
The movies are some of my favorite of all time. One thing I'm curious about: do they go into the seeing stones more at all? They never really touch on them outside of the one scene in TFotR when Gandalf goes to Saruman. Granted you get all you need from it, but I've always been curious about them.
The book does elaborate on them more, particularly just after the incident when Pippin looks into one (the context is slightly different than the equivalent scene in the film so I won't go into detail). There's a lot more in the Appendices as well as some of Tolkien's unpublished notes that found their way into the posthumous collection Unfinished Tales, but I think the explanation in the main text is satisfactory.
It was mostly a curiosity thing. I'm not worried about spoilers. Honestly I've learned a lot of the series through osmosis. It's more the experience and a lot of the extra stuff.
OP
OP
One of my favorite Tolkien YouTube channels, Men of the West, just recently uploaded a character history of Aragorn. With all the talk of the possibility of Amazon's LOTR show centering on a young Aragorn, it's a good recap of all the stuff he did before he joined the Fellowship. There's actually quite a lot to draw from.
Cool
I'm actually super excited for the Amazon series. Or rather, the potential of what the Amazon series could be.
That's a great recommendation Loxley.
I'd add the following study of Aragorn by Angela P. Nicholas:
Tolkien scholar Christina Scull said the following of it:
"When I first saw Aragorn: J.R.R. Tolkien's Undervalued Hero I was slightly put off by its appearance, a large paperback (30 × 21 cm!) with an aggressive layout using bullet-points, though I welcomed its clear typeface and value for money (492 pages including genealogical tables, bibliography, and index). I had not gone far into it before I realised I was finding it the most enjoyable book on Tolkien I had read in a long time, not only reviving all of my early thoughts about Aragorn, but extending them. It also made me analyse why I almost grit my teeth before beginning to read yet another popular general guide to Tolkien, another rehashing of Carpenter's Tolkien biography, or yet another of the seemingly never-ending collections of essays on Tolkien. In the early 1980s, when I first began to collect seriously, Tolkien devotees were lucky if two or three books on the author were published in a year, while articles, mainly written by fans, generally appeared only in periodicals published by societies with an interest in Tolkien. Part of my problem, shared by Wayne, is that we delved so deeply with our own writings, especially The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide, that when we read anything about Tolkien we are constantly noting errors of fact, ignorance of previously published material, or failure to keep up with the most recent scholarship. The main problem with many collections of essays in particular, apart from their variable quality, is that each writer, while trying hard to make a point, often puts forward a theory based on little or selective evidence, so that reading a collection of such work is rather like being forced to watch one battle scene after another, or being hit on the head several times in succession.
In her preface, Nicholas makes the point I have alluded to above: 'it is only with the hindsight of second and subsequent readings of The Lord of the Rings . . . and perusal of the Appendices . . . that we begin to get any proper idea of who Aragorn is or any sort of appreciation of his significance in the history of Middle-earth in general and, more specifically in the struggle to destroy the One Ring'. She continues: 'I have long felt that he is underestimated, with his achievements, qualities and struggles often ignored, misunderstood or unappreciated. In addition I believe that his contribution to the "Ring Quest" is at least equal to that of Frodo, Sam, Gandalf and Gollum.' To build up a clearer picture, she focuses on aspects of Aragorn's life 'which are not always obvious', to deal with misconceptions and to attempt 'to see into his mind'. To do this, she has used all of Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, as well as Letters, and has given The Lord of the Rings 'the "fine-tooth comb" treatment'. This includes 'analysis of individual words, facial expressions, circumstances etc. For example: Is the situation formal or informal? Are words spoken with a smile or seriously?' (pp. 1–3). Nicholas admits to speculation and inference, such as who Aragorn might have met when serving incognito in Rohan, but such instances are clearly identified, and to me reasonable and justified."
Continued here
So I've been watching that YT channel, Men of the West, and I'm really enjoying it. As someone who hasn't read any of the OG material aside from The Hobbit, it's really interesting to learn this stuff.
I especially enjoyed this video on what if Galadriel had taken the One Ring.
I find it interesting because it makes sense that someone using to exert their will in wielding the Ring, as ultimately it is a tool of dominance and forced submission, that they would create a utopia reflective of them as opposed to creating a world that Sauron would. Naturally, being the Lady of the Wood, Galadriel would create a world reclaimed by nature and the wild. It brings to question what others would create. What would Gandalf use it for? Denethor? Some of these are obvious, but they bring a curiosity to mind nonetheless.
I also enjoyed that video because it isn't just another standard "What if?" video. He basically just reads what would be an epilogue to wrap everything up. It's pretty cool.
I especially enjoyed this video on what if Galadriel had taken the One Ring.
I find it interesting because it makes sense that someone using to exert their will in wielding the Ring, as ultimately it is a tool of dominance and forced submission, that they would create a utopia reflective of them as opposed to creating a world that Sauron would. Naturally, being the Lady of the Wood, Galadriel would create a world reclaimed by nature and the wild. It brings to question what others would create. What would Gandalf use it for? Denethor? Some of these are obvious, but they bring a curiosity to mind nonetheless.
I also enjoyed that video because it isn't just another standard "What if?" video. He basically just reads what would be an epilogue to wrap everything up. It's pretty cool.
This is something Tolkien touched upon in one of his letters:
"It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power. But this the Great had well considered and had rejected, as seen in Elrond's words at the Council. Galadriel's rejection of the temptation was founded upon previous thought and resolve. In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force. Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not contemplated. One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end."
"Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great)."
"Thus while Sauron manipulated [illegible word] evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil."
All quotes from Letter #246.
And there would have been no way there would be any united front against Gandalf the Terrible. Too many factions would be benefiting from his "just" rule. It basically would've been the end of Middle Earth still, just on a longer timeline.
That's super interesting, actually. So if I'm getting this right, Gandalf would have been the "this is for your own good. Trust me, I know," kind of ruler? Sauron knew what he was doing was distinctly evil, but Gandalf would have done bad stuff and claimed it was good? That is terrifying.
You're absolutely right. On the face of it, Gandalf would seem like a benevolent leader of the peoples of Middle-earth, ruling in the name of good. But a latent decay would be taking place in the hearts and minds of many of his most ardent followers. What is perceived as good would be twisted far beyond recognition.
The key question to ask: Would the Valar (the great Powers of Arda) intervene once again and rid the world of the One and its power to corrupt once and for all? We can only speculate.
Last edited:
I think Ian portrays it very well in FOTR in the "DON'T, TEMPT ME FRODO!" scene.
You really get a sense that this would be an absolutely terrifying person under the Ring's control. They don't touch much on the 'Maiar' in the movies, so your average viewer wouldn't know that Gandalf, Saruman, etc. are 'demi-angels'.
You really get a sense that this would be an absolutely terrifying person under the Ring's control. They don't touch much on the 'Maiar' in the movies, so your average viewer wouldn't know that Gandalf, Saruman, etc. are 'demi-angels'.
Honestly all the performances are awesome. Save for Orlando Bloom as Legolas, but Legolas really doesn't do much except cool bow and arrow stuff in the films anyways.
Orlando's highlight is in ROTK EE when Legolas has his monologue en route to the Paths of the Dead. Really solid IMO.
Man I forgot about that scene. I've only seen the extended cuts once.
To counter that, I haven't seen the Theatricals in well over a decade now. EEs replaced them for me instantly. I miss the additions too much to go back.
Yeah I keep meaning to get the collection.
Speaking of, how does TolkeinERA feel about the films? Since they're my gateway I have a bit of a bias.
Specifically TLotR. The Hobbit films were a disaster.
Speaking of, how does TolkeinERA feel about the films? Since they're my gateway I have a bit of a bias.
Specifically TLotR. The Hobbit films were a disaster.
Same. I bought the theatricals on launch day, then the EEs on launch day and then launched the theatricals into the Crack of Doom, aka my gaming junk drawer that I donate to Goodwill every time I move.
As is tradition, no doubt it'll be the Theatricals first, then the EEs.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a masterpiece of filmmaking, and a rather good adaptation of the material. It has its faults yes, but what Peter and his team achieved was monumental. It also revivified the Tolkien community and introduced a whole new generation to his mythos.
The Hobbit trilogy is good in parts, but disappointing as a whole.
Every time there is drama in The Hobbit, it's damn good. Really solid performances by everyone. The problem is the action, which is silly, and some of the comedy, which is even sillier.
I firmly believe that being a faithful adaptation and being a good film are two different things, and that while it is possible for a LOTR adaptation to be both, success in one realm does not guarantee success in the other. (Though to be clear, I recognize that Jackson's LOTR is a much closer adaptation than many director/studio combinations would have produced.) I think that the films are a spectacular achievement in their own right and Fellowship in particular is one of my favorite films. I have liked the films from the first time that I saw them all the way through, and in the intervening years I have made my peace with the changes and they don't really bother me anymore, though I still like to discuss them occasionally. I don't think that the films are by any means perfect and there are some things that still make me cringe entirely divorced from book comparisons. The "cocoa puffs" skull scene in the Paths of the Dead in Return of the King is perhaps the worst example. There are also storytelling changes that leave me scratching my head, such as Gollum's fakeout death in the same film, which I don't think succeeds at creating drama or uncertainty in the mind of the audience. At the end of the day, though, I enjoy them very much.
Regarding the question of faithfulness, though: I dislike many of the changes that were made to the story and I think that in many cases the claim that a specific change was necessary for the task of adapting the story is not true. Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens themselves have stated that in the case of, for example, the rejected idea of Sauron fighting Aragorn at the Black Gate, they found that moving away from their own idea back towards Tolkien's made for a more effective scene, period. I think that the same can be said of many additions that were left in the films, though I'm sure the writers would disagree with me on many such points. I think that the writers drastically overstated the extent of their familiarity with the book for the purpose of marketing towards book fans. In the documentary features Jackson claimed that, in the book, Sauron was a disembodied eyeball and the Dead Men of Dunharrow were an unstoppable killing machine, and that he felt compelled to include them in the films because of their presence in the book. In actuality neither concept is found in the book; plus it's just kind of a weird justification considering all the things they did leave out.
As for The Hobbit: the less said, the better, in my opinion.
Regarding the question of faithfulness, though: I dislike many of the changes that were made to the story and I think that in many cases the claim that a specific change was necessary for the task of adapting the story is not true. Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens themselves have stated that in the case of, for example, the rejected idea of Sauron fighting Aragorn at the Black Gate, they found that moving away from their own idea back towards Tolkien's made for a more effective scene, period. I think that the same can be said of many additions that were left in the films, though I'm sure the writers would disagree with me on many such points. I think that the writers drastically overstated the extent of their familiarity with the book for the purpose of marketing towards book fans. In the documentary features Jackson claimed that, in the book, Sauron was a disembodied eyeball and the Dead Men of Dunharrow were an unstoppable killing machine, and that he felt compelled to include them in the films because of their presence in the book. In actuality neither concept is found in the book; plus it's just kind of a weird justification considering all the things they did leave out.
As for The Hobbit: the less said, the better, in my opinion.
Last edited:
Sorry, lapsing into fanspeak. :P It's when the Paths of the Dead start collapsing around Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli at the end of that sequence in the Extended Edition of ROTK. It starts at about 2:10 in this video:
Nothing against anyone who enjoys the scene, but I personally find it goofy as shit and not really in keeping with the otherwise serious tone of that portion of the movie. Also immersion-breaking because I imagine the Dead gradually filling up huge skull receptacles in the early years of the curse as their physical bodies die, preparing to test whichever heir of Isildur eventually comes to claim their allegiance by dropping their own skulls on them.
Fun bit of random trivia though: that initial shot of skulls rolling across the ground, before the wide shot, was the final shot filmed for the whole trilogy, as a last-minute idea they had while putting together the Extended Edition of ROTK, after it had already won Best Picture.
Fun bit of random trivia though: that initial shot of skulls rolling across the ground, before the wide shot, was the final shot filmed for the whole trilogy, as a last-minute idea they had while putting together the Extended Edition of ROTK, after it had already won Best Picture.
Yorkshire Dales National Park gets Tolkien-style map
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-42752158
I'm really quite fond of seeing real world maps get this treatment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-42752158
I'm really quite fond of seeing real world maps get this treatment.
I've enjoyed reading the trilogy and the hobbit on a yearly basis, I'm currently reading through the Silmarillion for the first time and enjoying it. Working through chapter 11 now, and not having an issue reading it, though admittedly last time I tried was over ten years ago in middle school(didn't get past page 3). Probably could have gotten through it faster but I've been distracted lately.
I'm glad you're enjoying it. It's my personal favourite, due in part to the sense of scale and love for the First Age. Arda at its most magnificent.
Well, it helped me figure out my current shortening of the old username I used
Since I moved last month, I didn't get to do my yearly Lord of the Rings Marathon.
Going to fix that today.
Going to fix that today.
As a package, nothing really compares to the Complete Recordings and the differences/omissions aren't that significant.
I'd recommend reading through the following for a comprehensive breakdown of the differences between the various soundtrack releases:
http://www.lyndhursthouse.plus.com/fotr_ost_breakdown.pdf
http://www.lyndhursthouse.plus.com/ttt_ost_breakdown.pdf
http://www.lyndhursthouse.plus.com/rotk_ost_breakdown.pdf
I'd take a day off work so I could watch it undisturbed.
So I've been playing The Lord of the Rings: The Third Age. Really fun turn-based RPG from back in the day. Enjoying the story so far. Granted, having a second "Fellowship" following the main one and fighting alongside actual members of the Fellowship (Gandalf vs. the Balrog) is nonsense, but there are cool story beats. Like being down in the Balrog Pit when the skeleton Pippin knocks into the well falls down, then hearing Gandalf berate him, and then the Balrog climbing up the walls. A key on the corpse accesses a different passage through Moria and all that.
It's very fun, but I haven't passed through Moria yet. I played this with a friend years ago and we got through Moria and that was about it. I remember the final battles of the area being insane.
It's very fun, but I haven't passed through Moria yet. I played this with a friend years ago and we got through Moria and that was about it. I remember the final battles of the area being insane.
OP
OP
Very cool.
I really liked The Third Age, despite the fact that it was very rough around the edges and felt like it could have used another 6 months of polish. Idrial's auto-res ability basically allows you to cheese through the entire game XD
The finally boss fight is also hysterical.
You literally fight the Eye of Sauron. Like you run up to it and whack it with your sword.
Oh yeah I remember. My friend randomly pulled out the game because we were curious about it. He's like "man I don't remember what this is like. It's been so long." Booted up his end game save. Hilarious.
Some Tolkien art by Raffaela C (AronjaArt) which is available to buy as prints.
https://www.etsy.com/uk/shop/AronjaArt?ref=shop_sugg
https://www.etsy.com/uk/shop/AronjaArt?ref=shop_sugg
I always love the imagery behind the door to Moria. Just a tiny back door to this vast mountain kingdom. So cool.
Tolkien certainly had a way with words:
"Greatest of all the mansions of the Dwarves was Khazâd-dûm, the Dwarrowdelf, Hadhodrond in the Elvish tongue, that was afterwards in the days of its darkness called Moria; but it was far off in the Mountains of Mist beyond the wide leagues of Eriador, and to the Eldar came but as a name and a rumour from the words of the Dwarves of the Blue Mountains." - From The Silmarillion, Of the Sindar.
One of my favourite depictions of the Doors of Durin is by Ted Nasmith.
Dying man gets surprise message from Sir Peter Jackson before Lord of the Rings marathon
https://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...e-from-sir-peter-jackson-before-lotr-marathon
A wonderful gesture from Peter.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...e-from-sir-peter-jackson-before-lotr-marathon
A wonderful gesture from Peter.