Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I haven't seen the LotR movies in a long time but I remember what always struck me about them, and what I found lacking in the Hobbit movies, was the feeling of epic scale.
It feels like a massive adventure across the world with armies clashing and stuff. I might have to try to read the books to fully understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
Yeah, my sister and I both like Stephen King books, but for opposite reasons and different books. I like his more fantasy and science-fiction oriented stuff like The Green Mile and The Dark Tower series. She likes his horror. I don't understand why people have an interest in being scared. She doesn't understand why people get attracted to weird stuff and learning about that weird stuff.
+1 for Stephen King!
I really liked the Green Mile as well and especially The Shawshank Redemption. I swear, everything Stephen King writes is amazing lol
I haven't seen the LotR movies in a long time but I remember what always struck me about them, and what I found lacking in the Hobbit movies, was the feeling of epic scale.
It feels like a massive adventure across the world with armies clashing and stuff. I might have to try to read the books to fully understand it.
+1 for Stephen King!
I really liked the Green Mile as well and especially The Shawshank Redemption. I swear, everything Stephen King writes is amazing lol
I did enjoy the sleigh-pulling rabbits in the hobbit movies, of the wizard Radagast the Brown, though.
"These are Goulda(something) wargs. They will outrun you!"
"These are Rustabell rabbits. I'd like to see them try," but yeah...the hobbit movies lacked that.
I haven't seen the LotR movies in a long time but I remember what always struck me about them, and what I found lacking in the Hobbit movies, was the feeling of epic scale.
It feels like a massive adventure across the world with armies clashing and stuff. I might have to try to read the books to fully understand it.
+1 for Stephen King!
I really liked the Green Mile as well and especially The Shawshank Redemption. I swear, everything Stephen King writes is amazing lol
I know what you mean. The mountains, and the land of Gondor, Rohan, Mordor and even Lothlorien and the shire and surrounding farms and woods were big enough, but they didn't quite make it as big as the Euro -sized middle -earth map.
However, I was just doing a post on back to front and skewed theist thinking and I recalled something in that video talk.
Wraith is etymologically derived from 'twisted or skewed'. The Tolkien idea was that the nine gofors of the forced of darkness were representing an empty ...what's the word...form that in really a tendril of power from the perversion of the world as it should be that is the darkness of Mordor.
No takers for bets on whom he had in mind for the goodies and the baddies. Materialist unbelief, or sirutual believing theists.
But dammit, yet again it applies more in reverse. The arguments are back to front, logic invereted, words mean what it is required they should mean. findings of science are rewitten to fit what it is reuired they should say (quotemining) and we know why - because whether it is true, logical and correct or not doesn't matter.
"Hey, what do a few untruths matter if some souls are saved?"
That is absolutely the mindset. They KNOW God is real on Faith and the important thing is to win the argument any way you can, hopefully to persuade others, but at least to prop your own faith up, and if you can do with with a cheating trick
"Prove to me the atheist claim that God has rabbit ears!"
"Atheism doesn't claim that".
"Ah -so you can't answer my question. I win Goodbye!"
And, as we saw just today forcing on me "You know I'm right - you just deny it" as a unilateral win is SPITE of having lost every point (1) when it is pretty clear what a crummy ploy that is. At least when I point it out.
But this is absolutely the skewed thinking that underlies all religious thinking. And how well it fits the Dark Lord and his Icon of Power sent out to enslave the world. Buit the icon of power has fallen into the wrong hands and is being used for good - not as he intended. So he must send out his empty but powerful emissiaries to take back this icon of power by whatever means they can. And they are called 'Twisted and skewed.
We are meeting the Wrongwraiths ever day on the boards.
(1) yep time for a foopnote..and nicely pointing up the Genius of peanuts. "Ha! I'm right! You're wrong, really. You only Sound right!"
I did enjoy the sleigh-pulling rabbits in the hobbit movies, of the wizard Radagast the Brown, though.
"These are Goulda(something) wargs. They will outrun you!"
"These are Rustabell rabbits. I'd like to see them try," but yeah...the hobbit movies lacked that.
Where does he live? Rhosgobel or somewhere. "These are Rhosghobel rabbits - they will outrun even a defeated theist apologist scampering for cover."
Of course Jackson is a fine film -maker and he did a pretty good job of turning the Hobbit into a creditable three film epic, which I wouldn't have believed possible. And I will suspend the usual beef of the military history Buff with fims. The fight sequences are all about Acting, not about a convincing fight.
The strategy with Radhagast would be divide the wargs into two or three and catch him in a pincer - you can only outrun a puruit where there isn't another cutting you off. And the elves and dwarves at Erebor were drilling like machines. It was rather CGI visuals and not a convincing -looking battle. Which is why, though it has a lot in it that I like, it doesn't get onto my video shelf.
And that leaves me..hang on, let's light up the Ol' corncob.....I have a theory....
that Tolkien (perhaps without realizing it) used Gondor as an analogy of Constantinople. But in his history it is saved.
Constantinople was founded by Constantine as his eastern (Greek) empire while leaving Western Rome to a succession of less powerful emperors and more powerful popes. Which didn't stop it being overrun by pagans, who converted to Christianity in the end.
And all the time Byzantium was battling with the Muslims and in in a shaky alliance with the Latin empire which was at times more of an enemy than the Muslims.
I might mention that the Norman conquest (putting an end to the Saxon culture Tolkien loved) caused many Saxon warriors to flee and join the Byzantine army as the 'Varangian Guard' - very heavily comprising emigrated Anglo -Saxon warriors.
But in the end, the Normans with the blessings of the Latin pope fatally weakened Byzantium. In the 1st crusade, Turkish lands were taken and restored to Byzantium, and it might have been the fault of the Byzantine ruler as much as the leaders of the crusade, but they took and sacked the city and then went on to set up their kingdoms in the Holy land.
Now it wasn't until the Muslims had driven the Crusaders out of Palestine and Asia minor that the Turks finally took Constantinople. And as far as I have read, the attitude of the Holy See was 'I would rather see the place ruled by Muslims than by Greek heretics". And while the musicians of Europe wrote songs lamenting the fall of the city and passing the tin round for another crusade, that was the end of Byzantium.
Now Tolkien saw clearly that the Saxons should have won at Hastings. Even apart from the battle up north days before, they still could have won if they hadn't broken their shield -wall. If only they had cavalry of their own.
Why, if they had...well no they could hardly have ridden sixthousand Saxon horse across Europe to the foe -beleagured city of Constantinople to mow down the Seljuks at the very gates. But he could dream.
And then of course the real king, not the Greek Orthodox steward(half under the dark powers), would rule both Gondor and Arnor. All united under the eldarin elves, priests of the true faith, and their spiritual leader, the queen of the elves
Where does he live? Rhosgobel or somewhere. "These are Rhosghobel rabbits - they will outrun even a defeated theist apologist scampering for cover."
Of course Jackson is a fine film -maker and he did a pretty good job of turning the Hobbit into a creditable three film epic, which I wouldn't have believed possible. And I will suspend the usual beef of the military history Buff with fims. The fight sequences are all about Acting, not about a convincing fight.
The strategy with Radhagast would be divide the wargs into two or three and catch him in a pincer - you can only outrun a puruit where there isn't another cutting you off. And the elves and dwarves at Erebor were drilling like machines. It was rather CGI visuals and not a convincing -looking battle. Which is why, though it has a lot in it that I like, it doesn't get onto my video shelf.
And that leaves me..hang on, let's light up the Ol' corncob.....I have a theory....
that Tolkien (perhaps without realizing it) used Gondor as an analogy of Constantinople. But in his history it is saved.
Constantinople was founded by Constantine as his eastern (Greek) empire while leaving Western Rome to a succession of less powerful emperors and more powerful popes. Which didn't stop it being overrun by pagans, who converted to Christianity in the end.
And all the time Byzantium was battling with the Muslims and in in a shaky alliance with the Latin empire which was at times more of an enemy than the Muslims.
I might mention that the Norman conquest (putting an end to the Saxon culture Tolkien loved) caused many Saxon warriors to flee and join the Byzantine army as the 'Varangian Guard' - very heavily comprising emigrated Anglo -Saxon warriors.
But in the end, the Normans with the blessings of the Latin pope fatally weakened Byzantium. In the 1st crusade, Turkish lands were taken and restored to Byzantium, and it might have been the fault of the Byzantine ruler as much as the leaders of the crusade, but they took and sacked the city and then went on to set up their kingdoms in the Holy land.
Now it wasn't until the Muslims had driven the Crusaders out of Palestine and Asia minor that the Turks finally took Constantinople. And as far as I have read, the attitude of the Holy See was 'I would rather see the place ruled by Muslims than by Greek heretics". And while the musicians of Europe wrote songs lamenting the fall of the city and passing the tin round for another crusade, that was the end of Byzantium.
Now Tolkien saw clearly that the Saxons should have won at Hastings. Even apart from the battle up north days before, they still could have won if they hadn't broken their shield -wall. If only they had cavalry of their own.
Why, if they had...well no they could hardly have ridden sixthousand Saxon horse across Europe to the foe -beleagured city of Constantinople to mow down the Seljuks at the very gates. But he could dream.
And then of course the real king, not the Greek Orthodox steward(half under the dark powers), would rule both Gondor and Arnor. All united under the eldarin elves, priests of the true faith, and their spiritual leader, the queen of the elves
I really don't know much about Tolkien himself or his motivations. For example, I thought he fought in WW2 instead of WW1. I just read the books. I'll leave that up to you to decide and take your word for it. I will say though, that I go to a website where people submit their stories for review, and noticed multiple self-described nonreligious persons writing outright Christian propaganda, that's obviously Christian propaganda. One of these stories was like beautiful poetry. It was about a fox who finds a Bible and meets Jesus. This might have been by a self-described atheist, or if I'm wrong about that, it was definitely at least by a self-described nonreligious person. Personally, I'm more attracted to some of the characteristics of Satan. I like the name Lucifer too. That idea of forever rebelling against an unbeatable foe sounds kind of romantic to me.
I think oftentimes writers are not so much trying to make some point as just enjoying the feeling of certain words and concepts.
I was thinking he was more motivated by WW2 because the Ents reminded me a lot of America, with their late entrance into the war that only came about after America got attacked, and the hobbits/Shire made me think of Britain, that little country being bombed, and their citizens probably feeling helpless much of the time, but fighting on anyway. I think that's wrong though.
I think he said he didn't like allegories and the books weren't allegories for anything in particular...but that doesn't mean much of his books weren't inspired by real events, people, and things.
I'm sure you're right, gis hobbits and shire were much related to English country life - as he saw it from his Oxford college chamber, anyway.
I think his Ents derived from his love of trees and his anger at seeing them cut down in the days before we thought of sustainable forests. Treebeard's reaction to seeing a lot of the trees cut down is what he's like to see - the trees marching to smash up the powers of meachinery and metal that were to blame. Not that he's write an allegory, but these were influences in his mind as he wrote.
I believe by the way that he was involved in WWII as a writer or reporting observer. He was certainly not unaware of it as he wrote.
If you want some of the background, it's explained wel in the vidlink of the post 1. easy to watch.
Oh yes, One reason why LoR never became the Mythology of the UK as he hoped was because of the snobby hypocrisy of the Elves. A bit like the Vulcans, they are written to be everything we aspire to - perfect, in body and mind. But in fact they are only able to beat humans two falls out of three, but otherwise they are no better, and worse, snobby and racist. [
I have a bit of a nose for propaganda, and I was willing (as in all story -telling) to take sides, just for the story - which is why the current fad of TV serials where the goodies turn into the baddies at least in a parallel universe or other dimension -earth episode has stopped me ever turning the damn' thing on. But I was uncomfortable with the portraying of Mordor as bad as bad can be. And wry amusement as Gandalf and the elves constantly fret about possible betrayal. As Gandalf says, the untrustworthy are ever distrustful.
...snip
No, I adore the books and the film, but I do not approve of the ideas. They draw on Tolkien's views, belief and attitudes, and they seemed to him right and proper and bad and wicked as appropriate. But it ain't as easy as that.
...snip
#1. I think the elves definitely had a right to perceive themselves as better than at least the humans...because the humans were always screwing everything up. If I have a 2,000 year lifespan...it's just common sense that those short-lived humans are going to forget about all our old treaties and mess everything because they won't care as much, because those were the alliances and treaties of their ancestors, not themselves. The elves will inevitably be wiser than the humans, more skilled than the humans and pretty much superior to the lowly humans in every way, and so it should be expected that they'll be a bit bigoted. Expecting any more of them would be...I think unreasonable. We can say much the same thing about the Vulcans.
We can't just expect the superior group of people to not perceive themselves as better than us. If they really are superior, in just about every way, I'd support the elves thinking that. They have no duty not to be bigoted toward us. They are better than us. If the differences were just illusions like many racial stereotypes that would be different because stereotypes are, at best, exaggerations...but if a being is genuinely superior to human beings in every way, I think we need to just accept that. I'm a bit of a eugenist. I might support programs mandating no more human births so the elves could have more room to procreate and expand. This would be in the interest if thinking life, because it seems like the elves have superior existences to us. I'd be human-racist, and the elves would be my superior race who I would acknowledge as my betters...but they better treat me well or I will throw rocks at them or bite them or something regardless of how superior to me they are.
#2. I don't think The Lord of the Rings, or The Hobbit, or even The Silmarilion (which is basically the Bible with different characters) is propaganda...unless you're already trying to see it as something rooted in Christianity. If you don't look at it that way, they all have their own fully developed plots, with deep, round characters and a complex world that exists for its own sake, completely independent of Christianity.
Even the black and white/good vs. evil nature of the books is not something I see as propaganda. Yeah, that's not how war works...but it can be how overcoming personal conflicts can work. We can just look at it like the orcs represent some conflict that should be overcome, and that's why they're so flat of characters. The conflict has no mind. It's just kind of a mindless problem to be dealt with. Maybe the conflict is getting the courage to ask a girl on a date like Sam did at the end of the movie or something.
At least...I don't think it's Christian propaganda. I guess it kind of desensitizes people to violence, but many people already crave seeing violent action anyway and would seek that out without the movie.
I like the Game of Thrones books which are a lot more realistic, unpredictable and with complex characters, but I don't think they can beat the good old fashioned fun and moving stories of Tolkien. We like stories about good guys and bad guys because they're fun. The Game of Thrones can be entertaining...but can also be downright depressing sometimes. I have to be in a particular mood to want to read about characters I've grown fond of dying unexpectedly. Tolkien just gives people exactly what they want: a story with a fairly predictable plot, with good guys to root for and bad guys to root against and it's fun for that reason, and moving. People are going to look for that kind of good guy vs. bad guy, simple escapism somewhere. The search would still exist regardless of whether or not Tolkiens' books did. What people read just wouldn't be as entertaining without him, I think.
If you don't enjoy the fantasy genre, I could imagine you not liking it as much and seeing it as too long.
.
The above describes me. I made an effort, I really did. I started reading the first novel, but gave up fairly early in the process. I tried watching the film trilogy twice, but each time I could not bring myself to advance any further than the first 30 minutes or so of the first movie.
I tried because so many people I respect, treat the work with such reverence and awe "Oh, you HAVE to see this, you HAVE to read this"...
I just do not enjoy fantasy elements in sci fi productions. The second you introduce a wizard, a spell, a magic potion, a dragon....you've lost me. I consider the use of magic in fiction to be an exceptionally vacuous dynamic. It seems to be that there is nothing challenging about the writing because anything is possible. The hero is about to succumb to some magic spell cast by the villain? No problem, just announce a counter spell. What is clever about that?
My apologies to the fans of Tolkien, I cannot understand why you are so absorbed, but I also cannot imagine the constructive purpose behind arguing why you are wrong to be absorbed.
The above describes me. I made an effort, I really did. I started reading the first novel, but gave up fairly early in the process. I tried watching the film trilogy twice, but each time I could not bring myself to advance any further than the first 30 minutes or so of the first movie.
I tried because so many people I respect, treat the work with such reverence and awe "Oh, you HAVE to see this, you HAVE to read this"...
I just do not enjoy fantasy elements in sci fi productions. The second you introduce a wizard, a spell, a magic potion, a dragon....you've lost me. I consider the use of magic in fiction to be an exceptionally vacuous dynamic. It seems to be that there is nothing challenging about the writing because anything is possible. The hero is about to succumb to some magic spell cast by the villain? No problem, just announce a counter spell. What is clever about that?
My apologies to the fans of Tolkien, I cannot understand why you are so absorbed, but I also cannot imagine the constructive purpose behind arguing why you are wrong to be absorbed.
That's Ok. We all like different things I could not see any future in "Lost" though I gather a story developed as it went on. And I must be the only person in UK who could not bear "The Office".
#1. I think the elves definitely had a right to perceive themselves as better than at least the humans...because the humans were always screwing everything up. If I have a 2,000 year lifespan...it's just common sense that those short-lived humans are going to forget about all our old treaties and mess everything because they won't care as much, because those were the alliances and treaties of their ancestors, not themselves. The elves will inevitably be wiser than the humans, more skilled than the humans and pretty much superior to the lowly humans in every way, and so it should be expected that they'll be a bit bigoted. Expecting any more of them would be...I think unreasonable. We can say much the same thing about the Vulcans.
We can't just expect the superior group of people to not perceive themselves as better than us. If they really are superior, in just about every way, I'd support the elves thinking that. They have no duty not to be bigoted toward us. They are better than us. If the differences were just illusions like many racial stereotypes that would be different because stereotypes are, at best, exaggerations...but if a being is genuinely superior to human beings in every way, I think we need to just accept that. I'm a bit of a eugenist. I might support programs mandating no more human births so the elves could have more room to procreate and expand. This would be in the interest if thinking life, because it seems like the elves have superior existences to us. I'd be human-racist, and the elves would be my superior race who I would acknowledge as my betters...but they better treat me well or I will throw rocks at them or bite them or something regardless of how superior to me they are.
#2. I don't think The Lord of the Rings, or The Hobbit, or even The Silmarilion (which is basically the Bible with different characters) is propaganda...unless you're already trying to see it as something rooted in Christianity. If you don't look at it that way, they all have their own fully developed plots, with deep, round characters and a complex world that exists for its own sake, completely independent of Christianity.
Even the black and white/good vs. evil nature of the books is not something I see as propaganda. Yeah, that's not how war works...but it can be how overcoming personal conflicts can work. We can just look at it like the orcs represent some conflict that should be overcome, and that's why they're so flat of characters. The conflict has no mind. It's just kind of a mindless problem to be dealt with. Maybe the conflict is getting the courage to ask a girl on a date like Sam did at the end of the movie or something.
At least...I don't think it's Christian propaganda. I guess it kind of desensitizes people to violence, but many people already crave seeing violent action anyway and would seek that out without the movie.
I like the Game of Thrones books which are a lot more realistic, unpredictable and with complex characters, but I don't think they can beat the good old fashioned fun and moving stories of Tolkien. We like stories about good guys and bad guys because they're fun. The Game of Thrones can be entertaining...but can also be downright depressing sometimes. I have to be in a particular mood to want to read about characters I've grown fond of dying unexpectedly. Tolkien just gives people exactly what they want: a story with a fairly predictable plot, with good guys to root for and bad guys to root against and it's fun for that reason, and moving. People are going to look for that kind of good guy vs. bad guy, simple escapism somewhere. The search would still exist regardless of whether or not Tolkiens' books did. What people read just wouldn't be as entertaining without him, I think.
Good post. No, I don't think he went out to do a bit of preaching - C.S Lewis certainly did in the Narnia series - but I think he drew on ideas and preferences that were in his head. In some ways he says what the are. Originally the elvish tales were told by some old bore to a bunch of storybook kids, and he fed them some trash about old time chivalry was noble and decent and not like modern warfare. This Goldenage fallacy shown that he hadn't read much history of warfare. It was a dirtier business then than now, despite we have the ability to obliterate armies with a couple of airstrikes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wraith
forcing on me "You know I'm right - you just deny it" as a unilateral win is SPITE of having lost every point (1) when it is pretty clear what a crummy ploy that is. At least when I point it out.
I could not see any future in "Lost" though I gather a story developed as it went on. And I must be the only person in UK who could not bear "The Office". 
