Are you gonna watch it?
Are you gonna watch it?
It looks good I think I may
I hadn’t heard about it, thanks for posting! I will be going to watch it!!
Welcome guys. @Greenfields
I’d heard of it. I’ll give it a try. But honestly the professor’s way of creating and latter life history are rather quiet and what are they going to show us JRR running tutorials for his pupils? Engaging in debates with C.S. Lewis? In his private life JRR was a very reserved and quiet man and a bit of a homebody. I’ve not been overly impressed by the film adaptions so far of his work thus far. The first three had the style but the substance became increasingly thin as they went on and the movies adapting the Hobbit were as you Americans say a, ‘hot mess’.
Must agree with you about the adaptations of his works on screen. Fellowship had its moments, but from there the plunge was pretty steep; I can hardly bare to watch Return of the King, and have stayed far, far away from Hobbit films.
As for the OP, thank you for the heads up. I might go and see it!
I’d largely agree, Fellowship for the most part stayed reasonably close to the books but had its problem but Return of the King is where I also had problems. When Aragon in a moment chosen to make him ‘kewl’ and which totally misunderstood the character sliced of the head of the Mouth of Sauron whilst they were parleying that was where I parted ways with the adaptions. Those three initial movies had some saving graces though such as least recognizing to some degree some of Tolkien’s deeper themes. However, the Hobbit movies with nonsense about romances between Elves and Dwarves seemed to be happening in some other world more akin to Dungeons and Dragons Forgotten Realms.
Regarding the LOTR films, Joseph Pearce and Peter Kreeft have commented on how they drastically diluted the character of Faramir. He is presented as just a nice guy, but in the book there are crucial distinctions of morality and virtue.
But I don’t complain too much. If a small fraction of the viewers go on to read the book, that is a blessing.
I just wish they had not eliminated the Scouring of the Shire.
Agreed, sir, and Tom Bombadil!
The Scoring of the Shire I have mixed feelings about. I can see why someone adapting it might scrub although it does form an essential part of the books and represent how the themes of evil vs good are found close to home as well as in ‘epic’ confrontations.
My understanding is that the rights to adaptations of the Sillmarilion, Unfinished Tales, etc have not been sold yet
I believe you are right. The Silmarillion would strike me as inherently problematic to do, I love it but even some Tolkien fans struggle to read it.
As a long-time Tolkien fan, I find the movies pretty dreadful, and the Hobbit was even worse.
I just can’t imagine how a movie about the man himself would be interesting. His childhood was very difficult, his mother raised him and his brother as a single parent, and it was with a great deal of help from a Catholic Priest (whose name I forget), and I suspect that is why Tolkien was a very strong Catholic his whole life. He fought in WWI, and spent a great deal of time in an infirmary, though those experiences shaped his writing, and his view of warfare (his battles in the mythos are often quite detailed).
But as an adult, he was an Oxford professor, chummed around with other writers and professors, wrote a lot of letters, raised a family, and wrote books and essays. His was not exactly a life filled with adventure, in fact, he didn’t seem to like adventure at all (which probably informs Bilbo’s response to Gandalf at the beginning of The Hobbit).
What I’d love to see is one of the stories from the Silmarillion; perhaps the Turin saga (though it does have unintentional incest). I think those stories, which are less complex in narrative and plot structure than The Lord of the Rings, would translate well.
The Silmarillion could be episodic in nature, but how would you ever make a visual version of the Ainulindale (and really, it’s just a variant of the Fall of Satan, except the action focuses on Melkor’s rebellion in Heaven, and not on Earth).
I enjoyed LotR but the Hobbit movies were indeed dreadful…the only redeemable part was the very ebginning of the first one with Frodo and old Bilbo and the song Over the Misty Mountains…that is beautiful!
I’d love to see the Akallabeth…Numenor has always fascinated me!
Numenor makes a sort of cameo appearance in C.S. Lewis’s work where the fact the character Ransom knows what Numenor and the ‘true west’ are is enough to convince a revived Merlin he is the Pendragon in ‘That Hideous Strength’.
Tolkien admired that Lewis series, though I recall he didn’t like the last one very much. He found Lewis dipped too readily into allegory, which Tolkien disliked. I know Tolkien didn’t much like the Narnia series, precisely because of the Christian allegorical elements. Tolkien stated LotR, and indeed his whole mythos, was Catholic in nature, but he rarely made it obvious. The Fall of Man was intentionally left “off-screen”. The most that the first Men could or would tell the Elves when they encountered them was there was a darkness in their past that they were fleeing. The Elves, themselves, were something of an image of unfallen man, more like the Ainur (angels) than men, though obviously quite capable of very human emotions; like hatred and arrogance.
I find Narnia a bit too rooted in the world of 1950’s middle-class kids. It is readable and has a lot of good points but I think Tolkien was right to not be so obvious and avoid allegory . Amusingly Tolkien whom I love seems to have had some dislike for the myths of my own nation as made several comments about Irish myth and legend which are not very flattering, on the other hand he was also paradoxically one of the external examiners for Trinity College in Ireland for many years and although he did not approve of Irish nationalism was considered very fair in marking people. Which is reflective of his personality. Tolkien was very, very British and never pretended to be otherwise but his speech by Faramir about not loving empires for the sake of empires is probably indicative of how he viewed the what Britain should or could have aspired to be.
Perhaps, but what of Feanor? He was definitely something else lol!
I enjoyed reading the History of Middle Earth and the part about the Fall of Man…I wish that he would have expounded on it and their Gift of Death. He seemed to allude to the fact that it (Death) was the better of the gifts to the Children of Eru simply b/c it allowed the Men to escape the confines of Ea which bound the Ainur and Elves.
The original intent of the work that would become the Silmarillion was to give England a mythology. That got obscured by the 1930s as his vision of the mythos changed. Fundamentally, though, he was reworking German mythology, and I think felt less attraction to Celtic mythology, though, ironically, Welsh was one of the original inspirations for the Elvish languages; he loved the look of the words and the sound of the Welsh language.
What many people don’t realize is that Tolkien spent as much time developing the Elvish languages as he did writing any of the mythical works. He had started constructing the language at least as far back as his student days at Oxford, and even after he had largely abandoned attempting to finish the Silmarillion in the mid-1960s, he continued developing the languages. The Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings are really a sort of applied linguistics; his view was that a language required people to speak it, so he created a mythology populated by people who spoke the languages he invented.