GRcade

The movies are so much better than the books. I say having given up while trying to read the Fellowship.

It's just so dense and has zero momentum in the plot. It's like reading an encyclopedia from beginning to end, but without learning anything because it's all made up.

wrong wrong wrong wrong
the films try to cram so much into the run time that they feel absolutely rushed and fail to convey the arduous journey/passage of time of the stories themselves.
i like the films but the books are so much more satisfying

I can’t wait until Denster finds this thread and sees people slagging off the books.

i think people who dont like the books are just slow readers and a bit thick tbh






( )

<]:^D wrote:i think people who dont like the books are just slow readers and a bit thick tbh

They are basically children who ought to stick to Harry Potter.

By the way it's the opposite with the Hobbit - the book is good and the films are bad

OrangeRakoon wrote:By the way it's the opposite with the Hobbit - the book is good and the films are bad

Moggy wrote:

<]:^D wrote:i think people who dont like the books are just slow readers and a bit thick tbh

They are basically children who ought to stick to Harry Potter.

I like to think I'm pretty well read - I've read all sorts from more "high brow" works like Milan Kundera and Salman Rushdie, through Ian Mcewan and David Mitchell to more "popular" stuff like Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. To me the LOTR trilogy are just not good books.

And actually, as it has been mentioned, I have read the Harry Potter books and would say I derived more enjoyment from them than I did Lord of The Rings. I'm not saying that they are more worthy, or a greater form of literature, but if I were forced to read a Harry Potter book or a LOTR book I would choose Potter every time.

If people love Tolkein then that's great - I would never deny someone's pleasure in reading something they love, just don't try and make out that anyone who doesn't like it is deficient in some way!

OrangeRakoon wrote:The movies are so much better than the books. I say having given up while trying to read the Fellowship.

It's just so dense and has zero momentum in the plot. It's like reading an encyclopedia from beginning to end, but without learning anything because it's all made up.

Jenuall wrote:

Moggy wrote:

<]:^D wrote:i think people who dont like the books are just slow readers and a bit thick tbh

They are basically children who ought to stick to Harry Potter.

I like to think I'm pretty well read - I've read all sorts from more "high brow" works like Milan Kundera and Salman Rushdie, through Ian Mcewan and David Mitchell to more "popular" stuff like Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. To me the LOTR trilogy are just not good books.

And actually, as it has been mentioned, I have read the Harry Potter books and would say I derived more enjoyment from them than I did Lord of The Rings. I'm not saying that they are more worthy, or a greater form of literature, but if I were forced to read a Harry Potter book or a LOTR book I would choose Potter every time.

If people love Tolkein then that's great - I would never deny someone's pleasure in reading something they love, just don't try and make out that anyone who doesn't like it is deficient in some way!

You're doing a good job of that by yourself.

All of that above was in response to people saying that they are poorly written books. They are obviously not, whether you personally like them or not is a completely different question.

Moggy wrote:I can’t wait until Denster finds this thread and sees people slagging off the books.

There's some heresy being written on this thread.

Preferring to read Harry potter than LOTR is the worst of them. I don't even know where to start with that.


As for the series itself - the poor adaptation of the hobbit does not fill me with confidence and as they don't have the rights to the Silmarillion - I'm struggling where they are going to go with a multi season approach. The downfall of Numenor is not in the LOTR - unless they can use material from the unfinished tales? Either way - I think we'll be looking at padding out akin with what was done with The Hobbit. That doesn't bode well.

OrangeRakoon wrote:It's like reading an encyclopedia from beginning to end, but without learning anything because it's all made up.

It's called 'worldbuilding', mate. It's what makes the book interesting.

In this week's episode, Jojo Baggins, the long-lost cousin of Frodo arrives in the Shire with hi-larious (and sexy) consequences!

Denster wrote:The downfall of Numenor is not in the LOTR

Wrong.

They can use things in the LoTR appendices:

The appendices of The Lord of the Rings comprises six parts:
• Appendix A: Annals of the Kings and Rulers ◦   I The Númenórean Kings
◦  II The House of Eorl
◦ III Durin's Folk

• Appendix B: The Tale of Years (Chronology of the Westlands)
• Appendix C: Family Trees (Hobbits)
• Appendix D: Calendars ◦ Shire Calendar for use in all years
◦ The Calendars

• Appendix E: Writing and Spelling ◦  I Pronunciation of Words and Names
◦ II Writing

• Appendix F ◦  I The Languages and Peoples of the Third Age
◦ II On Translation

I am sure they can crib enough from Appendix A to get away with telling the fall of Númenor.

I don't think they will though. They'll want to stick to things/places that are recognisable from the films.

Moggy wrote:

Jenuall wrote:I like to think I'm pretty well read - I've read all sorts from more "high brow" works like Milan Kundera and Salman Rushdie, through Ian Mcewan and David Mitchell to more "popular" stuff like Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. To me the LOTR trilogy are just not good books.

And actually, as it has been mentioned, I have read the Harry Potter books and would say I derived more enjoyment from them than I did Lord of The Rings. I'm not saying that they are more worthy, or a greater form of literature, but if I were forced to read a Harry Potter book or a LOTR book I would choose Potter every time.

If people love Tolkein then that's great - I would never deny someone's pleasure in reading something they love, just don't try and make out that anyone who doesn't like it is deficient in some way!

You're doing a good job of that by yourself.

All of that above was in response to people saying that they are poorly written books. They are obviously not, whether you personally like them or not is a completely different question.

I would argue that in many ways they are poorly written, and not just from a subjective analysis - however no level of discussion is going to sway anyone on the relative merits and failings of Tolkien's (got it that time! ) prose.

Also what I quoted was:

<]:^D wrote:i think people who dont like the books are just slow readers and a bit thick tbh

That's not having a problem with people who say they are poorly written books, that's having a problem with people who don't like them - which they are more than entitled to.

That said in the cases of LOTR and The Hobbit I would probably still take the books over the films, but that has more to do with my really not getting on well with films directing by Peter Jackson. As I assume this new show is going to be made by an entirely new production company and creative team I'm keeping an open mind about what they might achieve.

Lucien wrote:I'm reading a few of these posts as though they were being read out by Duke Amiel du Hardcore and it's fun.

I've found myself doing this with other things as well

I hope they add don't add sex scenes. Although, what I wouldn't give to see a dwarf shagging an elf.

So much wrong in this thread.

Jenuall wrote:Also what I quoted was:

<]:^D wrote:i think people who dont like the books are just slow readers and a bit thick tbh

That's not having a problem with people who say they are poorly written books, that's having a problem with people who don't like them - which they are more than entitled to.

Yes but <]:^D's post was in reply to well thought out criticism like this:

Not watched the films, tried reading the book but got bored and dropped it, its a nice idea and I'm sure many will like it but for me LOTR is a bit gooseberry fool and I don't understand the hype.

It’s fine to not like something, but it is quite obviously wrong to say something as beloved as LoTR is boring or poorly written.

I don’t like reading Shakespeare, but I wouldn’t be daft enough to claim it is gooseberry fool, boring or poorly written. It’s just not for me.

Squinty wrote:I hope they add don't add sex scenes. Although, what I wouldn't give to see a dwarf shagging an elf.

I am sure there are some delete scenes for the Hobbit films where you can see that.

If you're saying that LOTR is poorly written and that you prefer Harry Potter - you clearly are deficient.