Daystrom Institute Technical Library
https://mail.ditl.org/forum/
I strongly recommend that you give the books another chance... if not The Silmarillion or the Lost Tales collections (which I find read like a technical manual,) then at least the trilogy. Aside from my dislike of some of Jackson's choices for the films, Tolkien presents a depth of milieu which cannot ever be captured on film.Reliant121 wrote:I admit readily to not having read the books, purely because I found them so tedious to start with. BUT, the personalities of the Hobbits, Gandalf and the elves seemed SO different in the beginning of FotR.
What if the film was made as some sort of a documentary, a historical report of all that happened?Mikey wrote:I strongly recommend that you give the books another chance... if not The Silmarillion or the Lost Tales collections (which I find read like a technical manual,) then at least the trilogy. Aside from my dislike of some of Jackson's choices for the films, Tolkien presents a depth of milieu which cannot ever be captured on film.Reliant121 wrote:I admit readily to not having read the books, purely because I found them so tedious to start with. BUT, the personalities of the Hobbits, Gandalf and the elves seemed SO different in the beginning of FotR.
Sounds like a task that's a bit too all-encompassing. The allure of the novels, IMHO, is the peeks and hints of the massive backstory/history/mythology of Middle Earth. Trying to portray that through a docu-style film would be tantamount to trying to make a watchable documentary about the U.S.' involvement in Viet Nam while still revealing in an understandable manner the entire history of the nation without making a film about U.S. history.shran wrote:What if the film was made as some sort of a documentary, a historical report of all that happened?Mikey wrote:I strongly recommend that you give the books another chance... if not The Silmarillion or the Lost Tales collections (which I find read like a technical manual,) then at least the trilogy. Aside from my dislike of some of Jackson's choices for the films, Tolkien presents a depth of milieu which cannot ever be captured on film.Reliant121 wrote:I admit readily to not having read the books, purely because I found them so tedious to start with. BUT, the personalities of the Hobbits, Gandalf and the elves seemed SO different in the beginning of FotR.
The richness of the history is indeed enormous and is indeed a daunting task of being put on to film, but if the story is less focussed on characters Hollywood-style, the rest of the universe might get the breathing space to show itself as it deserves.
I strongly suggest you do. Fellowship is a pretty hard slog at times, especially before Rivendell, but TT and RotK are considerably better.Reliant121 wrote:I suppose I could try. I stopped mostly because the opening chapters of FotR make it some of the only book/text etc. that I actively hated. But, I can try again.
Lighthawk wrote:Well if we are going to allow books in a long running series, then pretty much every one of the Dresden Files after the first.
Yeah... Holy Shit did "Changes" live up to it's name...
Yeah it did. It was both the best and worst of the series for me.Sonic Glitch wrote:
How so if I may ask?Lighthawk wrote:Yeah it did. It was both the best and worst of the series for me.Sonic Glitch wrote:
Though the zombie rex is still the most awesome thing that's been done.
I'll assume you were asking about my comment on Changes, because if I have to explain the zombie rex thing there's just no hope for you.Sonic Glitch wrote:How so if I may ask?Lighthawk wrote:Yeah it did. It was both the best and worst of the series for me.Sonic Glitch wrote:
Though the zombie rex is still the most awesome thing that's been done.
Indeed. It was almost, "How much can we kick him?" However, I'm very excited to see where the series goes from here.Lighthawk wrote:I'll assume you were asking about my comment on Changes, because if I have to explain the zombie rex thing there's just no hope for you.Sonic Glitch wrote:How so if I may ask?Lighthawk wrote:
Yeah it did. It was both the best and worst of the series for me.
Though the zombie rex is still the most awesome thing that's been done.
Changes was for me the book that fluctuated the most between awesome highs and crushing lows. And so many things I've wanted to see happen, just almost but then not really happened.
Basically for every good thing that happened, there was a bad thing, and so it see-sawed on me a lot.
Well we probably differ in that I don't regard "It's not identical to the book" as a valid criticism. And I've never read the books anyway - from what I hear of them they are horribly boring to read.Captain Seafort wrote:Film.Deepcrush wrote:Are we talking about the film or novel?
Agreed, absolutely.Because Two Towers (novel) was better where Fellowship (Film) was the better
Agreed again, although I'm not a great fan of the film. Its visuals were extremely impressive, but the trek across Mordor and Aragorn's move to the Black Gate felt badly rushed, the lighthouse of Mordor was downright stupid, and they missed out what was probably the most important aspect of the book - the Scouring of the Shire.RotK (both) were impressive in scope but I just didn't feel connected with the characters in the fashion I felt that I should have.