Moderator: Community Team


What kind of geeks are you hanging out with?Dukasaur wrote:It used to be you could go anywhere, anytime, and if you didn't know anybody you could start a conversation about Lord of the Rings and soon everybody would be jumping in.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
I saw those. They were too expensive to buy at the time, and now I'm kicking myself. Should have made the sacrifice and bought them anyway.jimboston wrote:Ever see the graphic novel versions?
Drawn by artist David Wenzel...
Beautiful stuff.
I don't think they were too long per se. What was too long were the battle scenes. A friend of mine summarized The Two Towers movie as, "they cut out everything in the book that wasn't a battle." While that may have been a bit of an exaggeration, it's largely on point. When you read The Two Towers, yes of course it's about the war, but the fighting takes up very few of the words in the book. What takes the bulk of the writing are all the human-level stories: the Coming of Age of Merry and Pippin, the Descent Into Madness of Saruman, the Salvation of Theoden, the tragic story of the Ents and the Entwives, the bromance of Legolas and Gimli, the great unrequited love story of Eowyn and Aragorn, the unbreakable loyalty of Sam, etc. Each of these stories in the movie get about a 30-second scene, and then we cut back to the fighting.jimboston wrote: The movies were too long... Hobbit was 3 movies?! Really!?
Yeah, absolutely!jonesthecurl wrote: I dislike the way generally that once there's a movie/TV series, people forget the book. If you say "Peter Pan", "Winnie the Pooh", James Bond", "Starship Troopers", Gone With the Wind", "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest", "Game of Thrones", "Tarzan", "The Avengers"or a thousand others, almost everyone will assume you're talking about the screen versions and not the print ones. It's a shame - dramatisations should add, not take away..
It is its nature Duka,Dukasaur wrote:It used to be you could go anywhere, anytime, and if you didn't know anybody you could start a conversation about Lord of the Rings and soon everybody would be jumping in. Even after society moved from the pubs to Usenet, still there was always a thread about LotR, and even if there wasn't one, you could still get one going without much effort.
Then came the movies. For a while there was a big rise in interest, but it didn't last long, and when it went, it took everything with it. I haven't seen any conversations about LotR in years, and when I try to start one, it falls dead.
In a way, I see this like the life and death of a sun. For billions of years it gives light and heat. Then for a little while it bursts out in a nova, brighter than ever before, but afterwards it falls dead, a crushingly lifeless dark ember.
Did the movies kill the books? Or is the making of a movie the natural tragic ending in the life cycle of a book?
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
so, you are unpredictable,Dukasaur wrote:If you could be any character from Middle Earth, who would you be?
My early favourite was always Beorn.
After I read the Silmarillion I found a whole pile of new characters to want to be, but in the early days it was always Beorn.
I just could not get through that book. Granted I haven’t tried that book since I was 16yo, even though I’ve reread the trilogy and the Hobbit a few times each. I also tried to read some book written by his son, supposedly based on his notes, and it just didn’t flow for me.Dukasaur wrote:If you could be any character from Middle Earth, who would you be?
My early favourite was always Beorn.
After I read the Silmarillion I found a whole pile of new characters to want to be, but in the early days it was always Beorn.


Yep. Twice.riskllama wrote:twice, DB? once seems pretty fair to me, making them read it twice would likely constitute child abuse is some places, these days...



Who would win in a fight? Raistlin or Tom Joad?riskllama wrote:after (finally) getting around to reading "the grapes of wrath" mid lockdown - huge mistake reading arguably the most depressing book i've ever read during a quarantine...- i decided to go the "light & breezy" route & re read a couple dragonlance novels, which i hadn't read in at least 20 years & was glad i did. the first 20-30 books were really good, imo.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! Hallelujah! I'm not the only one!Doc_Brown wrote:I read through the LOTR series every year or so several times prior to the movies coming out. Since the LOTR movies, I think I've only read through the books again once. I'm not entirely sure why I haven't picked them up again and have likewise wondered if the movies killed the enjoyment of the books.
Doc_Brown wrote:And I'm not planning to make any effort to show them the movies that borrowed the title of "The Hobbit" since they have little to do with the book.
What do you mean by dated? Non-fiction might become obsolete as the state of knowledge changes, but why would fiction? A fictional tale should, in theory, be accessible forever. The Canterbury Tales are 600 years old, le Morte d'Artur is 800 years old, the Odyssey might be 2500 years old, and all of them still have their fans.Cookster wrote:Thanks, u just convinced me I should probably go and read the books again - I can only remember the main characters from the films and wouldn't really want to be any of them. The films were certainly too long and yet hopelessly shallow at the same time (yes I am a snob). The books aren't really much fun to read either tbh, worth the effort would u say? There are soo many other books out there afterall and Tolkien is really dated and just plain padded out in many places (imo).
Yes, among my few complaints about Tolkien is the ambiguity of too many similar names.jimboston wrote: One thing about Tolkien’s writing... he made a lot of proper nouns very similar, both place names and characters. It makes it harder to identify and keep separated different characters. I know this is true in real life... try reading books on Medieval English History. Names are very similar for lord’s and Kings... and often they use titles which pass from one person to another, so you need to be cognizant of which “Duke of York” they mean based on the year. Tolkien’s books can be like that at times which slows down the reading.