Welcome to LOTR General Discussions

Cannot see how anybody could make a film that much closer to the books, given that each must be realised within a 3 hour sitting.
While the films do contain some omissions, notably Bombadil and the scouring of the Shire, they do not add anything to the plot. While a few of the more nauseating additions (Aragorn and Arwen) give a valid insight to the greater part of the story background as laid out in the Appendices.

A TV serialisation might appear at some time, but it will have to be one of the big BBC/ITV drama seasons. Anything from the US will be 'Based' on the works of JRR Tolkien, in the same way as the Lost World TV series is 'Based' on the works of Arthur Conan Doyle and will largely involve Arwen getting in trouble with Aragorn and Legolas doing the rescuing :mad: .

Think I would put more hope on somebody putting a series together based on The Hobbit or Farmer Giles.

But if you are impatient for a full rendition of LOTR and/or The Hobbit in drama form, there is always the BBC radio series.
 
While I seriously doubt we're going to be seeing another film version of LotR anytime soon -- no matter how much is saved, it would still be a massive undertaking just to do the primary filming on such a thing! -- I do expect it to happen sometime; it's the nature of the beastie. Once something like this has been successful, someone will remake it somewhere down the line. Better or worse, it will happen.

However, Ray, I must disagree with you at least on the Scouring of the Shire. While the Bombadil episode may or may not have advanced the plot (personally, I think it plays an integral part in the plot of the novel), the Scouring of the Shire is absolutely essential to what Tolkien was going with the characters and necessary to the plot of the novel itself. Without it, there would have been no growth, and ultimately no point, as it brought home the effects of the shadow which was being fought. Therefore the film lost an essential element in the story ... forgiveable, I grant, but it detracts from the impact and seriously alters the outcome... in the novel, because the Shirefolk had had a taste of what was going on in the outside world, they began to grow up, and became more involved in the world as a whole, and had respect for the travelers; in the film, since that was lacking, they were given short shrift and, essentially, nothing had changed. So we were lacking what was, in a sense, the ultimate climax of the novel ... the impact of this grand quest that was so far over their heads being brought home in a very personal, impactful way.
 
I agree that the scouring added more perspective to the Hobbits, brought closure to the lives of the Hobbit heroes and would have been nice to include, it did little to advance the story of the War for the Destruction of the Ring and would have added another half hour of film.

Indeed, reading the Appendicies, I submit that little actually changed for the Hobbits after the event. A few more foreigners passed through their land, a King now sat on the throne and a few Hobbits are well in with him, but they remained a simple and largely introvert rural community. Possibly a few did wander further afield, but as the book had earlier observed, this was not new and Hobbits had frequent trade dealings with men.

As for Bombadil, I believe he was an insert to tidy some loose ends and try and make the journey to Bree interesting and dangerous. Indeed Christopher Tolkien has stated that Bombadil was not in the early drafts of the book, which puts a certain validity to my opinion.
 
Yes, I've read the HoME and such... but, as any writer knows, how the book evolves as you get further along can make radical changes in even basic plot at times, and in the finished novel I'd argue that the Old Forest and Bombadil played very important roles. If one is going for the "bare-bones" plot -- the trip to Mount Doom -- then everything else that comes along is secondary, really. And with Tolkien's intent, that is simply not the case. If nothing else, it provides a clearer picture of the dangers inherent in the world just beyond the Shire; it ties them in with the history in which they are now involved, via the acquiring of the weapons from the Barrow-Downs (which would not have happened had they not been waylaid in the forest by Old Man Willow), it introduced another thread that resurfaced here and there in the book, as Bombadil is considered at the Council of Elrond as a guardian for the Ring; it gives a deeper understanding of the fact that this quest of the ring is, in essence, the quest for the very nature of Middle-Earth, and is tied to all that has gone before which, unless, as I said, one wants a precis definition of the plot, are all parts of a very intricate plot that did indeed grow "in the telling".

And, as for the idea that the Hobbits were still insular -- yes, but considerably less so. I've not read the book without reading the appendices each time, and I've read the darned thing well over 20 times now... the changes are subtle, perhaps, but there, and no less important for being subtle; and they do indeed become more involved in the world, and interested in their place in history because of the events of the War of the Ring, and its impact on their own home. But, even more importantly, it's the impact of this final turn of the screw on the main characters that makes this an important part of the plot. It is the end of their lives as they were before they left -- which they were in danger of falling into once more had they returned to an unchanged Shire -- and their final maturation into something greater than what they were, on a permanent basis. It takes the trauma they were in danger of burying and forces them to turn it into their strength ... and, after all, the entire book is told from the point of view of the hobbits, and is concerned with their maturation (hence the note on the title page "as seen by the hobbits" in the rune-writing). So, no, I can't agree that either point was negligible where the plot was concerned, any more than I could consider the fallout of Reconstruction in post-Civil-War America to be inessential as an element of plot in a novel about Lincoln's assassination and its effect on that nation.
 
Very aware of how the addition, subtraction or rearrangement of even a couple of words can vastly change the perspective of a story. Also acutely aware of many writers need to not only belt and brace a plot point, but copperplate, apply scaffolding and a big flashing neon sign as well. As writers have little more than a minimum page requirement, it is worth the effort to add all the sub-plots to expand the fantasy.

But, I submit, for film, where your output is limited, there are other more economical means of making points. In this case the actions of Boromir covetting the ring, Othmeil(?) in Lorien (awful memory for names) and the Ringwraiths searching the Shire, made as much if not more impact regarding the rings dangers while adding their own sub-contexts.

If the film had been entitled the Social and Political Development of Hobbits, then Bombadil would have been far more important, for the reasons you expound, and they could have cut out all the Hobbitless nonsense at Wolfhelm and the Paths of the Dead to make room. As it is, the film chose to stay with the War of the Ring and Tom for all his value to the possible greater meaning of the written work, is a minor sub-plot.

So, no, I can't agree that either point was negligible where the plot was concerned, any more than I could consider the fallout of Reconstruction in post-Civil-War America to be inessential as an element of plot in a novel about Lincoln's assassination and its effect on that nation.
Click to expand...
Afraid I can't comment on Lincoln's assasination, I never knew him. But I would observe that while large political structures and societies can change radically very quickly, the social changes for the greater population, especially in rural areas, are invariably minimal i.e. Farmer Giles is still ploughing with the same horse, he still attends the same church, goes to the same market, his wife is still the daughter of the same farrier etc. Looking at my local town, in 2000 years of shovelling rock from the mountains, the number of times a major social change has been effected can be counted on one hand and only one of those (the formation of the NHS) was due to a national event.
 
yes, I do have to admit I was slightly apalled they left off the Scouring of the Shire. But after so many years and so much money, I imagine the coronation looked like a good stopping point! I'm glad they left out Tom Bombadil and much of the first part of the Fellowship--I always speed through that part anyway.
 
One thing about all the changes they made from the books: in my case, it certainly restored some of the suspense. There was no way of knowing what might happen next, since they kept introducing so many new scenes. The first time I saw FOTR, when Frodo came home and there were signs that someone was in the house, I was convinced he was about to be jumped by a ringwraith (although I should have known it was going to be Gandalf). In fact, the Nazgûl terrified me to such an extent that I flinched whenever they appeared (and jumped out of my seat every time they screeched); even though I knew that none of the Hobbits were going to be snatched up and carried off to Mordor. Because part of me wasn't quite sure ...
 
no, but I put "The Road Goes Ever on" and "All that is Gold Does Not Glitter" to music long ago when I was a guitar-playing teenager. Really bad music. And I can never think or read those poems without hearing the music!

I usually go straight from A Long Awaited Party straight to At the Sign of the Prancing Party. Hey, I've read the whole saga 30 times or something, so it's not like I'm missing anything.

The only problem with leaving that part out in the movie is that the chapter about the Barrow Downs has important back story information and foreshadowing. For example, the point (!pun alert!) about Pippin's sword piercing the flesh of the Nazgul King because it came from a barrow of one of the men of the west was missed.
 
Oh, hey everyone!
Just saying hi, because it might happen that I might be spending 2.636354% of my life in this section of the forum!

Are you discussing anything in particular, or anything that comes to mind?
 
Damn old thread but im reading Fellowship of The Ring right now.


Gotta say im finding it very easy to read,enjoy the story. Only read alittle over 100 pages but so far alot has happened and not as much discriptions as people say it is.

I must say i have read alot worse language,prose to get use to than his.

What is a nice surprise is how much the movie cut out that is very new to me. I havent seen the movies in years plus alot of the early story wasnt in the first movie.


So far my favorit part is the backstory for Gollum. I liked seeing where he came from and how he ended up becoming Gollum.
 
Have you hit the Council of Elrond chapter yet? (I forget how how far into the book that occurs, it's been a while and I haven't got a copy with me right now) If I remember correctly, there's plenty of description in that chapter :D
 
Heh i saw that the descriptions procent got raised with like 200% when they met the elves in the woods but it still easy to read cause of his writing style.
 
Yes, you get a lot of history in the "The Council of Elrond". I realize this is the bane of the book for many readers, but I find it's one of my favorite parts...

Oh, and Connavar -- if you've not seen the extended versions of the films, you've been missing a lot. I couldn't stand the theatrical version of Fellowship, but I'm very fond of the extended version... much, much closer to Tolkien's vision in many ways, and they include heaps of the nice, subtle touches in the book as well....
 
j. d. worthington said:
Yes, you get a lot of history in the "The Council of Elrond". I realize this is the bane of the book for many readers, but I find it's one of my favorite parts...

Oh, and Connavar -- if you've not seen the extended versions of the films, you've been missing a lot. I couldn't stand the theatrical version of Fellowship, but I'm very fond of the extended version... much, much closer to Tolkien's vision in many ways, and they include heaps of the nice, subtle touches in the book as well....
Click to expand...


Its a blessing then that i havent seen the extended version,making the book more fresh to me.

Alot of history is good IMO, so far i liked best when Gandalf was telling the history of the rings,Golloum etc to Frodo.

Heh now i wonder what "The Council of Elrond" is like :)
 
If you enjoy back-story, Conn, that chapter will make your day...:D
 
Not to mention the mysteries surrounding Tom Bombadil, Goldberry, Old Man Willow, and the barrow-wights....
 
Connavar I envy you. When I first read LOTR as a young teen I was enraptured and got so absorbed that the Nazgul turned my blood to ice, and when Shelob showed up I had to put the book down and go away until I stopped freaking out (took a few days). Ah, to have that fresh experience again...must be weird for you doing the first read after its all been discussed so much.
 
:DProbably, Pro, although some 10 months later, Conn's probably on his 3rd time thru by now if he continued to like them as much as he's posted on this thread...*wonders what was lost in the great October Crash*:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Prompt~ly Box New challenge for writers.. all genres welcome Promotions 0
Huds Any Pre-loved, unwanted Star Wars fictions Welcomed and WANTED! Book Discussion 15
Magic_Muscle Mini-Workshop: Writers of all skill levels welcome Workshop 1
ctg 6.02: Fear The Walking Dead - Welcome to the Club Fear The Walking Dead 12
R Welcome to LOTR Character Discussions JRR Tolkien 0

Similar threads


Back
Top