[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

File: 71 KB, 549x544, lord-of-the-rings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Mar 11 19:46:30 2012 No.2475200 [Reply] [Original]

Re-reading LotR, and I have to say the movies did a terrible adaptation! When I was a child I though the movie were better, but now I shutter at the thought of all the goodies that were taken out, and the character development that never took place.

Anonymous Sun Mar 11 19:49:30 2012 No.2475209

I didn't like the movies because they seemed to think epic battles or fantasy politics or generic good-vs-evil were the focus of Tolkien, but Tolkien to me was always more about ~ADVENTURE!~. The movies had so little adventure. The world seemed small and concrete.

Anonymous Sun Mar 11 19:53:29 2012 No.2475224

Yeah, I was SO pissed off that they left out Tom Bombadil. He was my favorite character, and he was so vital to the story. Also, how they made Frodo and Sam's
friendship less of a master/servant relationship and more realistic. That fucking pissed me off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 11 20:03:35 2012 No.2475254 >>2475224 The first difference I noticed about the movies was how much of a bitch they made Frodo. In the books he has his shit together, but in the movies they make him out to be a craven.

Anonymous Sun Mar 11 20:09:35 2012 No.2475274

In defense of omitting Tom Bombadil, there was no way they could have remotely pleased anyone, no matter the adaptation. Also, there are things that realistically can't translate over from books to movies just because of the basic differences in the two mediums. I agree with the bitchy Frodo, though, even if Elijah Wood had the look.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 11 20:17:35 2012 No.2475286 >>2475254 >craven someone's been reading a game of thrones

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 11 20:21:35 2012 No.2475294 File: 218 KB, 1600x1064, Stannis and Melisandre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2475286 My initial thought

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 11 20:25:36 2012 No.2475306 Personally I think the films are far superior to the books. Tolkien's prose style is just not very good to me. It's long winded and not very engaging, and he's desperately trying to emulate anglo-saxon texts that are also bone dry.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 11 20:29:35 2012 No.2475322 >>2475209 I think the only movie which really captured it was Fellowship, even though they would have captured it more if they hadn't left out Bombadil

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 11 20:30:36 2012 No.2475331 >>2475224 I totally desagree with you, I fucking hate Tom Bombadil and I think he is completely useless to the story.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 11 20:30:36 2012 No.2475333 Fellowship is ok… the other two movies are awful.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 11 20:33:35 2012 No.2475341 >>2475224 I apologize, I guess my attempt at sarcasm failed. Tom Bombadil was completely unnecessary to the story, and it took quite a lot of willpower on my part to resist the urge to skip that section entirely.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 11 20:42:35 2012 No.2475374 Books>Movies

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 11 20:45:35 2012 No.2475387 >>2475341 >>2475341 Bombadil is important to middle earth fool

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 00:43:39 2012 No.2476173 >>2475387 How is he important?

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 01:42:39 2012 No.2476356

The movies didn't spend enough time on Tom Bombadil.

I mean, nothing in the books holds any kind of literary value without Tom Bombadil.

Also I can't believe they took out the Scouring of the Shire!
That was the most important part of the entire saga! Including the Silmarillion!
I just. . . don't even.

Also Elves showing up at Helm's Deep? What? Fuck these movies, man, books were soooo much beetter.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 01:50:48 2012 No.2476374

>>2476173
First being to ever enter the world or something like that. God of the gods. Not that important really. Even if you read all the extra shit it all amounts to the fact that Tom gives no fucks about anything and just wants to dance in the woods.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 02:03:49 2012 No.2476409 >>2476173 Because without him everything is explainable and part of some sort of structure. Tom Bambadil represents the ineffability of God and the futility of trying to figure the world out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 02:05:49 2012 No.2476417 I think PJ did a fine job of adapting, minus a few obvious character flaws here or there for Frodo and Boromir. You can't really please everyone, and the books always > than the movies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 02:06:49 2012 No.2476418 >>2476374 That's conjecture. No one knows what the hell Tom is, if anything. There's a theory that he's an ancient evil force though: http://km-515.livejournal.com/1042.html

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 02:06:49 2012 No.2476419

>>2476356
Fuck dude. It doesn't have to be an exact retelling. Why not get something new out of it, OMG they used elves!? end of the world!

Watch lord of the rings and it is exactly the same, word for word, then try read the book, shit isn't possible, I tried it with Fear and Loathing, it's boring as hell knowing everything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 02:45:49 2012 No.2476499 >>2476374 Tom probably isn't the God of the gods. "That" being was described in The Silmarillion as Eru (Illuvatar).

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 02:46:49 2012 No.2476500 >>2476499 He's nature.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 02:52:49 2012 No.2476515 >>2476500 You are correct sir

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 02:52:50 2012 No.2476514

>Speculative ideas about his true nature range from one of the Ainur, angelic beings (who came after the Dark Lord and shaped the earth), to God, who is called Eru Ilúvatar and "the One" in Tolkien's legendarium although Tolkien rejected the notion that Bombadil is God.[2] This is however reinforced when Frodo asks Goldberry just who Tom Bombadil is, and she responds by simply saying "He is" (much like the biblical statement about Yahweh, "I Am that I Am").[3]

What the actual fuck is going on - I never will figure it out for myself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 02:55:49 2012 No.2476517 >>2476500 I'd prefer to call him the Ainur that created the foundation for organic life. (lol)

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 02:59:49 2012 No.2476522

>Hastings had also criticised the description of Tom Bombadil by Goldberry — "He is" — saying that this seemed to imply that Bombadil was God. In reply, Tolkien said:

>As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point. [...] You rather remind me of a Protestant relation who to me objected to the (modern) Catholic habit of calling priests Father, because the name father belonged only to the First Person.

Lol

>>	Mito !!2jKQm3m3SUD Mon Mar 12 03:04:50 2012 No.2476528 File: 105 KB, 300x300, The-Lord-Of-The-Rings-The-Return-Of-The-King-The-Complete-Recordings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] REgardless of how shitty the adaptation is, it still is one of the best soundtracks of all time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 03:05:49 2012 No.2476530 >>2476517 What if he is the nature which is also outside the world?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 03:29:50 2012 No.2476560 Everyone ITT needs to read more books. The reaction you're describing about this one instance is common to readers when watching almost any movie adaptation.

Lettuce Read !!98FIOVbXZpJ Mon Mar 12 04:54:52 2012 No.2476699

> first 150 pages: a mind-numbing barrage of shire innocence/ awful tom bombadil poetry

> hideously jovial tone throughout the whole series - dramatic tension never achieved

> black and white battle of good vs evil. conservative christian values reinforced. monarchy justified. whole world must wait for "the return of the king" to be saved. the people are helpless without their noble better.

> pages and pages of "world building" - a fantasy euphemism for "i'm a boring writer and I have nothing else to add at this point so I'm going to up the word count in order to increase sales" -> just ask GRRM.

The book doesn't do justice to the film.
It's only famous because Tolkien was the first to popularise the genre now known as epic fantasy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 05:12:53 2012 No.2476740 >>2476699 >Shit books >Good films >fuck your adventure time >Bombadil = superfluous pedo homosex WHO JUST REALLY LIKES TO WATCH NUDE HOBBITS DANCE AROUND

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 05:21:53 2012 No.2476750

>People actually bitching about Bombadil not being in the movie

The fuck is wrong with you people? Bom-bom-ba--dil-o can go fuck himself. He stops the story dead and serves no purpose than to make Sauron and the blight of middle earth look like meaningless shit. "Oh bro let me see your ring...o. Nah nigga this shit ain't got no power"

It would have killed the movie

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 05:27:53 2012 No.2476756
File: 58 KB, 300x355, tombombadil.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2476514
That "He is" thing is misleading. He is, in the sense that he abides. He just is.

Tolkien specifically said, he's there to be a mystery. Some things shouldn't be pinned down. Of course, I think he might have done just as well not to have Silmarillion'ed the fuck out of everything and explained every goddamn nook and cranny of the setting, but one fat fruit in the woods is good too.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 05:29:52 2012 No.2476760

>>2476699
>It's only famous because Tolkien was the first to popularise the genre
>popularise
okay.... so its only famous because it made entire genre popular... the whole of that sentence "people only like it because people like it". I'm stuck in a tautology spiral here. Do you really not see the pointlessness of what you said?

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 05:32:52 2012 No.2476763

>>2476756

Trying to find meaning in Tom is a fools game. Especially when you look at how Tolkien worked. He din't have a plan and if he hit a roadblock that old mother fucker would just start all over. If he didn't know, how the fuck is anyone else meant to?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 06:44:52 2012 No.2476807 >>2476763 Replace Tom with "life". Replace Tolkien with "the world".

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 08:19:54 2012 No.2476863 Does nobody in this thread understand sarcasm?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]