Lord of the Rings

[TeenageRepublican]

When it comes to fantasy, J.R.R. Tolkien is my guy. I've read the Lord of the Rings at least twice and I love the movies. J.R.R. Tolkien was friends with C.S. Lewis who wrote the Narnia books.

C.S. Lewis had more Christian elements in his stuff, Tolkien's stuff is kind of hard to solve.

I really see the historical elements in Tolkien's books. In a way, it's like a fantasy version of WW2.
The Christian elements in his books have me confused. I'm trying to figure out if Gandalf is supposed to be the Jesus of Middle Earth. Just look at him. He had a group of followers, died saving them, came back, saved them again, and went away on the White Ships.
I'm not sure if Tolkien put Christian elements in this or not. Does anybody out there know?

I might be wrong on this, but didn't Tolkien convert C.S. Lewis and make him a Christian?

[Gonzo67]

Tolkien did not put his religion into his books. He was a professor of languages and Middle Earth was originally created by him as an 'escape" much of it being imagined and developed while we was serving in the army during the World War.

a lot of the imagery from the book is taken from his personal experiences. The dream that Faramir has, about standing on the precipice of the abyss with a great wave crashing toward him was, according to Tolkien, a dream he had. The characters were also loosely based on people he knew and respected. The tale of Beren and Luthien which is a central theme throughout the books is actually a description of himself and his wife. He went so far as to base their meeting on the first time he met his wife. Beren lost in the wilderness, stumbled upon Luthien. He watched her from cover singing and dancing in a field. This was how he met his future wife. It wasn't as "fantasy based" as he made it in the story, but the elements were the same. He saw her for the first time in a park, she was dancing and singing.

The role of Gandalf in the story is not that of a "God" but more of a messenger.
Tolkiens whole theme throughout the novels was that everyone serves someone. Whether they know it or not. Gandalf was an Istari, one of the wizards. He served the Valar. For the whole story of the origins of the Istari, the Maijar, the Valar, and the main races of the story (Elves, Men and Dwarves) you would need to read his Novel, The Silmarilion. It's the full back story of Middle Earth, telling of the Elves exile to Middle Earth, the coming of Men, and the creation of the Dwarves. But I warn you, it reads like a Bible, but there's nothing really "Biblical" about it.

Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels is probably one of the most in depth story ever written. He created an entire universe from the beginning. From the creation, to "present day". The languages of the Elves and Dwarves are complete languages. He invented and developed himself. Though they're not recognized as "legitimate" languages such as English, French, etc. They are fully functional languages down to syntax, grammar, usage, etc. He also wrote books teaching those languages. Two people that have studied and learned them can actually carry on a completely lucid discussion with each other.

A lot of people think Tolkien just "wrote some story" but he did far more than that, he is the only mortal man I know that has actually created a fully functional world, with a complete history and it's own functional dynamics. Granted, that world only exists in imagination and in print, but he was infinitely more talented than many people give him credit for.

I myself have read the full trilogy many, many times. Cover to cover. I've worn out more than a few copies. I agree that the movies were good, at least as good as can be when converting a novel to the screen, but they are seriously lacking when compared to the books.

A new Tolkien novel was released recently, The Children Of Hurin, which is supposedly written by J.R.R. Tolkien, but I haven't bought it. I'm still undecided if I will or not. I suspect it's nothing more than a "theft" of his fathers noted by Christopher Tolkien, in order to milk more money off his fathers work. I don't know. Maybe I'll break down and buy it before passing judgment. But I find it hard to believe Christopher, if he was as concerned for Tolkien's fans as he claims to be, would have kept this book under wraps for this long before releasing it.

[mkafrica]

A new Tolkien novel was released recently, The Children Of Hurin, which is supposedly written by J.R.R. Tolkien, but I haven't bought it. I'm still undecided if I will or not. I suspect it's nothing more than a "theft" of his fathers noted by Christopher Tolkien, in order to milk more money off his fathers work. I don't know. Maybe I'll break down and buy it before passing judgment. But I find it hard to believe Christopher, if he was as concerned for Tolkien's fans as he claims to be, would have kept this book under wraps for this long before releasing it.

I had heard that he recently came across the manuscript for that one. Christopher Tolkien was going back through his fathers' papers, and found it somewhere. Of course, I could be mistaken :D

[Gonzo67]

I had heard that he recently came across the manuscript for that one. Christopher Tolkien was going back through his fathers' papers, and found it somewhere. Of course, I could be mistaken


Yes, but that's what gives me reason to be suspicious. He also made that claim when he published The Silmarilion after his fathers death.

And then his release of the rights for The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings to EA games for their video game version. After their butcher job of the story, not a word was spoken in objection by Christopher. He allowed them to release the piles they called "adaptations of the Tolkien novels" and not only did they fail in their attempts at staying relatively true to the story, they took far too much "creative licensing" with the ideology behind the story. Christopher allowed this, which suggests to me his interest is not his father's work, but geared more toward the money he can make off his fathers work now that Tolkien is dead.

J.R.R. Tolkien was critical of his own work for the sake of the fans. Chris Tolkien doesn't care about the story line, so long as that check clears the bank.

[TeenageRepublican]

Tolkien did not put his religion into his books. He was a professor of languages and Middle Earth was originally created by him as an 'escape" much of it being imagined and developed while we was serving in the army during the World War.

a lot of the imagery from the book is taken from his personal experiences. The dream that Faramir has, about standing on the precipice of the abyss with a great wave crashing toward him was, according to Tolkien, a dream he had. The characters were also loosely based on people he knew and respected. The tale of Beren and Luthien which is a central theme throughout the books is actually a description of himself and his wife. He went so far as to base their meeting on the first time he met his wife. Beren lost in the wilderness, stumbled upon Luthien. He watched her from cover singing and dancing in a field. This was how he met his future wife. It wasn't as "fantasy based" as he made it in the story, but the elements were the same. He saw her for the first time in a park, she was dancing and singing.

The role of Gandalf in the story is not that of a "God" but more of a messenger.
Tolkiens whole theme throughout the novels was that everyone serves someone. Whether they know it or not. Gandalf was an Istari, one of the wizards. He served the Valar. For the whole story of the origins of the Istari, the Maijar, the Valar, and the main races of the story (Elves, Men and Dwarves) you would need to read his Novel, The Silmarilion. It's the full back story of Middle Earth, telling of the Elves exile to Middle Earth, the coming of Men, and the creation of the Dwarves. But I warn you, it reads like a Bible, but there's nothing really "Biblical" about it.

Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels is probably one of the most in depth story ever written. He created an entire universe from the beginning. From the creation, to "present day". The languages of the Elves and Dwarves are complete languages. He invented and developed himself. Though they're not recognized as "legitimate" languages such as English, French, etc. They are fully functional languages down to syntax, grammar, usage, etc. He also wrote books teaching those languages. Two people that have studied and learned them can actually carry on a completely lucid discussion with each other.

A lot of people think Tolkien just "wrote some story" but he did far more than that, he is the only mortal man I know that has actually created a fully functional world, with a complete history and it's own functional dynamics. Granted, that world only exists in imagination and in print, but he was infinitely more talented than many people give him credit for.

I myself have read the full trilogy many, many times. Cover to cover. I've worn out more than a few copies. I agree that the movies were good, at least as good as can be when converting a novel to the screen, but they are seriously lacking when compared to the books.

A new Tolkien novel was released recently, The Children Of Hurin, which is supposedly written by J.R.R. Tolkien, but I haven't bought it. I'm still undecided if I will or not. I suspect it's nothing more than a "theft" of his fathers noted by Christopher Tolkien, in order to milk more money off his fathers work. I don't know. Maybe I'll break down and buy it before passing judgment. But I find it hard to believe Christopher, if he was as concerned for Tolkien's fans as he claims to be, would have kept this book under wraps for this long before releasing it.

Since he was friends with C.S. Lewis, I figured he did the same thing. Thanks for answering my question.

I've read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. I haven't heard of The Simarilion. I'll try to check that out.

I saw a documentary, I think it's on one of the Lord of the Rings DVDs, that claimed J.R.R. Tolkien put historical events from the real world in to Middle Earth. If it's true, then I can see that Sauron represents Hitler and his quest to wipe out an entire culture. I'm still wondering if that one's true or not.

I also if there's such a thing as the Tolkien Mythos (like the Lovecraft Mythos) that keeps inspiring writers to add more and more to the stuff. I hope that all of the fans are respectful enough to not add anymore to it.

[Gonzo67]

I saw a documentary, I think it's on one of the Lord of the Rings DVDs, that claimed J.R.R. Tolkien put historical events from the real world in to Middle Earth. If it's true, then I can see that Sauron represents Hitler and his quest to wipe out an entire culture. I'm still wondering if that one's true or not.


It's not so much "Historical People" that he paraphrased, but Historical Events. Political opinions, Society Values, etc, all were mirrored in Lord Of The Rings. But he didn't sit down and say, "Ok, Suaron is the equivalent of Modern Day Hitler".

As a matter of fact, in the Lord Of The Rings, Sauron was nothing more than a "bit player". He was a minor character. Most people believe Frodo, Gandalf, or even Aragorn to be the main, central character. In fact, the main character of the story is The Ring itself. The story is not actually about Frodo's journey to destroy the ring, the story is actually about The Ring's journey back to Sauron. The Ring had a Voice, it had a presence, it was an actual character of the story. I think that is one point that Peter Jackson failed miserably at conveying in the movies.

The movies were good in their own right. I understand what Jackson said in a few of the interviews about the difficulty of translating the book to film. I'm one of the ones who would have preferred they simply use the book as the script, and stayed 100% true to the way it was written. But the time-line that Tolkien used made that next to impossible. Chapters were not split between the characters. When The Fellowship broke, the chapters began alternating, following one half of the Fellowship, at this particular moment in time, and then the next chapter would be about the other half of The Fellowship, taking place at the same time as the events in the previous chapter. This could not work on film, there is too much jumping forward and back in time.

Then there was the problem with length. The book itself (Notice I said BOOK and not "trilogy - Trilogy is incorrect since the story was written as a single work, only broken into 3 novels of 2 books each because of publisher demands) it was incredibly long. And there were far too many characters that were introduced in the book who only existed for those few paragraphs that were mentioned, and they added nothing to further the plot.

Tom Bombadil was one. While Tolkien devoted a chapter and a half to Tom and Goldberry, they were nothing more than a diversion for the Hobbits on their way to Bree. As well as the adventure in the Barrow Downs, with the Barrow Wights. I would have loved to have seen those in the movie, but that would add to the run time, and it would not serve the plot (or the plot as Peter Jackson believed it to be). In addition, he had to change the meeting on the road to the Ford of Bruinen. In the books, they meet the elf Glorfindel and the hobbits and Aragorn ride with him to the Ford. But that was Glorfindel's only appearance in the book, and so to introduce him in the movie, and then never see him again would be a waste. So he substituted Arwen, since she had a larger role in the story, and introduced her early so there was time to explain the relationship between Aragorn and Elrond's daughter.


I also if there's such a thing as the Tolkien Mythos (like the Lovecraft Mythos) that keeps inspiring writers to add more and more to the stuff. I hope that all of the fans are respectful enough to not add anymore to it.


I kind of agree and disagree with you here. There is somewhat of a "cult following" for Lord Of The Rings, and the mythology has been expanded and elaborated on many times.

I think it's perfectly acceptable when a FAN of the work does this. When I object is when Hollywood Buttnuggets come along, who have never even read the material, they don't have the first clue as to what the story is about, and they try to "tweak" it to better suit THEIR taste and style. They're not interested in the Story, they have no interest in the Lore. It's the money. It's the recognition. That is their only concern. Those are the people that ruin it.

The fan who writes short stories about various characters continuing adventure, while most of the time are horrible because of a lack of writing skill, I am not "offended" by that in the least. They are doing it because of a love of the story, not for wealth or personal recognition.

Peter Jackson was "borderline" for me. He claimed to be a long time fan of the book, and I think I can believe him, judging on the things he DID add to the movie. Slight "tip of the hat" in various locations. The Hobbits falling down the hill after being chased through Farmer Maggots crops, landing in a heap, and Sam chastising them, with Merry saying "It was just a detour, a short cut", Sam replying, "Short cut to what?" and Pipin's exclamation of "Mushrooms!" It was a sort of tongue in cheek acknowledgment to the chapter "A Short-cut To Mushrooms" from the book. A chapter that has been regularly held as a favorite by a lot of fans.

Keeping the subtle things in, like Bilbo's "Red Book", the fact that the Hobbits didn't refer to the number One Hundred and Eleven as such, and instead called it Eleventy One, subtle things like that which he chose to add to the movie suggests that he did actually care about the story. That's not to say I ever assumed he would for one second turn down any of the money he stood to make, but his love of the story itself was still noticeable. Though I do not believe he knew as much about the story and the back story found in The Silmarilion as he would like to believe. There were other parts that just didn't sit right. The Witch King breaking Gandalf's Staff was one. The Nazgul were nothing more than shades of men, Granted, they were men of Numenor, but still no way the equal to an istari of the Valar. Gandalf was only able to break Saruman's staff because he was sent back by the Valar to do so. The Balrog was able to take Gandalf down with him because the Balrog was nothing more than another Istari, though they were in the service of Melkor, a Valar that was exiled and turned to evil. Sauron was originally a servant of Melkor as well, but when Melkor was defeated, his servant Sauron stole his power to help bring about Melkor's defeat, and set him self up as the new Dark Lord.

I think in all, it finally balanced out enough that the positives kept in the story outweighed the negatives that Jackson misinterpreted or misrepresented. So I can accept his word that he is actually a fan of the works, and as such, he did as good a job as I think can be done in making it into a movie.

Fans furthering the story and mythos is fine. But "profiteers" doing it for cash, those are the ones that ruin the story.

[Teenager]

When it comes to fantasy, J.R.R. Tolkien is my guy. I've read the Lord of the Rings at least twice and I love the movies. J.R.R. Tolkien was friends with C.S. Lewis who wrote the Narnia books.

C.S. Lewis had more Christian elements in his stuff, Tolkien's stuff is kind of hard to solve.

I really see the historical elements in Tolkien's books. In a way, it's like a fantasy version of WW2.
The Christian elements in his books have me confused. I'm trying to figure out if Gandalf is supposed to be the Jesus of Middle Earth. Just look at him. He had a group of followers, died saving them, came back, saved them again, and went away on the White Ships.
I'm not sure if Tolkien put Christian elements in this or not. Does anybody out there know?

I might be wrong on this, but didn't Tolkien convert C.S. Lewis and make him a Christian?

I've researched the life of C. S. Lewis, and a little bit of Tolkien.

Tolkien never purposely wrote his books as an allegory. Yet after writing the books, he realized that his Catholic faith shaped many of the ideas and events in his books. No, Gandalf was not supposed to be pictured as a "Jesus", but Gandalf certainly has some "savior" traits in him.

Finally, Tolkien did play a large part in C. S. Lewis conversion to Christianity. Yet Lewis never really accepted Tolkien's Catholic faith. Several other people played a role in Lewis' conversion, but Tolkien is said to be the biggest influence.

[Teenager]

Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels is probably one of the most in depth story ever written. He created an entire universe from the beginning. From the creation, to "present day". The languages of the Elves and Dwarves are complete languages. He invented and developed himself. Though they're not recognized as "legitimate" languages such as English, French, etc. They are fully functional languages down to syntax, grammar, usage, etc. He also wrote books teaching those languages. Two people that have studied and learned them can actually carry on a completely lucid discussion with each other.

That is true. While doing the little research on Tolkien that I've done, I am amazed at how studious the man was at creating this fantasy land. It is said that he spent hours trying to decide whether the wind should be blowing north or west doing a particular part of the story, or how cold the water should be in the mountains. What also amazes me is that he spent decades writing the Lord of the Rings, which originally was meant to be one novel, not three.

[Timberwolf]

I knew I shoulda read The Silmarillion...I've got it, just haven't read it yet...

[TeenageRepublican]

I kind of agree and disagree with you here. There is somewhat of a "cult following" for Lord Of The Rings, and the mythology has been expanded and elaborated on many times.

I think it's perfectly acceptable when a FAN of the work does this. When I object is when Hollywood Buttnuggets come along, who have never even read the material, they don't have the first clue as to what the story is about, and they try to "tweak" it to better suit THEIR taste and style. They're not interested in the Story, they have no interest in the Lore. It's the money. It's the recognition. That is their only concern. Those are the people that ruin it.

The fan who writes short stories about various characters continuing adventure, while most of the time are horrible because of a lack of writing skill, I am not "offended" by that in the least. They are doing it because of a love of the story, not for wealth or personal recognition.

Peter Jackson was "borderline" for me. He claimed to be a long time fan of the book, and I think I can believe him, judging on the things he DID add to the movie. Slight "tip of the hat" in various locations. The Hobbits falling down the hill after being chased through Farmer Maggots crops, landing in a heap, and Sam chastising them, with Merry saying "It was just a detour, a short cut", Sam replying, "Short cut to what?" and Pipin's exclamation of "Mushrooms!" It was a sort of tongue in cheek acknowledgment to the chapter "A Short-cut To Mushrooms" from the book. A chapter that has been regularly held as a favorite by a lot of fans.

Keeping the subtle things in, like Bilbo's "Red Book", the fact that the Hobbits didn't refer to the number One Hundred and Eleven as such, and instead called it Eleventy One, subtle things like that which he chose to add to the movie suggests that he did actually care about the story. That's not to say I ever assumed he would for one second turn down any of the money he stood to make, but his love of the story itself was still noticeable. Though I do not believe he knew as much about the story and the back story found in The Silmarilion as he would like to believe. There were other parts that just didn't sit right. The Witch King breaking Gandalf's Staff was one. The Nazgul were nothing more than shades of men, Granted, they were men of Numenor, but still no way the equal to an istari of the Valar. Gandalf was only able to break Saruman's staff because he was sent back by the Valar to do so. The Balrog was able to take Gandalf down with him because the Balrog was nothing more than another Istari, though they were in the service of Melkor, a Valar that was exiled and turned to evil. Sauron was originally a servant of Melkor as well, but when Melkor was defeated, his servant Sauron stole his power to help bring about Melkor's defeat, and set him self up as the new Dark Lord.

I think in all, it finally balanced out enough that the positives kept in the story outweighed the negatives that Jackson misinterpreted or misrepresented. So I can accept his word that he is actually a fan of the works, and as such, he did as good a job as I think can be done in making it into a movie.

Fans furthering the story and mythos is fine. But "profiteers" doing it for cash, those are the ones that ruin the story.

Okay, I'll take the whole fan thing back. If it's for the love of the story, then I guess I don't have a problem with it. The Lord of the Rings trilogy films are good adaptions. There were cartoons of the trilogy a few years before and they screwed up the books so much (they didn't do the March of the Ents!). Peter Jackson was actually going to make it all one three hour film, but then he changed his mind. It was for the best, imo.

Peter Jackson's planning on doing The Hobbit. I kind of have mixed feelings about this.

[Teenager]

Peter Jackson's planning on doing The Hobbit. I kind of have mixed feelings about this.

I am extremely excited about this! I think, that of any of the people in Hollywood, I'd rather have him do it.

[Gonzo67]

Yes, I'm looking forward to seeing how he handles the hobbit. That one was written pretty linear, and there's not the big breaking up of the group to split the focus like in Lord Of The Rings. I hope he stays truer to the book this time.

I'm glad that Ian Mcklellan has agreed to return to the role of Gandalf. Though I have heard rumors that Ian Homes will not be returning as Bilbo. Considering Bilbo, in that book, was the same age as Frodo in Lord Of The Rings (50 years old), they'll need a much younger actor.

One thing I really hope is that Andy Cirkus returns as Golum. The CG combined with Andy's live acting in creating Golum for the other 3 movies was incredible, and like Ian Mcklellan playing Gandalf, I just can't see anyone else pulling Golum off.

But, even if he doesn't bring back those key actors, I'll give it a chance and watch it. After all, when it came time to cast for Lord Of The Rings, I think Fran and Philipa did a tremendous job in picking the right actors. Though I was shocked to learn the role of Aragorn was originally offered to Sean Connery. Thankfully Sean turned it down. I like Sean Connery, but he's a bit too old to actually fit as Aragorn.

I saw the animated version of Lord Of The Rings, and I agree, it sucked. I have the original Animated version of The Hobbit on DVD. It's not bad, but they edited the story far too much to make it a run time of less than an hour and a half or so, and the dialog was just horrible. Though back when that one first came out, it was thought of as a great adaptation. But by todays standards, it sucks.

I think if Jackson plans on making this one an extended length movie like the other 3, he'll be able to include just about everything in the book. I just don't want him to leave out the meeting at the farm, with Gandalf introducing the dwarves one and two at a time, or the Troll Argument. I don't think he'll try to leave stuff like that out, I just hope that those 2 things do not become victims of time constraint cuts.

I was very upset he left out the whole Scouring Of The Shire in the Return Of The King. For him to leave off a huge chunk of the story like that, granted, the Ring had already been destroyed so there was no danger of the Evil that was central to the story, but I would have preferred Saruman and Grima met their ends there instead of on the roof of Isengard. And seeing as he was willing to cut that whole ending out of the story, It wont surprise me if he tried to cut something like the troll argument, or the rest at the farm.

[Gonzo67]

I knew I shoulda read The Silmarillion...I've got it, just haven't read it yet...


Well, it's a long read, especially considering the size of the book. And quite "dry" in a lot of places. Using a lot of characters and names, it's tough to follow it.

My only advice, I had to read it a second time to follow it. But if you look past trying to remember the character names and the relationships between them through out the book, seems that everyone was related to everyone in some way or another. A real "Middle Earth - Deliverance" thing happening. But it's nice to be able to read about the events that were discussed in Lord Of The Rings as Lore told by the Elves, and the Rangers etc. It covers everything, the rise and decline of Numenor, the comming of the Sons Of Errol (the Men of Rohan), along with the creation of the original rings and the battles for the Silmarl. The meeting of Beren and Luthien, and the Exile of the Elves, including Elrond, Celeborn, and Galadriel's jouney to Middle Earth.

And as a side not, just a bit of Trivia, going back to Tolkien using his personal life and marriage as pieces of the story. On the tombstone of J.R.R. Tolkien is the name Beren, and on the tomb stone of his wife is the name Luthien. How was that for "sticking to your story till the end"?

[TeenageRepublican]

My favorite part in The Hobbit was when Bilbo encountered the dragon, that was cool. The cartoon was my favorite when I was five, I even named a hamster Bilbo. When I got older, I watched and then I asked myself: "Wtf was I thinking?!"

The troll arguement is one of the best parts in The Hobbit. I love that part when the sun comes up and they turn into stone. Classic. I don't why I love that part, I just do.

I wonder if the same actor for Golum will return. Does anyone know?

[Timberwolf]

Thanks for that, Gonz...I'll keep that in mind when (if) I get to reading it.