On April 15 2011 02:38 MrHoon wrote: i highly doubt peter jackson can fuck up any of the tolkien books (iirc from the dvd behind the scene stuff him and his staff literally worshiped the book, not to mention alan lee was a fucking visionary in terms of design).
Now if Peter Jackson was making The Silmarillion, I would be worried because I just can't imagine how they will ever fucking make people like the movie aside from the fans. I mean considering the majority of the book is about elves and gods, I can't see any general public liking the movie due to "we couldn't relate to it at all"
I'm not sure I'd want to see Peter Jackson tackle Silmarillion simply because I don't want to see him become a one trick pony like George Lucas. Having said that, there is a lot of material that could be mined for stories if you took them individually. Turin Turambar would be an amazing movie- pretty gritty/ anti-hero type too which would appeal to modern movie sensibility.
I'm sure it would be harder, but I'd actually like to see the rebellion of the Noldor told through the perspective of perhaps Maedhros and Fingolfin or else some later period in time. I think people could relate to it as elves are human-like. Also it firmly establish that elves are not necessarily pansies but were just as backstabbing.
Beren and Luthien would also work. Somehow I'd love to see the fall of Gondolin though.
I would love to see 'The Children of Hurin' adapted into a screenplay. The story is much darker and more mature than LOTR & The Hobbit so it would provide a fresh challenge to someone like Jackson.
hopefully its better than lord of the rings books.
the hobbit was on another level when it came to reading the book, LOTR books were filled with fluff and entire chapters dedicated to describing one person. not something you want to read. might as well read the bible if you want that kind of boredom
On April 15 2011 04:05 SaviorSelf wrote: hopefully its better than lord of the rings books.
the hobbit was on another level when it came to reading the book, LOTR books were filled with fluff and entire chapters dedicated to describing one person. not something you want to read. might as well read the bible if you want that kind of boredom
You take that back sir, I'll not have you insult that magnificent piece of art.
On April 15 2011 04:05 SaviorSelf wrote: hopefully its better than lord of the rings books.
the hobbit was on another level when it came to reading the book, LOTR books were filled with fluff and entire chapters dedicated to describing one person. not something you want to read. might as well read the bible if you want that kind of boredom
The hobbit was a childrens book . If you can't take the ammount of exposition that lotr has then I assume you dont read that much.
On April 15 2011 04:25 SaviorSelf wrote: I read A LOT actually. LOTR was just terribly written, where as the hobbit was a masterpiece.
you know much about literature i see
lots of people into literary criticism have said that lord of the rings is a poorly written book in comparison to the hobbit, which i can agree with because i read the hobbit in fifth grade and can't even get into lord of the rings in my 20s, despite loving the story.
Can't wait for the movies, read both the hobbit and lord of the rings. Hobbit is more straightforward and linear in my opinion, where as lord of the rings takes the time to explain everything. I enjoy both books, but probably enjoy lotr more. Theres just so much within those novels, i must read again to really catch everything.
I understand that not everyone doesn't like LotR, and yet I don't understand because it is my favourite trilogy/ 3 part book. Poorly written? I doubt it as it was written by a linguistics professor.
If you have the time, these lectures are interesting: http://www.tolkienprofessor.com/ (A current professor analyzing Tolkien's works.)
I love Peter Jackson's end quote: If someone came up to me ... that we could carry on pre-production for six week, I'd say no, no. Hell no. Let's just start shooting.
It's not surprising that The LOTR's heavy descriptive style throws many people off. It can be a little slow-paced here and there but to say they're poorly written is a farce. I personally loved every little detail that was in the books and it really brought middle-earth to life in my imagination. It's just down to personal taste like most things in this world.
lotr heavy? Hrmm I read those when I was 15 and loved them, have not read since. The hobbit is my favorite book in the bunch though I read it right after lotr.
The book "The Silmarillion" by Tolkien (put together after his death) however was impossible for me to get into
I remember trying to read Silmarillion like 5 times, giving up after just 10 pages or so everytime. Then I finally forced myself to keep on reading, and it's an awesome book. Wouldn't work as a movie though, oh no.
Can't wait to until the Hobbit comes out, this Vlog made me so hyped! ^__^
On April 15 2011 04:53 Patriot.dlk wrote: lotr heavy? Hrmm I read those when I was 15 and loved them, have not read since. The hobbit is my favorite book in the bunch though I read it right after lotr.
The book "The Silmarillion" by Tolkien (put together after his death) however was impossible for me to get into
I personally loved The Silmarillion. I've always been facinated by fictional worlds and its histories and to this date, I've not seen one more imaginative or richer than what Tolkien has created. The complexity and sheer scope of his universe truly boggles my mind.
On April 15 2011 04:56 Holgerius wrote: I remember trying to read Silmarillion like 5 times, giving up after just 10 pages or so everytime. Then I finally forced myself to keep on reading, and it's an awesome book. Wouldn't work as a movie though, oh no.
Can't wait to until the Hobbit comes out, this Vlog made me so hyped! ^__^
Silmarillion I'd actually suggest people skip the first third if they start for the first time. (It was the only way I got through.) I later went back and just skipped the first chapter and read everything else. Now I read and appreciate everything. However, it's really hard to jump into if your expecting the Hobbit or LotRs- the last two thirds is much more LotR' esque.
On April 15 2011 04:57 SaviorSelf wrote: it is poorly written because it does not capture the readers attention as well as it could have. hence, poorly written.
If i say it captured my attention as much as it could have, would your theory be wrong?
People read different books. Some people like different books than others. If it isn't your cup of tea it doesn't make the book poorly written.
EPT
. If you can't take the ammount of exposition that lotr has then I assume you dont read that much.
