1. Most excellent news, although I'm disappointed in learning about it this way.

Historians say that everyone remembers where they were when they head the news that LOTR was going to be made into a movie trilogy. OK, maybe they don't, but they should. I had gone to see Pearl Harbor in the theater with a couple of friends, and they were playing previews and teasers before the show. One of the teasers started out with a completely black screen, against which background a golden ring with unmistakably elvish runes flew and spun in a precarious, slow-motion trajectory. My jaw and one of my friends' jaws raced each other for the priviledge of being the first to smack into the concrete of the theater floor in giddy, ecstatic astonishment. I'd spent enough time carving elvish runes into oak that they were easily enough recognized, and my friend very nearly chose Marquette University for her graduate work because... that's where the Tolkien Collection is. Our other friend hadn't read the books, and required considerable explanation before he got the general gist of what we were blabbering on about.

Reading about it on a blog is... somewhat less dramatic, but the news is good enough that I think I can live with it =)

Posted by: TB on December 19, 2007 12:30 AM

2. "Peter Jackson, who turned . . . Lord of the Rings into such absolutely splendid cinema"

Yes, splendid cinema: close-ups of Frodo looking pained every two minutes; creation of love stories not in the book; a main character refusing to embrace his heritage til the absolute last minute; alliances that didn't exist; so many loose threads that the last movie needed an extra hour to explain them all--and still didn't do so successfully.

Great visuals and battle scenes; however, those must be the splendid cinema.

But, then, I have read these books more than any other (easily 50+ times) and no one would have been able to carry off making them into a movie for my satisfaction.

I did like the 70s era cartoon, though.

Posted by: Graham on December 19, 2007 08:15 AM

3. Mr. Jackson took a great book and completely ruined it.

He'll do the same with The Hobbit.

Jack Van Nostrand

Posted by: Jack on December 19, 2007 08:16 AM

4. What have I got in my pocket?

Posted by: Whiskey Dick on December 19, 2007 02:39 PM

5. Why didn't Jackson make "The Hobbit" first, before LOTR? After all, that's the way Tolkien wrote the two books.

Jackson did a fair job with LOTR. To make three movies that stuck to the author's story would have meant three movies of at least nin hours each. My butt couldn't sit for that long!!

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on December 19, 2007 02:53 PM

6. Cool. I liked the LOTR movies a lot more then the books. I thought Jackson took the stories and made them much better and more compelling.

I have not read the Hobbit, but the cartoon version was one of my favorite movies as a kid, and I loved the board game. I'm really looking forward to seeing this new version.

Posted by: Giffy on December 19, 2007 05:25 PM

7. Giffy, I have one son that likes to get the book for a movie that is coming out, but wait to read it until after he sees the movie. His comment is that the book is always better than the movie (since there is no way a movie can completely reproduce all aspects of the book), he would rather see the movie first and then read the book to fill in a lot more detail.

The two people above that did not like the LOTR movies might have enjoyed them more had they seen the movies before reading the books. I can understand their sentiments, but I thought Peter Jackson did a great job with the movies. Even though there were a few points of departure with the books, they followed the books overall MUCH more closely than is usually the case with movies.

Posted by: Bill H on December 20, 2007 06:22 AM

8. Bill H.,

The problem is, I read the books in 1969! Long before we had the technology of today. I didn't dislike the movies, but I think Jackson had to make them shorter than they would have been in order to make movies that people could sit through without ordering a pizza and some soft drinks.

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on December 20, 2007 07:10 AM

9. I first was given a copy of the book (one volume trade paperback) in 1976 when I was 12. I took one book with me on annual summer driving vacations and I read it to the end, then started again at the beginning. I read this copy so many times that it is now held together with rubber bands and I read a new hardcover set that I got last year. I would conservatively estimate 40 to 50 readings.

That being said I loved the movies. Yes, they had to edit it down leaving out some of my personal favorite bits. They also left out some stuff that I didn't enjoy that much (Tom Bombadil comes to mind). But to see someone else's interpretation of how they saw the scenes to go along with the movie in my head I thought was wonderful.

I do have some questions for Graham however. Of the things you claim Jackson invented, What love stories did he invent? Are you referring to Eowyn who clearly in the books has an attraction to Aragorn?

Who is the character that refuses to embrace his heritage?

I assume that you are referring again to Aragorn but in the book he had no wish to become king of Gondor. That is why he is a Dunedain ranger rather than having already shown up to claim his rightful throne. He didn't want it. And even in the movie he accepted his place far before the end, when he reforged Anduril.

Posted by: Calvin A on December 20, 2007 11:05 AM

10. Don, Don and others. I'll be at retirement age when they come out; yet, I read the books in my teens.

There were several attempts to put the Hobbit and LOTR on the silver screen. I loved those, too, and have them in my VCR collection.

The LOTR trilogy was a great risk after all the failures they had. Yet, they attempted it and it was a smash hit.

Can't wait for the Hobbit.

Posted by: swatter on December 21, 2007 06:43 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?