Childhood is idolizing Aragorn. Adulthood is realizing Boromir makes more sense

IF YOU WOULD FUCK ANYONE BESIDES BOROMIR YOU ARE WRONG AND YOUR SEX DRIVE IS WRONG FITE ME

parenthood is realizing that you wish you were Frodo and Sam would put his meaty hobbit log in your brown eye.

Childhood is idolizing Divis Mal. Adulthood is realizing Cestus Pax makes more sense.

Childhood is waifuing blonde elves. Adulthood is realizing dark-haired elves are better.

The point was that everyone would've fucked up with the ring. Aragorn, Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf.
(Aragorn didn't WANT the Ring, or at least wasn't tempted like Galadriel was, but that's another story - personally I'd be curious to see how Thranduil or Dain would've fared)

They needed someone with no aspirations of domain over others to speak of. In a sense, hobbits were already "good christians", at the very most prone to gluttony.

Childhood is idolizing The Lion. Adulthood is realizing Zaharial makes more sense.

Beren plis

>what's a beren
>wiki it
>even the goddamn summarization on wikipedia is a compelling story

Goddamn, this fucking Tolkien. How the FUCK did he do it?

Childhood is idolizing the Emperor. Adulthood is realizing Lorgar makes more sense.

Boromir was the only regular mortal in the party. He was a man, and yet he was more worthy to guard the ring than any of his kin or even elves, and even Aragorn, of ancient blood and unassailable character respected him.

Boromir was the Tagge of the Fellowship: a hero by all accounts, But simply by dint of his birth doomed to failure compared to literal immortal heroes and demigods. It's like The Punisher on an adventure with Superman and Thor.

>Beren was a guy
Better explanation?

Also, we all know Sam was the the hero Middleearth needed, but not the one who got attention

>Boromir was the only regular mortal in the party
He's of Númenórean descent, not exactly an ordinary human.

Dilutes beyond any recognition though.

>Lorgar
>Makes sense.

Define worthy, cos he sure as heck wasn't capable.

He killed about a million orcs and got shot ten times and kept trucking. He was a mortal man.

He kept his shit together around the ring far longer than any mortal man had right to.

>Boromir was the only regular mortal in the party

Who was Samwise Gamgee, you fucking dork?

>more worthy to guard the ring

nope. the man would have driven himself mad for power the moment he kept the ring close to him. with him being next in line to the rule for Gondor after his father, Boromir was a big deal even for a "regular mortal". plus, you have the hobbits, literally whos of the party

And he still went full isildur when he was around it too long.

Dont get me wrong, I liked Boromir a lot both as a character and as a means of providing exposition, setting information and raising the stakes in his death, but he wouldn't have made it 10 steps with the ring before he's fingering his asshole with it.

Prove that.

To be fair hobbits live to pretty fucking old ages.

What has that got to do with anything? Longevity doesn't make you less mortal.

A hobbit, whose race lives for a long goddamn time and are barely susceptible to the temptations of the ring. Not immortal in the classical sense, but a far cry from the mortality that humans are supposed to represent in LotR.

How? Elrond says, when referring to the state of men, That the blood of numenor is spent. Eg., that it's long gone.

The only reason they're resilient to the ring is because they're humble and unassuming, not because of any innate protection. Do you seriously mean to argue that Boromir is presented by Tolkien as more mortal and less spectacular than Sam, Merry or Pippin?

>Lorgar makes more sense

Childhood is waifuing manticore. Adulthood is realizing Alp makes better waifu.

Elrond didn't say that, he just said that they mingled with lesser races. Boromor replied
>“Believe not that in the land of Gondor the blood of Númenor is spent, nor all its pride and dignity forgotten…”

The stories in Silmarillion are great. Lots of wordy bulk around them, but it's my favourite Tolkien book.

Also, it has good but flawed elves, which is just amazing to me.

Not less spectacular, he's more mortal because he's more fallible. He can fail and be tempted more, thus making him "more mortal" both physically and spiritually. Hobbits are by nature humble and thus less susceptible to spiritual failure or death, a symbolic sort of immortality contrasted to the human weakness.

>That Lex Luthor-looking motherfucker

more like, they're just fucking selfish if they gave into the ring than anything. Gollum was quick to get tempted by it but all he did was be a horribly disfigured hermit who lived for God knows how long since it gave him unnaturally long life than a regular hobbit while keeping the ring safe for himself

Childhood is idolizing the Toa. Adulthood is realizing Makuta Teridax makes more sense.

Childhood is lusting after Cestree. Adulthood is realizing Ribbon makes more sense.

Childhood is idolizing The Jacewatch. Adulthood is realizing Amonkhet's society of duty to the God-Pharaoh makes more sense.

Daily reminder that Mordor had genuine bureaucracy.

Childhood is idolizing Western neoliberalism. Adulthood is realising Ba'athism makes more sense

The hobbit who will solo Dagor Dagorath so mister Frodo doesn't get inconvenienced

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Childhood is enjoying Winnie the Pooh. Adulthood is realizing t̩̜͈h̷̗̫e̬̰̮̬̭ ̙̼̠̘͓̩͖w͢i̝̠̩̱͇̱͠s͔̪͖̺̤͖͎͟e ̸͚̪m̱͙̞̤̳͞a͚͍̣̥̰n̨̪ ͇̜͍̬̬̯͘d̷̺o̠e̳̹͔̝̭s̛̪̠̜̠ ̭̦̺̳̥n͈͇̼̮̞o̱̤͎̗͍ṭ͖̯͍̼̥͉ ̝͈c̱͚h̨͈a͖͈͇̭̤̤͘l̛̹̹͈̯̹l͔̤̘͘en̨̙g̠̬͕̗͞e̯̣̭̖̤̳ ̘̭͈͓̪t̤͎͔̝h̞͡e͘ ̙̗̯͎͠u͙nh̻̥͎͡o̶͉̞̟̰l̦y̧͎ ̣͇̝̻̬fo̹̠r̟̮͖̻̜͇ͅć̹͖̼̻e͕͉̰̮s̻̘̭ ͎̖̟͔͈̯o̢f͍ ̢̮t̖͢h̩̯͉e͍̼̻͘ f͙̺̦͍̕ͅa̧̬̳̹̣̙̞̥e c͟h̝̟i̼̬͓͚̳͇ͅl̯̠̮̞͚d

Childhood is taking the ring to mordor

Adulthood is realizing that the fact that mister Frodo was selling his beautiful little hole was even more debatable than the price.

LotR also has some pretty flawed elfs desu. It's just that we mostly see them through the eyes of hobbits, who've never stepped outside the Shire before. To them, those big, radiant elfs are more myth than reality. They get caught up in their "magic" and fail to see their flaws, because all the new impressions overshadow any flaw an elf could possibly have (to them).
Gildor and his companions are on their way to leave middleearth behind, no matter what will happen to their home.
Haldir and his brothers want to keep Lorien as a save haven, even if Sauron covers the lands in darkness, and they would kill anyone whom they figured to be an uninvited intruder, no matter if friend or foe.
Galadriel almost gives in to the temptations of the ring, and would doom middleearth herself, and forcibly keeps up an unnatural power in her lands, disrupting the natural cycle.
Elrond gives tips and is a nice guy and all, but really, he just sits at home and waits for the day even he has to go to the west and flee the lands.

Silmarillion is some atrocious writing. Stories aren't nothing to write about, it's just stale tragedy after stale tragedy.

The Lost Tales were better.

>He is honestly fantastic in the books.

But Boromir is like, the one character that's actually better in the movies.

He's much more humanized, has some much needed character building moments.

In the books he's stiff as shit and is obviously just a canvas for Tolkien to say "I don't approve of this attitude, please don't act like this"

He's like the opposite of Gimli, a character that had a bunch of nuance and development in the books that was almost all removed for the movies.

He was also a snide, gossip and shit stirring cunt. That's why he was booted out of his native homeland by his own grandmother. He also murdered a dude within moments of first seeing the ring.

I'd say tbe bigger example is Thranduil (?) in The Hobbit, but true.

As for leaving Middle Earth, blame the Doom Mandos put on the elves after the kin-slaying at Aquilonde. They were fated to grow weary until they returned to Valinor.

Well sure, the curse of Mandos was also a point, at least if you read the Silmarillion. But at least the older elfs brought it upon themselves. Those born after they settled in middleearth were really not to blame, I'd say.

>mfw Faramir should have been sent to Rivendell instead of his brother

I went my whole childhood playing with bionicles and never realizing there was some kind of deep plot to it. I never regarded them as anything more than Lego robots that I made my own adventures for.

Tom "motherfucking" Bombadill is the only character in LOTR worth idolizing.

>is so powerful he literally does not give a fuck about the one ring beyond playing a quick joke on frodo for a bit of a giggle
>doesn't even try to conquer the earth
Fucking saint, man.

Reminder that Tom Bombadill is related to the shit in the depths that scared the fuck out of Gandalf and the Balrog.

book boromir is kinda cuntish.
the movie did better for both boromir and faramir, and to a certain extent aragorn.

Even Tolkien thought Bombadil didn't really fit. He serves no purpose other than to make things weird and complicated in obviously unintended ways.

Nah man, he's a fairytale character that Tolkien inserted into LotR for lulz.

Tbvqhfmldd I think that was something he put in for his kids entertainment that he never planned to follow up or address.

Aragorn's rejection of his kingship in the movies was a little contrived, but I agree it added nuance to a character who, in the books, was more or less a classic Arthurian hero with none of the nuance or development you got with Gimli or even Frodo.

Which is funny when you consider Frodo and Aragorn are more or less the same archetype, and arguably different aspects of a Christ figure (Frodo as Christ the Redeemer, Aragorn as Christ the King.)

Bombadil was the gatekeeper between whimsical children's book and Anglo-Saxon epic, the tonal shift between pre-Bombadil and post-Bombadil is startling.

>fairytale character
>has goddamn evil death trees in his backyard

He's like your crazy uncle from Florida that lets his nephews and nieces play in his backyard filled with motherfucking alligators.

He serves the purpose of being incongruent. Consistency is god but perfect consistency is stifling and unrealistic.

Especially when your frame tale is that this is a translation of who knows how many possible translations of the Red Book written by a bunch of hobbits.

Tom Bombadil is no more setting incongruous than "Bilbo" in the Hobbit narrating from the point f view of a Big Person talking to another Big Person, or knowing what things like gunpowder and trains are.

>movies
>Faramir
>better

Bull-fucking-shit. Faramir in the movies was Boromir II Electric Boogaloo. In the movies Faramir decides to take Frodo and Sam, against their will, to Minas Tirith because he was in the process of succumbing to the Ring. In the Books he defers to the Ringbearer's wishes and resupplies and assists them. Faramir's entire point is he's a better man than Boromir but gets shit on by his father because he father favors Boromir. The movies do a terrible job of potraying that.

>Cultural Marxism
But Ba'athism was influenced by Marx

Alright guys, go home. Thread over.

Extended cut fixes that a little bit

Not him, but IIRC, the only extended cut scene that even addresses it is that one where Denethor goes to see the brothers after the fighting at Osgiliath way back, and heaps praise on Boromir while ignoring Faramir. At least in my opinion, it doesn't help resolve the issues, it just illustrates them, and makes Denethor even more of an irrational dipshit, also contrary to how he acted in the books.

this

Faramir gets totally jobbed in the movie

Book Faramir is unrealistic. Someone who is totally incorruptible by the ring shouldn't exist in the story.

He's only around the ring briefly and is tempted by it. He just is strong enough to resist it. Would he have fallen had he been around it long enough, probably, but the episode in the story was there to illustrate that Faramir was a better man than he brother.

He was the only one who ever used a shield so hes the best one in my book.

>The Lost Tales were better.

Inclined to agree. They at least had the folksy "come gather 'round the fire!" vibe to them.

What the fuck are you talking about, you shitweasel? There are no guns or trains in The Hobbit.

Has Veeky Forums always been full of contrsrian hipster faggots? Or is this new?

Aragorn never wanted to be king, he rose to the challenge and accepted his fate, as all true men should do. Boromir fell to corruption and found salvation in death, he was weak.

It's bait newfag.

And yet there are comparisons to the above. The spell that Gandalf uses to strike the goblins trying to grab him leaves a smoke "like gundpowder", and the narrator compares Bilbo's shriek at the mention of dragons in Bag End to a train coming out of a tunnel. It's precisely because there aren't such things in Middle-Earth that put a doubt to the supposed in-universe authorship of The Hobbit, these not being comparisons that would occur to someone who has never even conceived of either.

But there were, in the first edition. Also, china was mentioned, and I think telephones for some ungodly reason.

I don't know. I remember him being much more noble in the books. But i's been a while since I've read them or watched the movies.

Childhood is having that kind of picture saved on your harddrive.

What the fuck, really?

Given how much research Tolkien did into old pagan stories, and how confused he himself was by Tom making it into the story, I like to imagine Bombadil as a forgotten Celtic deity subtly influencing Tolkien to drop him into the story, carving himself out a tiny hole in modern legends to have some fading bit of relevance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tom_Bombadil

That's because Tolkien is a canonically bad translator of the Red Book of Westmarch.

>your childhood is idolizing tolkien as a great writer
>your adulthood is realizing he's kinda shit

To be fair, I've always known Tolkien was a so-so writer. He saves himself by being a Mythic Rare worldbuilder.

Nah. Aragorn is wordly (even, I daresay, manly) power, Frodo is saintly power, or at least interiorized conflict.

Nope. That's TOLKIEN talking to us, not Bilbo (or Elrond, or whatever). You gotta understand that at this point The Hobbit was a "simple fairytale" and LOTR wasn't something to come about. If you wrote a fairytale for children you'd have no problems with thing like that, and it's pretty much correct.

Granted, I think he was embarassed in retrospective (the fact that he wrote something on the lines "honestly when I begun writing that I didn't expect Sauron to make a cameo" makes me think so), but still.

Also I don't get why people are so obsessed with Bombadil honestly. Tolkien didn't explain nor sistemize MANY things: the giants, the great names of the east of the map (what the fuck WAS Khand, seriosusly? I mean, shit seems kinda important), Lindon at its inabitants (dwarves and elves? That apparently don't give a shit about Sauron nor anything like Erebor rebuilt? Really?). Tom is one of these, he does a decent job being some kind of ferryman between the shire and muh epic middel earth and it's kinda touching that he's a toy (Cristopher's, I think) immortalized.
I think people have the strange idea that being powerful and immortal in Middle Earth is a prerequisite for resisting the Ring. To this I counter: the one moment Frodo almost fucked up was with Galadriel, and even HER didn't expect that; and the greatest, most incorruptible hero in LOTR is either Frodo or Sam.

>goddamn I love Galadriel's story ending, wish John did a book just on her

In general they're... hrm, how can I say? It seems more an actual tale that a summary of tragedies without much descriptions or feelings that aren't stale.

>childhood is saying to Feanor fuck you

>adulthood is realizing Gimli is the best

I'd like to pitch this as a question. Obviously I get that there's different attitudes towards Lord of the Rings as a literary work and Lord of the Rings as Peter Jackson films. The characters are changed, bits of the story are cut or re-arranged and altered either for better or worse. But is the Aesthetic suitable? I was about 12 when the Fellowship of the Ring came out, and while I was reading the books then, I found it hard to envision what it was I was reading. The films really helped contextualise and provide a visual basis as I continued to read. I did envision Aragorn as he was in the films. I've since seen old artwork from the 80s of Minas Tirith, art of the Silmarillion and such, but nothing has overpowered that first exposure. I'm guessing many Anons here had seen the artwork before the films, and I was wondering how the films compared. Did they spoil the colourful world of Middle Earth or not?

I'm not so sure I agree with this assessement. I would argue that Tolkien is a great writer, and where he lacks is in storytelling. He possesses an enormous ability to have his prose say exactly what he wants it to say, and convey messages beyond the mere definition value of his words; the example I like to bring up is how when he quotes from Isildur, he not only slips archaisms into the text, but also switches from a modern to an Anglo-Saxon sentence structure to convey antiquity and that there's probably a translation within the translation going on over there.

Rather, his problems are that he tends to focus on things that are not the highest priorities for most readers, and he really was making large parts of it up as he went along without much of a notion as to how that would impact on a larger scale; his notes reveal that the Ents were literally thrown in at the last minute, and not even conceived of until after he had finished the Fellowship of the Ring.

>But is the Aesthetic suitable?
Parts of it are, other parts aren't. In general, hte "lower" civilizations match well, places like Rohan or the Shire. But LoTR the books is aimed at a very 7th-10th century northwestern Europe aesthetic, and the movies ignore that with things like the solid plate armor that dwarves and Gondor use, or the predominance of two handed weapons

I dunno. Personally I felt it was pretty coherent with Howe and all that.

>it's worth noting that much of the estabilished canon art stereotypes are debatable at best, especially the "medieval" part, but that's another point altogether

The characters are oddly enough the only part at which one would pause, I think. They're mostly good (the real execption might be Weaving: he's good as an actor, but that's not Elrond's face), but not necessarily what you'd think at first glance. And I'm not talking about Gimli having red instead of black hair.

Writing a novel is storytelling.

Childhood is posting on Veeky Forums. Adulthood is realizing you could be posting on Reddit instead.

Godhood is recognizing Faramir knows best.

That's true for Aragorn as well. Not that it matter.