How THE FUCK did Jackson manage to make masterpieces out of these generic fantasy pleb shit books?
Seriously you can walk through every change from the books Jackson made and see how he incorporated another aspect of the human experience into his magnum opus while in the books it's generic "this happens then this happens ZOMG"
Other urls found in this thread:
Pleb tier b8
I don't get all the filmhate. Sure, Legolas and Gimli are handled horribly, but the Sam&Frodo sections are pretty good.
100 percent serious
It's generic today because of how influencial it was, everyone copied it and missed the point. It took Fantasy as a whole into a direction I personally hate but I don't blame Tolkien for that.
I'd like them to do a really good adaption of Fafhrd & Grey Mouser as that and Pratchett are more my cup of tea.
How THE FUCK did you manage to generate such a shitty opinion? kill yourself
The books need to be appreciated for what they are: the precursor of modern episodic fantasy, but with an idealized Georgian fellowship of men, and made by a quiet genius who built languages as a hobby. The same can be said of Howard and Lovecraft. In their time, there was no Barnes and Noble filled with 15 shelves of trash fantasy, there were niche monthly serials, or in Tolkiens case, a yarn written as a bedtime (and later wartime) story for his son.
Looking at Tolkien after having read trash genre fiction for years is sad, because every book store's fantasy section is predicated completely on his accomplishments. He was the giant that millions of twisted midgets stood upon, and is of even more worth if you consider originality and uniqueness of content as worthy artistic merit.
>there was no Barnes and Noble filled with 15 shelves of trash fantasy
Pulp was pretty big by then mang
Young men ordering "trash" from publishers teetering on bankruptcy has nothing on the nerd culture of today.
There was a LOT of trash mixed in with the good stuff user.
Be honest, you never actually read Tolkien.
I agree, the quotations suggested the general opinion of the time, whereas nerd culture today is mainstream, and Tolkien bears a great deal of responsibility for that.
You can't blame the man for other people's lack of originality. That being said, the narration in the books was too drawn out at certain moments. I consider Jackson's LotR to be among the better film adaptations. How that same director managed to commit such atrocities while adapting The Hobbit is beyond me.
I agree things are more bloated than they were then, but they're not more trash -- not by dint of being better, but because things were always shit.
>Pratchett
user...
Small Gods is okay, I guess.
The Hobbit was a clusterfuck of disorganisation, funding, and mutual hatreds.
>How that same director managed to commit such atrocities while adapting The Hobbit is beyond me.
youtube.com
The Lord of the Rings got years of prep, Hobbit had cycling directors and fell into Jackson lap
I dont disagree with you, I am trying to explain to retard OP that he needs to look at exactly what Tolkein is without considering the Big Bang Theory inspired XD Nerd Culture that we live in today.
Tolkien created things that have become commercialized and susceptible to contrarian opinion, whereas it was created in a sincere, naive environment, and a labor of love.
I guess I'm saying this wrong -- I mean I agree with you, but that plenty of other works since then have been made in the same environment, because commercialisation doesn't have an effect on good writers.
It might be that, but I believe the main problem was that the studio tried to milk the original material as much as possible. I mean, three films from a 300 page book? There was simply not enough content for that, yet they were determined to make a new trilogy instead of a quality standalone. Therefore they added so much filler crap it made the story almost unrecognizable.
I mean yeah but that's integral to the other issues.
I guess you can say that.
>three films from a 300 page book
They made their money
Because films are visual aesthetic experiences with huge budgets and hundreds of employees.
And books are seed material for filmmakers and game devs.
Most folks don't read books. They just decorate their houses with them.
Jackson's movies are good but they kind of miss the Christian core of the books.
I don't know what the fuck was going on with the actual destruction of the Ring. Why did Frodo have to grab Sam's hand before it finally melted? That was stupid.
>Christian core of the books
“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
Which has literally nothing to do with what he said, you tremendous faggot.
Not that guy but what is christian about midgets carrying a ring to a mountain to destroy? "christian themes" seems pretty overblown
Allegory doesn't mean themes you wretched dongle.
>Look at these words I know!
I'm literally not the one who said that. Are you going to tell us what the christian core of the book is or just keep smearing?
yeah but what about that strange juxtaposition of homoerotic and racist subtext tho
The first movie is really the only good one though.
>what is christian about midgets carrying a ring to a mountain to destroy?
Sounds like you're asking about parallels, user.
The ring is literally sin. There's plenty of shit about love, too. Then there's the whole God and angels and Satan thing going on. How can you read it without seeing the Christian themes?
this though
>A book about pagan creatures
>christian core
yet again christcucks attempt to take credit for the accomplishments of their superiors
The other issue, aside from the limited source material, is that Jackson tried to make Lord of the Rings: The Hobbit, when The Hobbit is sort of its own story with a very different tone from the epic, mythical style of the trilogy; more whimsical and child-oriented.
Second was good as a siege movie. Just skip Gollum parts.
They are there. Not over the top kumbaya singing, or total copy paste of Lewis, not at all as obvious when connected with Silmarillion, but still clearly visible. Resurrection motif is everpresent: Gandalf, Tree, Sword... The meek shall be first. Purity vs. corruption. Journey to West is journey to paradise. You have chosen people. Anointed King. Redemption through good deeds: Dead army, Boromir. Damnation through bad: Abandonment of Gollum by Sauron, abandonment of Wormtongue by Saruman... You name it. Also note that Melkor/Satan was a catalyst for creation. He wrecked stuff, and the rest of the Angels build it together again, creating new wonders.
I see what both of you mean. Thanks