Question to generate discourse: Luthien and Beren or Turin Turambar?
Which one is the better story? Which one is your favorite?
I would probably go with Luthien if I had to pick. Though I probably need to reread both, as well as the big three (Silmarillion, Hobbit, LotR) in preparation for the upcoming show.
I wasn’t that offended by your reply until you called Sun and Moon “terrible”. Alola to you!
I’m just kidding. I may LOVE Alola, but your obviously entitled to your own opinions.
Well, it's not really the point of this thread, but I am glad at least someone liked those games; you are the first and thus far only person I have ever met with that opinion! I'd be curious as to your reasons if you want to PM me them.
New question for y’all: Was your first foray into the Lord of the Rings via the movies or the books? Same question for the Hobbit.
And, since two one-word questions would be fairly easy to answer, here is the essay question for extra credit: How do you think the medium for your introduction to the story coloured your perception of the works?
For myself, it was the books, having read them before the films were even released. Having read the books first, I think I developed an appreciation for the language in a way I would not having just seen the movies. Falling in love with Tolkien’s writing, not just the story, is what really cemented the works at the forefront of my favourites, and what gives new delight to simply seeing the words on the page with each re-read, done far in excess of any other novel where the plot might grow stale after a couple dozen times.
It also certainly coloured my perception of the Hobbit films, which I found quite impossible to enjoy due to their deviation from the source material in style, tone, and plot.
I read the books when I was relatively young. I think I was 10. I had always wanted to read the books, although they ended up a bit gorier than I anticipated. But I still became enamored with the story. I even got to thinking, “I wonder if I could do something like this?” These and many other books lead me to wonder, and so, in the end, I suppose my love of LotR is what got me into DND.
New question for y’all: Was your first foray into the Lord of the Rings via the movies or the books? Same question for the Hobbit.
And, since two one-word questions would be fairly easy to answer, here is the essay question for extra credit: How do you think the medium for your introduction to the story coloured your perception of the works?
For myself, it was the books, having read them before the films were even released. Having read the books first, I think I developed an appreciation for the language in a way I would not having just seen the movies. Falling in love with Tolkien’s writing, not just the story, is what really cemented the works at the forefront of my favourites, and what gives new delight to simply seeing the words on the page with each re-read, done far in excess of any other novel where the plot might grow stale after a couple dozen times.
It also certainly coloured my perception of the Hobbit films, which I found quite impossible to enjoy due to their deviation from the source material in style, tone, and plot.
I started off reading the Hobbit when I was really young. I loved it, and a few years later I read LotR. I loved Fellowship, but got a bit lost in all the kings, wars, and massive plot of Towers and RotK. I reread after I watched movies when I was older, and enjoyed them way more. It was the combined experience of the books and movies that made Tolkien become my top obsession (excluding the Hobbit movies).
I think the LotR movies are the best book to movie adaptations ever made (not the highest bar to beat, tbh) and they’re definitely my favourite movies. Still, there’s bits I don’t like.
The Hobbit movies… I have a certain amount of nostalgia towards them, since they were the first big fantasy movies I ever watched. But honestly, as an adaptation of the Hobbit, they are not the best. HOWEVER! They are amazing fantasy movies. Without doubt my favourite next to LotR. I can even appreciate some of the additions, and say they were something the book was missing. The movie actually makes you care about Bard and Laketown, and defines them and explores them while the book barely described Laketown and introduced Bard thirty seconds before he killed Smaug.
As an adaptation of the Hobbit, the movies aren’t the best. But as a fantasy film, they kick ass.
We will have to agree to disagree on the Hobbit movies’ objective quality, though I’ll fully admit to being unable to divorce my abject hatred for their treatment of the source material (combined with poor choice of frame rate, over-reliance on CGI, and making Sir Ian McKellen cry) from any impartial reading of their quality!
That said, I was pleasantly surprised at how well the LotR movies did at their adaptation. Barring the unnecessary addition of elves at Helms Deep (yuck!), they were a clear work of love by folks who understood and respected the source material. The recent Dune movie is the only other film I can think of that managed to truly capture the source material in such a comprehensive manner (there’s also a very limited number of movies that surpass the books they’re based on, but is usually they do so by deviating greatly from the source itself, making them better movies… but bad “adaptations”).
We will have to agree to disagree on the Hobbit movies’ objective quality, though I’ll fully admit to being unable to divorce my abject hatred for their treatment of the source material (combined with poor choice of frame rate, over-reliance on CGI, and making Sir Ian McKellen cry) from any impartial reading of their quality!
That said, I was pleasantly surprised at how well the LotR movies did at their adaptation. Barring the unnecessary addition of elves at Helms Deep (yuck!), they were a clear work of love by folks who understood and respected the source material. The recent Dune movie is the only other film I can think of that managed to truly capture the source material in such a comprehensive manner (there’s also a very limited number of movies that surpass the books they’re based on, but is usually they do so by deviating greatly from the source itself, making them better movies… but bad “adaptations”).
I’ll be honest here - I have never understood the problems people have with the Hobbit CGI. Maybe it looks bad if you’re in a movie theatre or have a massive TV, but in my standard TV it looks fine. I agree that they relied too much on CGI, but the CGI is the best I’ve ever seen in a movie (sorry Marvel), with a few exceptions.
We will have to agree to disagree on the Hobbit movies’ objective quality, though I’ll fully admit to being unable to divorce my abject hatred for their treatment of the source material (combined with poor choice of frame rate, over-reliance on CGI, and making Sir Ian McKellen cry) from any impartial reading of their quality!
That said, I was pleasantly surprised at how well the LotR movies did at their adaptation. Barring the unnecessary addition of elves at Helms Deep (yuck!), they were a clear work of love by folks who understood and respected the source material. The recent Dune movie is the only other film I can think of that managed to truly capture the source material in such a comprehensive manner (there’s also a very limited number of movies that surpass the books they’re based on, but is usually they do so by deviating greatly from the source itself, making them better movies… but bad “adaptations”).
I’ll be honest here - I have never understood the problems people have with the Hobbit CGI. Maybe it looks bad if you’re in a movie theatre or have a massive TV, but in my standard TV it looks fine. I agree that they relied too much on CGI, but the CGI is the best I’ve ever seen in a movie (sorry Marvel), with a few exceptions.
The big problem for me - even a bigger problem than how awful it looked at the theatre - was what a departure it was from the first films. The first films look gorgeous - because they are. They’re filmed on location, with actors - sometimes huge numbers of them - in actual costumes (with thousands of yards of chainmail made to ensure authenticity) and makeup. Add to that being shot with a real filmmaker’s camera, instead of the HD camera used in the Hobbit (which makes everything look like you’re watching HD sports and shows every flaw in costuming and CGI due to higher frame rate), and you had a much, much more cinematic film.
But it’s not just the film - real sets and on-location shots are a lot easier on actors than green screens, and you get better performances out of actors who actually feel immersed in the world they are in. That is why Sir Ian broke down in tears on set - he realised that, rather than the fantasy adventure he loved so dearly making, he would be spending all his time in a warehouse swinging a sword at tennis balls on sticks.
All together, it is not just the bad CGI - it’s the excessive CGI in a movie franchise where CGI was rare; it’s the clear differences in performance quality; it’s the fact that a modern movie simply looked worse than a predecessor which came out over a decade prior.
We will have to agree to disagree on the Hobbit movies’ objective quality, though I’ll fully admit to being unable to divorce my abject hatred for their treatment of the source material (combined with poor choice of frame rate, over-reliance on CGI, and making Sir Ian McKellen cry) from any impartial reading of their quality!
That said, I was pleasantly surprised at how well the LotR movies did at their adaptation. Barring the unnecessary addition of elves at Helms Deep (yuck!), they were a clear work of love by folks who understood and respected the source material. The recent Dune movie is the only other film I can think of that managed to truly capture the source material in such a comprehensive manner (there’s also a very limited number of movies that surpass the books they’re based on, but is usually they do so by deviating greatly from the source itself, making them better movies… but bad “adaptations”).
I’ll be honest here - I have never understood the problems people have with the Hobbit CGI. Maybe it looks bad if you’re in a movie theatre or have a massive TV, but in my standard TV it looks fine. I agree that they relied too much on CGI, but the CGI is the best I’ve ever seen in a movie (sorry Marvel), with a few exceptions.
The big problem for me - even a bigger problem than how awful it looked at the theatre - was what a departure it was from the first films. The first films look gorgeous - because they are. They’re filmed on location, with actors - sometimes huge numbers of them - in actual costumes (with thousands of yards of chainmail made to ensure authenticity) and makeup. Add to that being shot with a real filmmaker’s camera, instead of the HD camera used in the Hobbit (which makes everything look like you’re watching HD sports and shows every flaw in costuming and CGI due to higher frame rate), and you had a much, much more cinematic film.
But it’s not just the film - real sets and on-location shots are a lot easier on actors than green screens, and you get better performances out of actors who actually feel immersed in the world they are in. That is why Sir Ian broke down in tears on set - he realised that, rather than the fantasy adventure he loved so dearly making, he would be spending all his time in a warehouse swinging a sword at tennis balls on sticks.
All together, it is not just the bad CGI - it’s the excessive CGI in a movie franchise where CGI was rare; it’s the clear differences in performance quality; it’s the fact that a modern movie simply looked worse than a predecessor which came out over a decade prior.
Honestly, the CGI orcs of the Hobbit flatten the prosthetics of LotR. Trying to do monsters without CGI is just stupid, IMO.
Its really a matter of opinion. I honestly like the HD camera of the Hobbit better then the LotR cams.
New question for y’all: Was your first foray into the Lord of the Rings via the movies or the books? Same question for the Hobbit.
And, since two one-word questions would be fairly easy to answer, here is the essay question for extra credit: How do you think the medium for your introduction to the story coloured your perception of the works?
For myself, it was the books, having read them before the films were even released. Having read the books first, I think I developed an appreciation for the language in a way I would not having just seen the movies. Falling in love with Tolkien’s writing, not just the story, is what really cemented the works at the forefront of my favourites, and what gives new delight to simply seeing the words on the page with each re-read, done far in excess of any other novel where the plot might grow stale after a couple dozen times.
It also certainly coloured my perception of the Hobbit films, which I found quite impossible to enjoy due to their deviation from the source material in style, tone, and plot.
I first tried to read one of the books(Either Fellowship or the Hobbit) when I was sixish, and it ended with my father reading the books to me, because I was barely literate at the time. I watched the movies shortly after(Or maybe first? My memory is blurry.) I saw the LotR movies sixish times before I finished the books, so my mental image when I read the books looks like the movies, but I read the Hobbit around ten times before the movies came out, so they were a bit disappointing.
I was read the hobbit when I was around 6 by my dad and I demanded to read the Silmarillion because I thought it was cool but was forced to read the Lord of the rings first. I got to them leaving the shire, but stopped because it was too slow. I picked it back up when I was older and read through it like crazy
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi everyone! I'm working up the will to finalize my signature, so... I guess this will be the signature for now
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Question to generate discourse: Luthien and Beren or Turin Turambar?
Which one is the better story? Which one is your favorite?
Hi everyone! I'm working up the will to finalize my signature, so... I guess this will be the signature for now
I would probably go with Luthien if I had to pick. Though I probably need to reread both, as well as the big three (Silmarillion, Hobbit, LotR) in preparation for the upcoming show.
I prefer Beren and Luthien. Turin and Nienor is a little too Gothic for me.
Private Message
Gothic? That’s one word for it I guess.
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
Idk. Both have some good bits and not so good bits.
I guess that technically, Turin is the better story. But I guess I like Beren and Luthien better.
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
I agree with Legolas.
What?
You’re doing great! We’re glad to have you 😊. You should read the Silmarillion this summer. You’ll love it.
New question for y’all: Was your first foray into the Lord of the Rings via the movies or the books? Same question for the Hobbit.
And, since two one-word questions would be fairly easy to answer, here is the essay question for extra credit: How do you think the medium for your introduction to the story coloured your perception of the works?
For myself, it was the books, having read them before the films were even released. Having read the books first, I think I developed an appreciation for the language in a way I would not having just seen the movies. Falling in love with Tolkien’s writing, not just the story, is what really cemented the works at the forefront of my favourites, and what gives new delight to simply seeing the words on the page with each re-read, done far in excess of any other novel where the plot might grow stale after a couple dozen times.
It also certainly coloured my perception of the Hobbit films, which I found quite impossible to enjoy due to their deviation from the source material in style, tone, and plot.
I read the books when I was relatively young. I think I was 10. I had always wanted to read the books, although they ended up a bit gorier than I anticipated. But I still became enamored with the story. I even got to thinking, “I wonder if I could do something like this?” These and many other books lead me to wonder, and so, in the end, I suppose my love of LotR is what got me into DND.
P.S. I’ve never seen the movies.
Call me Blond. James Blond.
Books for both LOTR and Hobbit.
I started off reading the Hobbit when I was really young. I loved it, and a few years later I read LotR. I loved Fellowship, but got a bit lost in all the kings, wars, and massive plot of Towers and RotK. I reread after I watched movies when I was older, and enjoyed them way more. It was the combined experience of the books and movies that made Tolkien become my top obsession (excluding the Hobbit movies).
I think the LotR movies are the best book to movie adaptations ever made (not the highest bar to beat, tbh) and they’re definitely my favourite movies. Still, there’s bits I don’t like.
The Hobbit movies… I have a certain amount of nostalgia towards them, since they were the first big fantasy movies I ever watched. But honestly, as an adaptation of the Hobbit, they are not the best.
HOWEVER! They are amazing fantasy movies. Without doubt my favourite next to LotR. I can even appreciate some of the additions, and say they were something the book was missing. The movie actually makes you care about Bard and Laketown, and defines them and explores them while the book barely described Laketown and introduced Bard thirty seconds before he killed Smaug.
As an adaptation of the Hobbit, the movies aren’t the best. But as a fantasy film, they kick ass.
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
We will have to agree to disagree on the Hobbit movies’ objective quality, though I’ll fully admit to being unable to divorce my abject hatred for their treatment of the source material (combined with poor choice of frame rate, over-reliance on CGI, and making Sir Ian McKellen cry) from any impartial reading of their quality!
That said, I was pleasantly surprised at how well the LotR movies did at their adaptation. Barring the unnecessary addition of elves at Helms Deep (yuck!), they were a clear work of love by folks who understood and respected the source material. The recent Dune movie is the only other film I can think of that managed to truly capture the source material in such a comprehensive manner (there’s also a very limited number of movies that surpass the books they’re based on, but is usually they do so by deviating greatly from the source itself, making them better movies… but bad “adaptations”).
I’ll be honest here - I have never understood the problems people have with the Hobbit CGI. Maybe it looks bad if you’re in a movie theatre or have a massive TV, but in my standard TV it looks fine. I agree that they relied too much on CGI, but the CGI is the best I’ve ever seen in a movie (sorry Marvel), with a few exceptions.
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
The big problem for me - even a bigger problem than how awful it looked at the theatre - was what a departure it was from the first films. The first films look gorgeous - because they are. They’re filmed on location, with actors - sometimes huge numbers of them - in actual costumes (with thousands of yards of chainmail made to ensure authenticity) and makeup. Add to that being shot with a real filmmaker’s camera, instead of the HD camera used in the Hobbit (which makes everything look like you’re watching HD sports and shows every flaw in costuming and CGI due to higher frame rate), and you had a much, much more cinematic film.
But it’s not just the film - real sets and on-location shots are a lot easier on actors than green screens, and you get better performances out of actors who actually feel immersed in the world they are in. That is why Sir Ian broke down in tears on set - he realised that, rather than the fantasy adventure he loved so dearly making, he would be spending all his time in a warehouse swinging a sword at tennis balls on sticks.
All together, it is not just the bad CGI - it’s the excessive CGI in a movie franchise where CGI was rare; it’s the clear differences in performance quality; it’s the fact that a modern movie simply looked worse than a predecessor which came out over a decade prior.
Honestly, the CGI orcs of the Hobbit flatten the prosthetics of LotR. Trying to do monsters without CGI is just stupid, IMO.
Its really a matter of opinion. I honestly like the HD camera of the Hobbit better then the LotR cams.
I'm the Valar (leader and creator) of The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit/Anything Tolkien Cult!
Member of the Cult of Cats, High Elf of the Elven Guild, and Sauce Priest & Sauce Smith of the Supreme Court of Sauce.
If you want some casual roleplay/adventures in Middle Earth, check out The Wild's Edge Tavern, a LotR/Middle Earth tavern!
JOIN TIAMAT'S CONGA LINE!
Extended Sig
I hate Legolas purely because of that. The bat would, very likely, have dropped him.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
I first tried to read one of the books(Either Fellowship or the Hobbit) when I was sixish, and it ended with my father reading the books to me, because I was barely literate at the time. I watched the movies shortly after(Or maybe first? My memory is blurry.) I saw the LotR movies sixish times before I finished the books, so my mental image when I read the books looks like the movies, but I read the Hobbit around ten times before the movies came out, so they were a bit disappointing.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
I was read the hobbit when I was around 6 by my dad and I demanded to read the Silmarillion because I thought it was cool but was forced to read the Lord of the rings first. I got to them leaving the shire, but stopped because it was too slow. I picked it back up when I was older and read through it like crazy
Hi everyone! I'm working up the will to finalize my signature, so... I guess this will be the signature for now