The Hobbit

specialman said:
I'm not disagreeing - obviously the way the books are perceived these days might be different to the original intention - and I do love the stories. I just get frustrated with the way they're hard to dip in and out of. They're deffo books that demand constant attention....

Nah, never read Joyce, heard of him but wouldn't have a clue about what he writes....
Click to expand...

They are hard to dip in and out of for sure, but we have plenty of other lighter reading for that. The depth in them is designed to draw you into a deeper understanding of the world. Did you know Christopher Lee re-reads them every year? That's when you find the depth. :)

Try this. ;)
 
The23rdman said:
They are hard to dip in and out of for sure, but we have plenty of other lighter reading for that. The depth in them is designed to draw you into a deeper understanding of the world. Did you know Christopher Lee re-reads them every year? That's when you find the depth. :)

Try this. ;)
Click to expand...

I listened to LOTR broadcast on one of the BBC radio stations when the films came out, really good listening to the books being read and acted out. Like you say, the depth shines through....

Ah yes, Ullyses.... didn't put two-and-two together.... that extract looks like a nightmare to read... I'll stick to watching the cartoon :LOL:
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
I listened to LOTR broadcast on one of the BBC radio stations when the films came out, really good listening to the books being read and acted out. Like you say, the depth shines through....

Ah yes, Ullyses.... didn't put two-and-two together.... that extract looks like a nightmare to read... I'll stick to watching the cartoon :LOL:
Click to expand...

It's a bloody doddle compared to Finnegan's Wake! http://instruct.uwo.ca/english/454f/fw1.html
 
The23rdman said:
Next we'll have Lynton not complaining about customer service!
Click to expand...

Oh now steady on...there are limits :lol:
(But then this is a thread about fantasy) :D
 
Well I'm back !!!

We both thoroughly enjoyed it.
Went for the HFR 3D in the end and was hugely impressed with it.

If you haven't been yet, I'd definitely recommend it.

viv1969 said:
The books do waffle, granted, but I don't think that makes them poorly written. If that were the case then every Stephen King or George R R Martin book is also badly written. Just because the style isn't to your taste, doesn't make it poor.
Click to expand...

I'm a huge Stephen King fan too.
If I'm honest, I don't think he's a great writer . . . a fantastic story teller yes, but a strong writer? No.
I don't think it matters though. The stories draw you in so much that it's easy to overlook and forgive the shortcomings in the actual writing of them.

Not quite the same thing with LOTR. As Dean said they were written in a different era so the style and language is bound to feel dated by today's standards. IMHO it's a testament to the power and depth of the story that the books can still hold their own today.
 
Just returned from watching it. It was enyoyable, if a little underwhelming. It certainly doesn't rival LOTR, yet at least. Obviously the visuals were great and the acting was tight, I just didn't feel as emotionally involved in the crusade as I had the LOTR. I suppose that's probably the effect of it being done more light-heartedly with more attempts of humour thrown in.

The camp dwarf was golden!

It's worth a watch if you have an afternoon to fill but certainly don't expect to be blown away with suspense and awe.
 
The23rdman said:
That's an interesting opinion. Long winded I'll give you but how on earth you can call them poorly written I'll never know. Read something by Clive Barker if you want to see poorly written. Tolkien was a true linguistic scholar.
Click to expand...

Ha ha , never thought I'd come to TP for literary crit.

I agree that Tolkien was a brilliant scholar and philologist, but his skills as writer of prose leave a lot to be desired. He is a able to keep a shorter story going and some of these are great fun: I love Farmer Giles of Ham and Smith of Wootton Major. The Hobbit is readable and the introductory chapters are really quite good.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is over blown and self indulgent. It needs a good editor with a big red pencil to chop it down to about half the length. It's one of those books whose reputation and fame mean that it is widely read despite it's flaws, but it is not well written. Compare his prose to George Elliot, Thackeray, Swift, Anne Tyler or a hundred others and he really is second or third rate. He is often lauded for his great imagination, but it is all lifted from Old and Middle English sagas and literature.

That doesn't mean that millions will not continue to enjoy reading him, and good luck to them. But popularity is not the same as being a great writer.


.
 
PatrickO said:
Ha ha , never thought I'd come to TP for literary crit.

I agree that Tolkien was a brilliant scholar and philologist, but his skills as writer of prose leave a lot to be desired. He is a able to keep a shorter story going and some of these are great fun: I love Farmer Giles of Ham and Smith of Wootton Major. The Hobbit is readable and the introductory chapters are really quite good.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is over blown and self indulgent. It needs a good editor with a big red pencil to chop it down to about half the length. It's one of those books whose reputation and fame mean that it is widely read despite it's flaws, but it is not well written. Compare his prose to George Elliot, Thackeray, Swift, Anne Tyler or a hundred others and he really is second or third rate. He is often lauded for his great imagination, but it is all lifted from Old and Middle English sagas and literature.

That doesn't mean that millions will not continue to enjoy reading him, and good luck to them. But popularity is not the same as being a great writer.

.
Click to expand...

Again, you're missing the key point that Tolkien was attempting to write a tale of lore rather than a simple adventure. All I can say is I've never found them dense or waffling in the way you suggest. I agree that he wasn't the greatest writer to ever live, but I maintain that to call his writing poor because you don't like it seems a touch harsh and judgemental. That's like calling Ulysses stupid and pointless because one doesn't understand it.

Edit: I happen to agree with you re his inspiration though, but I don't think he ever hid that. That's the ignorance of the average reader bestowing virtues he didn't have.
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
self indulgent? How so?
Click to expand...

Long parts of the books seem to be included because Tolkien quite liked them rather than because they add anything important. The Tom Bombadil episode, for example is pretty tiresome and adds little to the structure.

The23rdman said:
Again, you're missing the key point that Tolkien was attempting to write a tale of lore rather than a simple adventure. All I can say is I've never found them dense or waffling in the way you suggest. I agree that he wasn't the greatest writer to ever live, but I maintain that to call his writing poor because you don't like it seems a touch harsh and judgemental. That's like calling Ulysses stupid and pointless because one doesn't understand it.

Edit: I happen to agree with you re his inspiration though, but I don't think he ever hid that. That's the ignorance of the average reader bestowing virtues he didn't have.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm missing the point. I know Tolkien had high ambitions of writing a saga to explore moral issues. But IMHO what he wrote is a very long children's story. I think part of it's popularity is that it has a very simplistic moral outlook. Orcs, for example are apparently sentient creatures who can be slaughtered wholesale without worrying about questions of redemption or that in real life there is good and evil in all of us.

I'm not saying it's a terrible book. It's quite fun in parts. But it's not a great book and certainly not as good as it's reputation.
 
PatrickO said:
Long parts of the books seem to be included because Tolkien quite liked them rather than because they add anything important. The Tom Bombadil episode, for example is pretty tiresome and adds little to the structure.
Click to expand...

I hate the Tom bombadil chapter and actually skip it when I read the books.

But have you read somewhere that he included those parts purely because he liked them?
 
PatrickO said:
Long parts of the books seem to be included because Tolkien quite liked them rather than because they add anything important. The Tom Bombadil episode, for example is pretty tiresome and adds little to the structure.



I don't think I'm missing the point. I know Tolkien had high ambitions of writing a saga to explore moral issues. But IMHO what he wrote is a very long children's story. I think part of it's popularity is that it has a very simplistic moral outlook. Orcs, for example are apparently sentient creatures who can be slaughtered wholesale without worrying about questions of redemption or that in real life there is good and evil in all of us.

I'm not saying it's a terrible book. It's quite fun in parts. But it's not a great book and certainly not as good as it's reputation.
Click to expand...


Again, I agree it's probably not a great masterpiece. My issue was only that you considered it badly written. As you've qualified that I'm happy.

I like the TB chapter.
 
PatrickO said:
I'm not saying it's a terrible book. It's quite fun in parts. But it's not a great book and certainly not as good as it's reputation.
Click to expand...

At least it isn't as bad as Harry Potter :D
 
joescrivens said:
I hate the Tom bombadil chapter and actually skip it when I read the books.

But have you read somewhere that he included those parts purely because he liked them?
Click to expand...

I did read some of Tolkien's explanation of why he included TB. Can't remember exactly what he said, but I remember thinking it didn't make sense. I guess you'd need to look it up.

The23rdman said:
Again, I agree it's probably not a great masterpiece. My issue was only that you considered it badly written. As you've qualified that I'm happy.

I like the TB chapter.
Click to expand...

Try Farmer Giles of Ham - it's great for reading out loud to children.

TriggerHappy said:
At least it isn't as bad as Harry Potter :D
Click to expand...
But, at least Rowling never claimed the the Harry Potters were anything other than children's books or that they have any high philosophical meaning.
 
Just watched the Hobbit really good enjoyed it :)
It is extended compared to the book but still an excellent film
It didn't look right in some parts tho esp the cgi parts showing movement looked blurry
I thought at one point I had the wrong glasses
I.saw the 2D version
 
Saw it at the BFI IMAX in London in proper 70/15 analog IMAX 3D film (@24fps). Even if it was converted to the film from 5K, it was very visually impressive.

I can't understand why so many critics didn't appreciate it at all. I thought had a much less dark feel than lotr and would appeal to a wider audience. I didn't get bored with any parts of the story, although that could be partly due to the huge screen, amazing visuals and deafening speakers!

This is worth reading. It seems like a pretty biased article, but interesting nevertheless. It talks about Jackson's love for Tolkien and Middle Earth literature and how it's influenced the films.
 
Last edited:
I saw this in HFR 3d (48fps), to me it was a bit long winded and could have been an hour shorter and not missed a thing.
I've got a mixed reaction to the high frame rate. The film looked amazing in the action scenes (no blurring, yay!) or dark scenes and made Golum sooo life like but it looked terrible in other scenes (the shire, the daylight orc chase are the ones that stood out). Those scenes looked like somthing from a childrens TV show!! It was that bad that it was actually distracting!
 
My copy should be arriving from Amazon in the very near future - currently on its way to Nod'sdoor via the misty hills!

Arthur Dent with hairy feet!

BTW, parts 2 and 3 are in PP with part 2 due for cinematic release later this year and part 3 in 2014 (according to IMDB).
 
Nod said:
My copy should be arriving from Amazon in the very near future - currently on its way to Nod'sdoor via the misty hills!

Arthur Dent with hairy feet!

BTW, parts 2 and 3 are in PP with part 2 due for cinematic release later this year and part 3 in 2014 (according to IMDB).
Click to expand...

the releases of parts 2 and 3 will be in december 2013 and 2014 respectively as was the same with LOTR
 
Part 2 out today :D
I finally got round to watching part 1 on video and although I wasn't as impressed as I was with LOTR, i watched it several times.
I've just booked my ticket to see the new one on film fan monday :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
I went last night, saw it in 3D and really enjoyed it :)
 
I was happy to see it in 2D. Rather enjoyable, but my old eyes (or maybe my slow brain) really cant keep up with CGI fight scenes.
 
Saw a good quote recently "The Hobbit - the only trilogy it takes longer to watch than to read."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top