The Lord of the Rings...

[Preston]

Any fans of LOTR out there?

I have never read the books, although I do have them. I always end up picking up some philosophical or Beethoven book instead. I have seen the movies and love them. I thought that they were excellently done, for cinema today. I also thought that Howard Shore did an excellent job with the music. I love the scene in The Two Towers where Eowyn runs out of the palace to see Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli (think that is how you spell their names) riding up on the horses, and the flag of the hall blows off into the wind, the music is really good in that scene, I think. Probably need to read the books before I can really comment though, .

Here is the music from the scene I was talking about, it is certainly not that challenging, but it is pleasant, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNaMivvuYYM .

[Chris]

When I was 8 or 9 years old in 3rd grade, my teacher used to read to us after recess. One of the books she read us was The Hobbit, which I loved so much I got my parents to buy it for me so I could read it again myself. It actually came as a part of a boxset with the Lord of the Rings, which I had never heard of, but they were more books about hobbits, so that was good with me!

But those books turned out to be very different from The Hobbit, a much larger scale, more grown up themes, and lots more strange language and poetry. I loved them so much that I probably re-read them once a year until I was in high school.

When the Peter Jackson films came out I was rather unimpressed with them, probably since I was so attached to the books. I have warmed up to them a little since then, though. Some things I thought were good - the sets and locations looked almost exactly as I had imagined them. And some of the music was good. Some of the music was...meh. Some of the casting was very good, some wasn't. I did not care for Ian McKellen as Gandalf, and Viggo Mortensen I thought was a strange choice for Aragorn, but that worked out OK in the end. Obviously some things need to change when adapting a book to a movie, but I did not care for the unnecessary changes, such as the altered role of Arwen (especially since she displaced one of my favorites, Glorfindel, in the movie). There were other changes that shouldn't have happened, but overall, it was more faithful to the books than I expected it would be.

Have you ever seen the animated Tolkien movies? Ralph Bakshi made an animated version of Lord of the Rings that was rather...insane. It seemed kind of half finished and only really made it through The Two Towers. Then Rankin and Bass made some wonderful animated versions of The Hobbit and Return of the King.

[Preston]

No, I have never seen the animated movies, although I would like to. I have heard about them, kind of.

Yes, as I said I know that there are some devout LOTR fans that read the books once a year, I am not one of them, I just thought the movies were great. Now, I don't know if I want to read the books, , what if they ruined the movies for me. Glad to see that you have warmed up to the movies some. It seemed to me that at first I did not get the cinematography, etc., but over time and after watching the movies numerous times, I really have come to like them.

I did see Howard Shore conduct an orchestra, where they only played LOTR music, they also had pictures and animations while the music was played! Pretty fascinating.

Was Arwen not in the books? Was Aragorn's love Glorfindel? Very curious to know.

[Chris]

Was Arwen not in the books? Was Aragorn's love Glorfindel? Very curious to know.

Arwen was in the books, but she had a much smaller role. It seemed to be expanded in the movies in order to have another major female character. She was Aragorn's love, but she didn't really do anything. Aragorn could only marry her after becoming king of Gondor and Arnor, which he did. In the movies, though, he was reluctant to become the king, and Arwen had the role of encouraging him along those lines, and Elrond brought him Anduril (the reforged sword) near the end of the films. But in the books Aragorn had no such reluctance. He was intent on reclaiming the throne from the beginning and carving up any jackasses who got in his way. He actually had Anduril reforged before the Fellowship ever set out and took it with him. So Arwen was given something else to do in the movies along these lines. Additionally, she was not dying in the books as she was in the movies, connected with Middle Earth or whatever - that didn't even make sense in the movies.

If you remember in the movies, Arwen takes Frodo on her horse back to Rivendell after he was wounded by the ringwraith. But in the book this was not done by Arwen, but by Glorfindel, a mighty elf lord. He didn't really have much to do - just take Frodo and be present in the council, but the description of his radiance and power was so wonderful in the book that it made me sad they did not attempt to portray it in the film.

[Preston]

Will comment more later, definitely.

[Preston]

Chris, I agree that Viggo Mortensen, as Aragorn, worked out well in the end. He really seems to capture the part and fit the role very well. Initially, Stuart Townsend was going to play Aragorn, then they decided to go with Viggo.

I agree that things have to be changed from the book to the movie. I used to think that when a screenplay was written that was based on a book, they should try to not, basically, change anything. Now I feel that some things that are changed are for the better.

[Preston]

Chris, I meant to ask you, have you seen the extended editions of the movies? You have not seen LOTR until you see them.

[Chris]

Yes, I did see the extended editions.

[Preston]

Good. They are far better. I am actually watching, well listening, to The Fellowship of the Ring right now.

I wish the Star Wars prequels would have been as epic as LOTR!

Also, Amazon has the blu-ray version of the extended editions listed but they have not been released. So, I am waiting on those.

[Preston]

I have been watching Lord of the Rings, Return of the King. The LotR movies are the greatest movies I have ever seen, truly. At least that is the way I see it for now.

Now, Chris, I have a question for you seeing as you have read the books. I have heard numerous times about Tolkien using a lot of symbolism in his writing.

After watching these movies, a lot of times, I believe, that one of the main points in LotR is about the battle between good and evil. I do not mean that in the sense of Humans vs. Orcs. I mean it in the sense of, well, more universally speaking. Or in the sense, that in the books Tolkien symbolizes his belief in good and evil, and the "ongoing struggle between them"- so to say. Do you understand what I am saying? Do you agree? I ask you this because you have read the books.

Also, Peter Jackson, did an unbelievable job with these movies- shot after shot, scene after scene, frame after frame!

[Michael]

I recently bought the three LOTRs on Blu-Ray to find they were the theatrical versions. Aaaargh! My own fault: I should have checked. Luckily, my daughter's boyfriend bought them off me.
However,the DVD extended editions are so good that I don't think I'll bother with the Hi-Def if and when they are issued.

[Preston]

I recently bought the three LOTRs on Blu-Ray to find they were the theatrical versions. Aaaargh! My own fault: I should have checked. Luckily, my daughter's boyfriend bought them off me.
However,the DVD extended editions are so good that I don't think I'll bother with the Hi-Def if and when they are issued.

First, let me say, the theatrical versions are absolutely nothing compared to the extended editions, as I see you are aware. Sorry that you bought them not knowing they were not the full versions.

Though, I am eagerly waiting for the Blu-Ray versions of the extended editions. HURRY UP AND RELEASE THEM, !

Michael, did you watch any of the theatrical versions in 1080p? If so, how did they look.

Also, I think one of the reasons these movies are great is because Peter Jackson made them as similar to the movies of the 40's and 50's? It seems he really focused on creating real environments and as you can tell there was a heavy focus on the acting, in part I believe, because of this.

Michael, do you have a favorite character from the movies? Mine are firstly and most importantly Gollum/Smeagol- then Sam then Frodo.

[Chris]

After watching these movies, a lot of times, I believe, that one of the main points in LotR is about the battle between good and evil. I do not mean that in the sense of Humans vs. Orcs. I mean it in the sense of, well, more universally speaking. Or in the sense, that in the books Tolkien symbolizes his belief in good and evil, and the "ongoing struggle between them"- so to say. Do you understand what I am saying? Do you agree? I ask you this because you have read the books.

I don't think it's really symbolism, no. Tolkien was a very devout Catholic, and his thoughts on good and evil come straight from that, and are used extensively in his writings. But not in an allegorical way (Tolkien himself said he did not care much for allegory). Rather, I think his perspective simply provides a moral framework for The Lord of the Rings. For example, to a Catholic, good and evil are not just high concepts, but persons - God is good, and what is done in conformity with God's will is good. Evil is the absence of this good, and the beings that have rejected God and put themselves in his place are evil. If you read The Silmarillion, you will see this quite clearly. So I don't think that Sauron, for example, symbolizes a demon or evil in general, but actually IS a demon and IS evil. So I would say you can find real-world counterparts in The Lord of the Rings, but those things are not strictly symbolic.

[Preston]

I don't think it's really symbolism, no. Tolkien was a very devout Catholic, and his thoughts on good and evil come straight from that, and are used extensively in his writings. But not in an allegorical way (Tolkien himself said he did not care much for allegory). Rather, I think his perspective simply provides a moral framework for The Lord of the Rings. For example, to a Catholic, good and evil are not just high concepts, but persons - God is good, and what is done in conformity with God's will is good. Evil is the absence of this good, and the beings that have rejected God and put themselves in his place are evil. If you read The Silmarillion, you will see this quite clearly. So I don't think that Sauron, for example, symbolizes a demon or evil in general, but actually IS a demon and IS evil. So I would say you can find real-world counterparts in The Lord of the Rings, but those things are not strictly symbolic.

Thank you Chris for the information. First, let me say I have absolutely no belief, at all, in God nor Christ as an incarnation or the son of God, and I take spirituality very very seriously. Just wanted to say that. Personally, I believe there is something and things that we cannot begin to imagine- when concerning spirituality, the sacred, purity, the divine, divinities, etc. Though, I do not know for sure if their is a conscious wholly pure supernatural entity or entities- that is my opinion only though. It is very heart wrenching to me to understand that people who do not believe in "God" are considered evil- though, not surprising to me. Ok, felt I needed and I wanted, to say that.

The reason I asked the question is because it seems that almost the entire story of Lord of the Rings focuses on a battle between good and evil.

Yes, Sauron is evil, I agree, quite. Though, are you saying he represents Satan? It seems that seeing as the words Satan, God, etc. are not mentioned in the movie (which is all I have seen) that it would represent, Tolkiens thoughts, of what good is and what is evil, then you have the ongoing battle between man and orc- so you may see why I thought that it represented good and evil in a more general sense? Yes, in ways it reminds me of The Holy Bible, in the sense, that God exists and stands for good, while, Satan exists representing evil. And, in The Bible God and Satan challenge each other with their values, concerning thought.

[Michael]

Michael, did you watch any of the theatrical versions in 1080p? If so, how did they look.

.

I watched part of the first one "The Fellowship" in Blu-Ray and, to be honest, I wasn't impressed. It didn't look much better than the DVD. I looked up reviews on it, and found that was the general opinion of most people. I hope Jackson does some work on the extended versions.