|
|
| Page 14 of 20 |
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24636
Location: Your Mom
|
 Posted: Tue, 18th Dec 2012 16:20 Post subject: |
|
 |
I wish each book in the LotR-trilogy had two movies each, not cutting out so much important stuff. Even the extended versions were too short/had too much content from the books dismissed to make it plausible to make them in the first place.
If they flesh out The Hobbit with chronologically correct stuff from Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, stuff that I'd expect would become more noticeable in part 2 and mostly in part 3 where they kind of connect it to events between Hobbit and LotR (something I read in an interview quite a while back).
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doh!
Posts: 1361
Location: Wellhigh DK
|
| Posted: Tue, 18th Dec 2012 21:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| Tom_Bob_adil wrote: |
And the Silmarillion, for the know-all but sciolist persons, isn't a prequel in LOTR nor the Hobbit but something entirely different. It's a record of the whole world that Tolkien had in his mind and from this sprang up the stories of them but also is rough and not so polished and very difficult to follow, an entirely different style of reading from Hobbit and LOTR.
|
I quoted Tolkien on the Silmarillion being the prequel, so good luck with your argument.
Back then he wanted to release Silmarillion and LOTR at the same time, but it would have been to expensive for the publisher. Calling people ignorant can really come back and bite ones arse.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 19th Dec 2012 08:04 Post subject: |
|
|
So from now just in case, I'll wear my mithril briefs on.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Wed, 19th Dec 2012 11:56 Post subject: |
|
|
| Doh! wrote: | I quoted Tolkien on the Silmarillion being the prequel, so good luck with your argument.
Back then he wanted to release Silmarillion and LOTR at the same time, but it would have been to expensive for the publisher. Calling people ignorant can really come back and bite ones arse. |
I take it you've not actually read the Silmarillion then, because none of what you're saying here is true. I really don't know where you got your information from, not from the book itself or anything any of the Tolkiens have said.
First of all, the Silmarillion as in, the book called that, is in fact 5 different stories by JRR and he explicitly wanted them to be published together - Christopher says this in the foreword, at no point does he call it a prequel either.
Second of all because of that, "it" (i.e. the book) could not possibly be a "prequel" as the five stories are not even all set in immediately following time periods. Quenta Silmarillion/Ainulindalë/Valaquenta all belong together, but Akallabêth and Of the Rings of Power are entirely separate. If anything, that last one would be the prequel to The Hobbit, but given how short it is, that's not accurate. It was always meant to be a narrative alongside the trilogy and The Hobbit, it's basically just JRR's mind written down.
Third of all, publishing costs had fuck all to do with it. Quenta Silmarillion was the only part of what we now know as the book that was mostly complete. JRR never got around to finishing the rest and most of them was filled in by Christopher as well as Guy Gavriel Kay.
Last but not least, the bulk of it had been constantly worked on for half a century by JRR, right up to his death. He never had any intention of publishing it alongside LotR - he wrote large parts of it as he wrote LotR.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doh!
Posts: 1361
Location: Wellhigh DK
|
| Posted: Wed, 19th Dec 2012 12:16 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | | Doh! wrote: | I quoted Tolkien on the Silmarillion being the prequel, so good luck with your argument.
Back then he wanted to release Silmarillion and LOTR at the same time, but it would have been to expensive for the publisher. Calling people ignorant can really come back and bite ones arse. |
I take it you've not actually read the Silmarillion then, because none of what you're saying here is true. I really don't know where you got your information from, not from the book itself or anything any of the Tolkiens have said.
First of all, the Silmarillion as in, the book called that, is in fact 5 different stories by JRR and he explicitly wanted them to be published together - Christopher says this in the foreword, at no point does he call it a prequel either.
Second of all because of that, "it" (i.e. the book) could not possibly be a "prequel" as the five stories are not even all set in immediately following time periods. Quenta Silmarillion/Ainulindalë/Valaquenta all belong together, but Akallabêth and Of the Rings of Power are entirely separate. If anything, that last one would be the prequel to The Hobbit, but given how short it is, that's not accurate. It was always meant to be a narrative alongside the trilogy and The Hobbit, it's basically just JRR's mind written down.
Third of all, publishing costs had fuck all to do with it. Quenta Silmarillion was the only part of what we now know as the book that was mostly complete. JRR never got around to finishing the rest and most of them was filled in by Christopher as well as Guy Gavriel Kay.
Last but not least, the bulk of it had been constantly worked on for half a century by JRR, right up to his death. He never had any intention of publishing it alongside LotR - he wrote large parts of it as he wrote LotR. |
The Silmarillion is a hugely different beast than you think. Tolkien have been working on it since 1916 or so and it has changed alot over time. I dont care to do your googling for you, but yes Tolkien did want to publish Silmarillion at the same time with LOTR. Printing in the 1950ties where very expensive, so they didnt want to print Silmarillion at that time together with LOTR. And Silmarillion finished together with LOTR would have been a totally different book than the one C. Tolkien put out.
When LOTR was finally a huge succes, then ofcourse they wanted Silmarillion, but Tolkien didnt have the time to finish it like he wanted. All of Tolkiens work was changed though out time with appendices and so on and C. Tolkien has himself said that maybe it was a mistake to have printet Silmarillion back then.
So did a quick googling for you anyway.
| Werelds wrote: |
Second of all because of that, "it" (i.e. the book) could not possibly be a "prequel"
|
http://www.talkingabouttolkien.com/e_faq_writing.html
Is The Lord of the Rings a sequel to The Hobbit?
Strictly speaking, no. In Tolkien's own words: "The Lord of the Rings is not really a sequel to The Hobbit, but to The Silmarillion."
And some more googling regarding:
| Werelds wrote: |
Third of all, publishing costs had fuck all to do with it.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien
The Silmarillion
Tolkien wrote a brief "Sketch of the Mythology" which included the tales of Beren and Lúthien and of Túrin, and that sketch eventually evolved into the Quenta Silmarillion, an epic history that Tolkien started three times but never published. Tolkien desperately hoped to publish it along with The Lord of the Rings, but publishers (both Allen & Unwin and Collins) got cold feet. Moreover, printing costs were very high in 1950s Britain, requiring The Lord of the Rings to be published in three volumes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 19th Dec 2012 13:49 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Wed, 19th Dec 2012 14:16 Post subject: |
|
|
| Doh! wrote: | | The Silmarillion is a hugely different beast than you think. Tolkien have been working on it since 1916 or so and it has changed alot over time. |
Exactly what I said.
| Doh! wrote: | | http://www.talkingabouttolkien.com/e_faq_writing.html |
I still don't see anything. They may claim JRR said that, but even if he did, I've never seen any proof of it and they don't either. I haven't read the letters, but in none of the books does he or Christopher ever say that. Again, in the goddamn foreword of the book Christopher explicitly says that none of the stories bar Quenta were ever finished and JRR only would've published them all together once finished. Ergo, he wouldn't have wanted to do it alongside LotR since a large part of the stories were altered and even conceived during and after he wrote LotR.
| Doh! wrote: | | Tolkien wrote a brief "Sketch of the Mythology" which included the tales of Beren and Lúthien and of Túrin, and that sketch eventually evolved into the Quenta Silmarillion, an epic history that Tolkien started three times but never published. Tolkien desperately hoped to publish it along with The Lord of the Rings, but publishers (both Allen & Unwin and Collins) got cold feet. Moreover, printing costs were very high in 1950s Britain, requiring The Lord of the Rings to be published in three volumes. |
Please, read this again, particularly the last TWO sentences (they're two sentences for a reason). Highlighted in orange: this explicitly refers to Quenta Silmarillion, not to the book as we know it (which is what I've been referring to - The Silmarillion is the book, if you want to refer to Quenta in English it'd be The Silmarils). Granted, it's the bulk of the book, but it's not all. Next: the publishers got cold feet about Quenta, but not because of the publishing costs. More likely due to its "dry" nature, because it's not the epic singular adventure that LotR is. The publishing costs were the reason that LotR was published in three volumes. Again, it's two sentences for a reason; if the costs were the reason for Quenta not to be published it would've said something along the lines of "backed out due to..." rather than getting cold feet.
That said, none of it are sequels or prequels to each other really. The Silmarillion is a narrative, it's not a story like The Hobbit or LotR. It's kind of like calling history books about WW2 the prequel to Band of Brothers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 19th Dec 2012 16:36 Post subject: |
|
|
I loved the movie!! It was so action packed, and it's only the first part!! 
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doh!
Posts: 1361
Location: Wellhigh DK
|
| Posted: Wed, 19th Dec 2012 21:32 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | | Doh! wrote: | | The Silmarillion is a hugely different beast than you think. Tolkien have been working on it since 1916 or so and it has changed alot over time. |
Exactly what I said.
| Doh! wrote: | | http://www.talkingabouttolkien.com/e_faq_writing.html |
I still don't see anything. They may claim JRR said that, but even if he did, I've never seen any proof of it and they don't either. I haven't read the letters, but in none of the books does he or Christopher ever say that. Again, in the goddamn foreword of the book Christopher explicitly says that none of the stories bar Quenta were ever finished and JRR only would've published them all together once finished. Ergo, he wouldn't have wanted to do it alongside LotR since a large part of the stories were altered and even conceived during and after he wrote LotR.
| Doh! wrote: | | Tolkien wrote a brief "Sketch of the Mythology" which included the tales of Beren and Lúthien and of Túrin, and that sketch eventually evolved into the Quenta Silmarillion, an epic history that Tolkien started three times but never published. Tolkien desperately hoped to publish it along with The Lord of the Rings, but publishers (both Allen & Unwin and Collins) got cold feet. Moreover, printing costs were very high in 1950s Britain, requiring The Lord of the Rings to be published in three volumes. |
Please, read this again, particularly the last TWO sentences (they're two sentences for a reason). Highlighted in orange: this explicitly refers to Quenta Silmarillion, not to the book as we know it (which is what I've been referring to - The Silmarillion is the book, if you want to refer to Quenta in English it'd be The Silmarils). Granted, it's the bulk of the book, but it's not all. Next: the publishers got cold feet about Quenta, but not because of the publishing costs. More likely due to its "dry" nature, because it's not the epic singular adventure that LotR is. The publishing costs were the reason that LotR was published in three volumes. Again, it's two sentences for a reason; if the costs were the reason for Quenta not to be published it would've said something along the lines of "backed out due to..." rather than getting cold feet.
That said, none of it are sequels or prequels to each other really. The Silmarillion is a narrative, it's not a story like The Hobbit or LotR. It's kind of like calling history books about WW2 the prequel to Band of Brothers. |
And you forget what I was talking to Tom Bombadil about; Whether LOTR should be this epic setting or some fairy über Hobbit world. And seeing that he came out swinging with LOTR is crap and people that like it are ignorant.
Thats what made me use some of my time and his worthless replies were just that.
And thats what the above is about and somehow you overlooked that looking for another argument. So is there something else you wanted to talk about or did you just want to argue out of the blue and out of context?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Wed, 19th Dec 2012 21:41 Post subject: |
|
|
I only pointed out that you are still wrong with your statements - if you're going to come out swinging "facts" at him, at least make sure they are in fact...facts. I don't agree with either of you, for the record.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doh!
Posts: 1361
Location: Wellhigh DK
|
| Posted: Wed, 19th Dec 2012 21:59 Post subject: |
|
|
If you think the www.talkingabouttolkien.com site is wrong in there own freaking FAQ then you really should go there and out wizard them.
And Quenta Silmarillion is bulk out the final book - but oh no I am wrong? And that sentence about publishing costs it goes "moreover printing costs". Now english is not my first language, but it would seem to me like the moreover part would have something to do with the sentence before it. And you state its not? So maybe you should edit the wiki as well.
There are two kinds of people I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pete89
Banned
Posts: 23
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: Wed, 19th Dec 2012 22:52 Post subject: |
|
|
| Doh! wrote: | | Werelds wrote: | | Doh! wrote: | | The Silmarillion is a hugely different beast than you think. Tolkien have been working on it since 1916 or so and it has changed alot over time. |
Exactly what I said.
| Doh! wrote: | | http://www.talkingabouttolkien.com/e_faq_writing.html |
I still don't see anything. They may claim JRR said that, but even if he did, I've never seen any proof of it and they don't either. I haven't read the letters, but in none of the books does he or Christopher ever say that. Again, in the goddamn foreword of the book Christopher explicitly says that none of the stories bar Quenta were ever finished and JRR only would've published them all together once finished. Ergo, he wouldn't have wanted to do it alongside LotR since a large part of the stories were altered and even conceived during and after he wrote LotR.
| Doh! wrote: | | Tolkien wrote a brief "Sketch of the Mythology" which included the tales of Beren and Lúthien and of Túrin, and that sketch eventually evolved into the Quenta Silmarillion, an epic history that Tolkien started three times but never published. Tolkien desperately hoped to publish it along with The Lord of the Rings, but publishers (both Allen & Unwin and Collins) got cold feet. Moreover, printing costs were very high in 1950s Britain, requiring The Lord of the Rings to be published in three volumes. |
Please, read this again, particularly the last TWO sentences (they're two sentences for a reason). Highlighted in orange: this explicitly refers to Quenta Silmarillion, not to the book as we know it (which is what I've been referring to - The Silmarillion is the book, if you want to refer to Quenta in English it'd be The Silmarils). Granted, it's the bulk of the book, but it's not all. Next: the publishers got cold feet about Quenta, but not because of the publishing costs. More likely due to its "dry" nature, because it's not the epic singular adventure that LotR is. The publishing costs were the reason that LotR was published in three volumes. Again, it's two sentences for a reason; if the costs were the reason for Quenta not to be published it would've said something along the lines of "backed out due to..." rather than getting cold feet.
That said, none of it are sequels or prequels to each other really. The Silmarillion is a narrative, it's not a story like The Hobbit or LotR. It's kind of like calling history books about WW2 the prequel to Band of Brothers. |
And you forget what I was talking to Tom Bombadil about; Whether LOTR should be this epic setting or some fairy über Hobbit world. And seeing that he came out swinging with LOTR is crap and people that like it are ignorant.
Thats what made me use some of my time and his worthless replies were just that.
And thats what the above is about and somehow you overlooked that looking for another argument. So is there something else you wanted to talk about or did you just want to argue out of the blue and out of context? |
Come on sweet pie. Go ask a hug  and hide under your mom's skirts because this ugly old goat  hurted your feelings.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doh!
Posts: 1361
Location: Wellhigh DK
|
| Posted: Thu, 20th Dec 2012 00:37 Post subject: |
|
|
@Werelds:
The Silmarillion is the backstory to The Lord of the Rings and if you cant understand that, then you should re-read it. There are major figures that comes out of the eldar days chiefly Sauron and Galadriel from The Silmarillion and oh ya that little story about the rings of power.
There are two kinds of people I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankh
Posts: 23342
Location: Trelleborg
|
| Posted: Thu, 20th Dec 2012 12:06 Post subject: |
|
|
Tom_Bob_Adil / Gollllum ...
how odd that two members with these names turns up now to discuss bilbo..
...or not.
shitloads of new stuff in my pc. Cant keep track of it all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 20th Dec 2012 16:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| Doh! wrote: | @Werelds:
The Silmarillion is the backstory to The Lord of the Rings and if you cant understand that, then you should re-read it. There are major figures that comes out of the eldar days chiefly Sauron and Galadriel from The Silmarillion and oh ya that little story about the rings of power. |
That doesn't make it a prequel though (as you seem to suggest).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 20th Dec 2012 16:25 Post subject: |
|
|
^ Actually if what he wrote is true (I am not familiar with Tolkien's works) then by definition it IS a prequel.
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
~ WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY CAN ONLY BE SEEN ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHTUOgYNRzY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doh!
Posts: 1361
Location: Wellhigh DK
|
| Posted: Thu, 20th Dec 2012 17:41 Post subject: |
|
|
| consolitis wrote: | | ^ Actually if what he wrote is true (I am not familiar with Tolkien's works) then by definition it IS a prequel. |
Ofcourse its true! You can just look in the freaking index of The Silmarillion!! I do not know what the hell is going on here, but I wont waste anymore time on this.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Saner
Posts: 6877
Location: Uk
|
| Posted: Fri, 21st Dec 2012 06:41 Post subject: |
|
|
| ragnarus wrote: |
I saw things like that in here and in other "woman problems" topics so...... Am I the only one that thinks some authorities needs to be alerted about Saner and him possibly being a rapist and/or kidnapper ? |
Saner is not being serious. Unless its the subject of Santa! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Fri, 21st Dec 2012 09:05 Post subject: |
|
|
whelp i guess im way behind everyone else given how many people are posting here, buts i finally gots backses from the hobbitses highs framerates 3d, precious
very much enjoyed it, cant wait for the next one... but damn i cant help but wonder what del toro would have done  someone give that man an epic fantasy trilogy to direct, dammit
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Il_Padrino
Posts: 7549
Location: Greece by the North Sea
|
| Posted: Fri, 21st Dec 2012 13:29 Post subject: |
|
|
Del Toro doesn't need 3 movies to tell his story. Pan's Labyrinth is easily one of the best fantasy movies I've ever seen.
There must have been a door there in the wall, when I came in.
Truly gone fishing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Fri, 21st Dec 2012 13:46 Post subject: |
|
|
Neber said he needed a trilogy, just said I'd love to see him film a fantasy story so grand as to require one.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SpY_RoS
Banned
Posts: 95
Location: Skyland
|
| Posted: Fri, 21st Dec 2012 14:02 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Fri, 21st Dec 2012 14:14 Post subject: |
|
|
anyway, took some pics when i went to town to see it. kinda shitty because its just a camera phone but whatevs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14328
|
| Posted: Fri, 21st Dec 2012 15:04 Post subject: |
|
|
I've seen the movie and liked it. Nothing more. I hope the other two are a bit better.
After rereading (read it last some 10 years ago) the first 60 pages of the book, I really feel like they messed up Bilbo's character a bit (especially the beginning). Also I didnt like some additions they made just for the sake of moar action. The pacing of the movie is a bit odd, and the journey they make in 2 hours does not, in the least feel like it's happening in weeks (like in the book).
It's funny how they actually managed to add so much new stuff but at the same time leave out so many subtle details.
But whatever, it's just Jacksons take on the Hobbit. It looks great and is fun.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 22nd Dec 2012 15:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for sharing that fact.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 14 of 20 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
