LotR movies better than the books?

[Mistwell]

There are quite a few characters with strong moral convicitions in SOI&F...but some of them have significant character flaws, and others understand the value of RealPolitik. Moreover, GRRM is very skilled at leading you by the nose, with regards to playing off of your expectations. Suffice it to say that several characters that you THINK you know in GoT turn out to be very different animals when you find out more about their pasts and the truth of past events.

I would also put forth that almost all of the Stark clan are VERY moral characters, but each has different perspectives and beliefs. You also haven't met many of the characters who are closer to these qualities of 'straight hero'. Most of the characters in the series are in a moral grey area...much like life. However, if you're looking for heroes...you'll get your share. One might argue that Bran and his sisters, while not being brave warriors in the classic mode of a knight, are classic heroes, for showing strength and courage in the face of horrible events.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "still reading". I've read every book that has come out so far. I meant I intend to continue reading them as they come out. However, I disagree with you on those Starks who remain alive - most are not heros or particularly ethical in their actions, though a few might turn out to be. Right now, most are just neutral - trying to survive.

I don't think real life is full moral gray areas, not in the context we are discussing in this thread. If you do find life to be full of mass murderers, rapists, and torturers, then I feel sorry for you and your family. And that is what we are talking about here - not people cheating on their taxes or driving 75 mph in a 65 mph zone, but seriously evil people (regardless of the context of their lives).

Again, I am troubled by the lack of characters I empathize with, characters I want to see excel. I want the Starks to live, but not all that much. They are for the most part a bunch of brats who have lived spoiled lives, and who show little sign of ethical and strong leadership abilities. In any other book, they might even be the antagonists. But in a sea of truly evil characters, they come out as the best of the worst. Again, Jon Snow seems to be the character that offers to most hope for me, and he hasn't been in it all that much. He is the one that seems least focused on an "ends justify the means" mentality.

 

[reapersaurus]

hmm.. so noone took me up on my challenge of critiquing the first few pages of TTT.

I'll have to hunt around for the text, then...

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I think the number of people in this thread who "cannot get through" or get bored with Tolkien is a sad reflection on modern day society. It's the 350 channels and Playstation influence. The Power Rangers and Reality Television. People today can't enjoy anything that doesn't have a mile-a-minute pace. We have cultivated an ADD society where channel surfing is quiche and sit-coms are the utopia of entertainment.

Yes, FOTR and TTT were two EXCELLENT movies. But they don't even compare to Tolkien's work. It's like comparing a Big Mac combo to Thanksgiving dinner.

Where's the character development? Only Arragorn had ANY. And of course, we have to laugh during the movie, so Jar-Jar, er, Gimli fills that role. I don't recall EVER laughing during any read of LOTR, and I cried at Gimli's antics instead of laughing. Cried at the horror of character assassination he was subjected to.

I am sad for those of you who can't get through the book second only to the Bible in sales - a book that's been around a hell of a lot less, too.

 

[LostSoul]

I think the number of people in this thread who "cannot get through" or get bored with Tolkien is a sad reflection on modern day society. People today can't enjoy anything that doesn't have a mile-a-minute pace.

That's a knee-jerk response. I "couldn't get through" the Fellowship because I didn't figure it was worth reading. (I have read it before a few times.) That doesn't say anything about my attention span, just my personal taste when it comes to reading.

 

[Mallus]

I think the number of people in this thread who "cannot get through" or get bored with Tolkien is a sad reflection on modern day society. It's the 350 channels and Playstation influence.

And I think the people negatively influenced by Playstation, The Bachelor and Power Rangers aren't the ones "bored by Tolkien" because odds are, they're not reading at all...

And that is sad.

Also, literary styles/modes change over time, evolve. You can talk about what you like, or what you don't, but nothing is gained from thinking you own personal preferences grant you a privilaged frame of reference. Some people who delight in Thomas Pynchon {JR, have you made it all the way through Gravity's Rainbow, one of the seminal works of late 20th century fiction?} can't make it through five pages of Henry James. And some people scoff at those who would waste their time reading fantasy at all, even Tolkien.

 

[KenM]

I have read MANY long books, Les Miserables uncut is about 1500 pages, most of Tom Clancy's books come int at about 800 pages, The Three Muskeeter's by Dumas, Wizards first rules by Goodkind, all long and read them all cover to cover. Tolkien's style is long winded and boring. But do not assume because I don't like Tolkien, I have a short attention span.

 

[Agback]

I think the number of people in this thread who "cannot get through" or get bored with Tolkien is a sad reflection on modern day society. It's the 350 channels and Playstation influence. The Power Rangers and Reality Television.

I can't share this opinion, since many of such people whom I know are members of generations that grew up without television or video games. My parents, for instance, and most of my older brothers and sisters.

These people read and enjoy Tolstoy and Galsworthy, some even enjoy Victor Hugo. And even if short attention span were a problem, they can't have got it from television growing up where and when they did.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Sixchan]

I can't share this opinion, since many of such people whom I know are members of generations that grew up without television or video games. My parents, for instance, and most of my older brothers and sisters.

These people read and enjoy Tolstoy and Galsworthy, some even enjoy Victor Hugo. And even if short attention span were a problem, they can't have got it from television growing up where and when they did.

Regards,


Agback

Agreed. The only fiction books my father has ever read were the Hobbit and LotR, but that was when he was 12. Since then, he has never read any fiction, whereas I who like playing my Playstation and having 350 channels have read hundreds of books. If after turning 13 my father doesn't have the attention for even short fiction, but I have read very large books, despite doing things that are said to ruin attention spans, then there must be something wrong with the belief that having cable or a games console ruins attention span.