GameBanshee Forums

Troy Denning, author of STAR WARS: THE NEW JEDI ORDER: STAR BY STAR

At the core of every story lies a system of ethics that suggests, given
the circumstances of the world, how to live a just and honorable life.
In classic tales, this system springs from universal human themes that
transcend time and culture, touching us in ways we comprehend best in
our hearts.

Barely two chapters into THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, I knew I was
reading such a story. Of course, at the time I couldn't have expressed
my feelings in quite this way. I was an avid reader in his early teens
who had never heard of the collective unconscious or mythic archetypes.
All I knew was that Tolkien's stories carried me to the same ancient and
mysterious world I had always sensed lying half-hidden beneath my own,
and that his characters spoke to me in a way beyond words.

In their humble natures and modest stature, the hobbits seemed more like
family friends than epic champions. Yet, when circumstances thrust them
into perilous adventures, they found the heroic in themselves, calling
upon hidden reserves of strength and determination to fight and defeat
the evil that threatened all of Middle-earth. Portentously, that evil
could be defeated only through the efforts of such unassuming and
ordinary people as Bilbo and Frodo Baggins. The great heroes--Gandolf,
Aragorn, Galadriel, Boromir--were powerless to resist the corrupting
influence of the ring.

The implications are as clear in our own time as they were during the
tumultuous years surrounding World War II, when Tolkien wrote the
trilogy. The responsibility for fighting evil lies within each of us, in
the decisions we make and how we behave in our daily lives. Like the
hobbit ring-bearers, we carry the power to defeat the evil that
threatens us. Like Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam, we must be careful to wield it
cautiously and wisely, lest we become the very thing we are fighting.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Aleldar ]

Arthur C. Clarke, author of CHILDHOOD'S END

I read THE LORD OF THE RINGS soon after it came out and was greatly
impressed. Then I read it a second time in 1954-5 on the voyage from
England to Australia to do my book on the Great Barrier Reef
(incidentally, coming back into print from Byron Press, I am happy to
say!) The second reading confirmed my opinion--it's a masterpiece. I
now manage to read about two novels a year, but before I am completely
senile, I hope to have another shot at THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

I only met Tolkien twice--the first time was at a meeting with C. S.
Lewis, who brought along a friend, whose name I didn't catch at the
time! Years later I realized who it was...

The second occasion was a literary luncheon somewhere in London, and
Tolkien was sitting next to me. His publisher was a very small man, and
Tolkien pointed to him and whispered in my ear, "Now you know where I
got the idea for the Hobbits." I am afraid that's all I remember of our
conversation.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Aleldar ]

Terry Brooks, author of THE VOYAGE OF THE JERLE SHANNARA: ANTRAX


It has been a little more than thirty-five years since the classic
fantasy epic, THE LORD OF THE RINGS, made its way across the Atlantic
from England and elevated its author, John Ronald Ruel Tolkien, from
relative unknown to impossibly famous. Modest sales in 1965 of a
paperback edition mushroomed in the three years that followed to three
million copies. Today, more than fifty million copies have been sold,
and there is no sign of a slowdown. Furry-footed hobbit Frodo and the
good wizard Gandalf are as famous as Elvis and just as likely to be
spotted journeying across America.

At the turn of the century, numerous lists of the best books of the past
one hundred years were compiled, and in almost every case THE LORD OF
THE RINGS was included. In some cases, it was placed first. This
deification of J.R.R. Tolkien caused no little consternation in some
quarters, not the least of which were those academic and literary.
Despite Tolkien's Oxford don credentials and the continuous attempts of
the RINGS faithful to cloak their leader's writings in classic's finest
trappings, there were some who would have none of it. Not now, not
ever. Tolkien was an author for reading-light, for computer-wired geeks
and Peter Pans who simply wouldn't grow up.

Place me firmly in that camp, although I don't pretend to be much good
with computers and my children have forced me to grow up rather faster
than I would have liked. Yet my reasons for choosing to take this
position are not what you might think.

To dismiss Tolkien as a lightweight, a dreamer or an advocate of
Pollyanna solutions and muddy-minded rationalizations is to miss the
point completely. But to embrace him as the voice of his generation
because he has identified the Great Satan and exposed him (or her, you
decide) for what he is, fails to explain the reason for his continuing
popularity as well. Neither analysis sufficiently addresses the reasons
for Tolkien's widespread following and the cult-like devotion of his
most faithful readers, the ranks of whom swell with the emergence of
each new generation.

I think I can safely assert that virtually every writer of fantasy
working in the field today who began writing after the publication of
the RINGS trilogy owes a debt to Tolkien. He may not have invented the
form, but he provided it with its most important model in modern times
and every writer is aware of its various components. Ask them. Few
will dispute me. Moreover, the material has impacted writers working in
other categories of fiction as well, not so much by its content as by
its form and style. Not a month goes by that I don't read at least one
interview or review that credits J.R.R. Tolkien with contributing to a
writer's current work.

These writers are not so enamored of the RINGS that they are reduced to
copying it, although now and again that happens. What they are doing
mostly is paying homage to it, either by reworking its machinery or
reinventing its uses. Thus, such diverse efforts as Philip Pullman's
His Dark Materials and George Lucas's STAR WARS are solidly grounded in
the mythic foundations of the RINGS. The gaming worlds of DUNGEONS &
DRAGONS are equally indebted. The list goes on. The connections spread
wide and run deep throughout our artistic culture, and I am constantly
amazed at the directions these tendrils of inspiration take.

Readers are equally affected, often in ways they fail to recognize. I
know this to be true because in my travels on book tours, which are
extensive, I always ask people what they are reading. I ask this of
everyone, not just of those who appear at my speaking events. Many of
them do not read my books, I am sorry to report. They don't even read
fantasy. Well, of course they have read Tolkien's LORD OF THE RINGS,
they will admit upon questioning, but they don't think of that as
fantasy. Readers of nothing but mysteries or contemporary fiction or
even nonfiction will have read J.R.R. Tolkien's opus and remember it as
a seminal event in their lives.

Why is this so? Why do we connect so strongly with this story? Why is
anticipation of the forthcoming movie equivalent to that of the last
STAR WARS movie? Why does a book of epic fantasy have such a powerful
hold on us in an age when computers and genetics dominate our lives?

A part of the answer lies in understanding that the author is an
important member of an ancient storytelling family. Our oldest stories
are fables and fairy tales, THE LORD OF THE RINGS is deeply rooted in
that tradition. It is one of its grandest and most ambitious
undertakings, and on a storytelling level alone it is an amazing
achievement. Because our story experience is grounded to one degree or
another in myths of this sort, we are immediately at home with the
elements of the tale, from the quest undertaken by the little band of
heroes to the archetypal confrontation between good and evil.

Another part of the answer lies in our attraction to large sagas, and
THE LORD OF THE RINGS is certainly one. It is vast and awe-inspiring in
the way that all great sagas are. Just by its very size, it commands a
certain attention. The text is huge and the background notes enormous.
The story sweeps and resounds. It encompasses worlds and nations. It
gives us a sense of transcending our own lives to live, for a short time
at least, a greater, more compelling existence. We yearn for such
experiences, such exposure, if only in a vicarious sort of way. The
Rings trilogy gives us this.

But the real strength of THE LORD OF THE RINGS has always been its
story. Its themes are universal and unchanging. Frodo's struggle to
resist the power of the ring and to do what he knows is morally right
directly reflects the way we see ourselves and our own struggles with
life's complexities. The larger conflict between Sauron and Gandalf
immediately reminds us of similar struggles in our own world THE LORD OF
THE RINGS isn't just about Mordor and the Shire, we realize. It is
about places closer to home, where good and evil are engaged in the same
implacable, endless struggle.

Tolkien speaks to us of people who live in another place and time, but
in the tradition of all good fiction writers, he speaks to us of
ourselves as well.

What Tolkien does so effectively with his writing is to allow us as
readers to meet him halfway. He suggests possibilities without stuffing
them down our throats. He lets us make the connection between his
writing and our own lives. The genius in his approach to writing is to
allow multiple interpretations to his work, thus making it more
inclusive. No book does this better than The Lord of the Rings, which
offers room for so many varying opinions on such sprawling topics as
abuses of power, self-discovery, coming of age, redemption, and moral
responsibility--just to name a few--that readers immediately connect.

Fine and dandy, but other authors have done this as well, often on an
equally grand scale and in a similar magical setting. Think Homer and
THE ILIAD. Think Sir Thomas Mallory and LE MORTE D'ARTHUR. What sets
Tolkien apart from them? Is he just the latest version or does he add
something new to the mix?

I would suggest the latter. I would suggest that he brings an approach
to his storytelling that was missing from these earlier tales,
particularly the mythologies and legends of ancient times. His themes
are dark and darkly prophetic, yet he offers hope through the actions of
his characters. Even the most grim moments are shot through with
dollops of quixotic humanity, of lightness born of song and poetry, of
small acts of kindness and gestures of charity. His heroes face
terrible dangers and suffer dreadful losses, but they go on with a
resilience that is inspiring.

In describing their unshakable determination, Tolkien tells us something
important about ourselves. He tells us that he believes even ordinary
men and women can prevail in the face of inconceivable power. We don't
have to be Gods and Goddesses, Immortals and Kings, or creatures out of
myth and legend in order to stand up against monstrous evil and terrible
danger. Nor is it a foregone conclusion that we must sacrifice our
lives in order to gain redemption or learn humility, as the heroes of
Troy and Camelot were required to do.

For centuries, this was the lesson of mythic storytelling. But Tolkien
tells us that perhaps we can come to terms with who and what we are,
with our fears and doubts, with our failures and inadequacies, and with
our humanity simply by staying the course. Heroism isn't solely a
characteristic of warriors. Death isn't the only option for the
besieged. Hope isn't the final refuge of the doomed.

Tolkien gave us this worldview when he wrote THE LORD OF THE RINGS. It
was a seminal moment in fantasy writing.

There is magic at work in his storytelling that transcends everything
previously written in the realm of epic fantasy. It infuses his complex
plot and defines his dozens of memorable characters. It covers such
vast amounts of ground that in the end we feel that we have traveled far
from home even though we have never left our reading chairs. We return
footsore and weary, yet enlightened. We never feel disengaged or adrift
from the story, never distanced from Frodo and his companions in such a
way that we don't care deeply what happens to them. We never lose hope
for them or for ourselves.

A good epic storyteller can make us feel like that. He can help us find
truth in fable and myth. He can give us hope in a world that sometimes
seems intent on crushing us. He can touch our hearts and make us
believe in dreams.

J.R.R. Tolkien understood this. The uplifting power of THE LORD OF THE
RINGS serves as testament. In an age of sprawling cities and giant
corporations, individuals still count. In an age of machines and
science, dreams still have magic. In an age of terrible evil, Everyman
can still prevail.

Saw the movie (premiere) here in Sweden last night...I had high expectations and it surely lived up to them. I though the movie was absolutely fantastic. Sure some elements from the book were missing (Tom Bombadill...etc) but it still captured the spirit of the book in a pretty good way. I loved the scenes in "Moria" and at Sarumans fortress "Isengard"... A truly brilliant movie...

This is the day, my friends! The day we get to see Tolkien on the silver screen! In about two hours, I'll be at the theater sitting mesmerized on the edge of my seat. I'll post my review as soon as I can get my breath back.

I was certainly not disappointed by the movie. There have been a lot of changes for sure, but for the most part I thought they worked - even the substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel that was being discussed with disdain elsewhere I agree with Karembeu - they still managed to capture the spirit of the books. And only at one point did I object to a line of dialogue which was definitely un-Tolkien, and really grated. It's visually brilliant - the battle scenes are great, as is the CGI - the Balrog is very well-realised, for example. Oh... I could go on all day, but you get the idea... it's good But what really annoyed me was the person sitting in front of me - when there were subtitles for the Elvish speech, I couldn't read the middle of it, only either end, cos his head was in the way

.........(Stunned silence) I have officially had my mind blown. This movie is everything I had hoped for and more. Who’d have thought the film adaptation could be so incredible and remain true to books? Even the die-hard Tolkienites in the theatre (the ones garbed in cloaks and bearing bows and plastic axes ) loved it. While things were defiantly cut from original novel, I actually feel this made the tale even more harrowing. The more leisurely pace of the book is replaced with taut suspense all the way through. The visuals are mind-blowing. The characterization is spot on. About half way through the film I realized I had to go to the restroom, so I waited for a lull in the movie. It never came. I was so enthralled all the way through that I forgot my urinary needs until well after the credits ceased rolling with applauds from the audience. See this movie. You’ll love it. If you don’t like it... too bad, you’re wrong. Five stars, two thumbs up, and whatever other accolades you can think of.

Originally posted by Kayless:
<STRONG>(the ones garbed in cloaks and bearing bows and plastic axes ) </STRONG>

LOL There were none of those at my cinema...

Yeah, you're really missing out. They were even singing Hobbit songs strait from the book at one point.

I saw it with some friends, one who hasn't read the book (she read the Hobbit though). I saw it in a huge theater, about 2-3 feet of leg room, big, reclining chairs, and no possibility of someone obstructing your view (eat your heart out Georgi! ).

The one who hasn't read it loved it. The ones who have read it loved it. I loved it.

There were a few parts that made me jump (the troll looking around the pillar, some parts with the Ringwraiths). The battles were great (espicially the Moria scenes).

The only part that dragged was when they arrived in Rivendell. They stayed... and stayed...

Go see it!

WAAAAAAHHH!!!!!

I'm green with envy.

I still have to wait till the 28th (opening day here in Thailand)... chances are, I'll only get to watch it 1st week of Jan when I come back from the Phils (my holiday break).

The way I see it, I'll get to fully appreciate the movie when shown using statre-of-the-art audio-video theatre stuff. Thai movie houses are known for that.

I must say I was very impressed with the movie. It was even better than I expected it to be, despite the fact that they left out many of my favorite parts(Tom Bombadil, Sam looking into Galadriel's Mirror, etc). Some of the changes I didn't care much for, but they still worked. I also liked some of the additions(either additions, or things I don't remember) such as when Arwen and Aragorn were talking. Legolas was byfar my favorite to see. He was every bit as kawaii and glompable as I expected him to be. I was a little disappointed with Boromir's appearance; I expected him to be...bigger.

My dad decided to see it, too; even though he hadn't planned on it because he doesn't like fantasy stuff. He really liked it, though he says if it had been half an hour long, he would've got up and left.

One thing that surprised me a little was that the theater was only half full, though I honestly don't expect many Arizonans to be very interested in Tolkien(not much offense meant to Arizonans ).

I can't wait for the next one!!!!

So now it has gone over 30 hours since I saw the movie and still I give it a lot of thought.
I think I'm beginning to understand what the people that saw the first Star Wars films were experiencing...okay so they had to wait like 3 years until they could see next part in the saga...but just knowing that they have already filmed and finished "the two towers" (or whatever it's called) makes the waiting even harder....
Well people, I think we have all witnessed something special and I will definately return to the cinema to see this magnificent film a couple of more times...it's just that enthralling...

Originally posted by Karembeu:
<STRONG>So now it has gone over 30 hours since I saw the movie and still I give it a lot of thought.
I think I'm beginning to understand what the people that saw the first Star Wars films were experiencing...okay so they had to wait like 3 years until they could see next part in the saga...but just knowing that they have already filmed and finished "the two towers" (or whatever it's called) makes the waiting even harder....
Well people, I think we have all witnessed something special and I will definately return to the cinema to see this magnificent film a couple of more times...it's just that enthralling... </STRONG>

I agree. My dad, who doesn't like fantasy, said after the film, "We're definitely going to see that movie again." He, of course, meant in "6 months"(or however long it'll be) when it comes out on DVD. I definitely would like to see it in the theater again, but it's an hour drive to the nearest theater so that's not likely to happen.

A friend of mine was originally suppose to see the movie with me but had to bail at the last minute. So he's going to see it sometime next week and I'm going along for my second viewing.

I am probably one one four or so people here at SYM who has not read Lord of the Rings, so I will give you my perspective on Fellowship of the Ring as an outsider to the franschise. Consider this my possible spoiler warning.

First off, the movie is very good. The screenplay is especially good in that it doesn't lose the part of the audience who has not read the book. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone had this problem; Christopher Columbus assumed that you had read the book and jumped around a lot and while that's fine for the people who are familiar with the story, it lost me.

Peter Jackson and his fellow screenwriters did a very good job of condensing a lot of the mythology and backstory into coherent bits and writing a screenplay that flows nicely, but doesn't lose folks. The Hobbit summarised in five minutes at the beginning is especially good.

The visuals are spectacular, especially in their attention to detail. There are a couple of shots that were obviously shot against a blue/green screen, but for the most part the live action to matte painting to CGI shots are seamless.

The sound and music are good, but I am not fully qualified to make a fully-educated comment because our theater had some glitches in the sound system (the venue's problem, not the movie's).

Now for my gripes and nitpicking, which are very, very minor:

1) The ending is a real downer. However, I think we have to view Fellowship of the Ring as the first act in the trilogy and while the ending of the first movie is in no way uplifting or inspiring, we have to think that it will lead into The Two Towers, especially since all three movies were shot together.

2) While the writing is generally good, there were a couple of instances where things in the "fantasy world ground rules" were not quite fully explained. For instance, what is the relationship between the elves and dwarves? In one scene they're yelling at each other with one of the dwarves swearing that he will never allow the One Ring to be possessed by an elf, but there's no overt racism between Legolas and Gimli. Also, after Arwen washes the Ringwraiths away in the river, why do they evaporate from the movie if they are so relentless in their pursuit of Frodo? After the movie, my wife explained a lot of that to me, but it was left out of the screenplay. Again, little nitpicking.

3) I was a little disappointed in Gandalf the Grey. This is just me, but I expect powerful wizards to shoot lightning out of their fingertips, turn people into toads, shapechange, call down fire and teleport around; I'm sure this is not the movie's fault and comes from my experience with magic-users from AD&D and PFRPG2. If Tolkien's wizards are different in the types of power they weild, then Jackson and McKellen did a good job in bringing Gandalf to the screen (although with the crooked hat and grey robes, I was thinking of Fizban the Fabulous).

I have read that Peter Jackson is a huge Tolkien fan and it is a great credit to him that Fellowship comes off as well as it did. As I was leaving the theater, there were some elves in front of me griping about how certain parts were left out or changed. That may be, and some people's favourite character(s) may have been cast aside, but for heaven's sake, folks, the movie is already three hours long. We saw in Harry Potter what happens when the screenwriter tries to stay too true to the book, so I think that Jackson did very well in his adaptation.

You won't be disappointed in spending $8 on this movie (or whatever you pay for full price tickets in your town), even if you go see it once, twice or a dozen times. I give it 9 out of 10.

I thought the movie was great. I was somewhat disappointed with omissions, and some "creative liberty" Peter Jackson took, but overall it was excellent. He easily could have had a 5-6 hour movie, and I imagine it was painful cutting the movie down to 3 hours.

Unfortunately, I got to the theatre only 30 minutes early, and was stuck in the 2nd row. So, I will use this as an excuse to go again next week

We had 1 guy dressed up as Gandalf, not a bad costume, but a little over the top for me.

I... I honestly don't know what to write right now! Did I like the movie? I think so. Was I disappointed by FoTR? I think so, too! By itself the movie was captivating. The scenery, special effects, acting, screenplay et al were at times breath-taking. It quite simply is the best movie of 2001. I cried twice; the first when Gandalf slid into Khazad-dhum, the second during Boromir's death scene with Aragorn. The movie is not an independent entity, however; it is based on a beloved book I have read many times, and though I understand that this was Peter Jackson's vision of the story, I can't shake the feeling of disappointment that MY version of FoTR, the version I've played out in my imagination since age fourteen, was not the same picture that was put on display yesterday afternoon. I suspect that even if JRR Tolkien directed and produced the movie himself, it still would have failed to live up to MY personal interpretation of events. The "Ring" trilogy has moved even beyond Tolkien's ken. Though Tolkien wrote the book, and Jackson produced the movie, the story itself, along with its characters, is now in my mind's possession. Tolkien and Jackson came close to reproducing what my imagination has sculpted, fashioned and refined over the years of perusing the books (indeed, some scenes approached obejective correlativity), but anything short of exact representation is doomed to leave one such as I in a state of bitterness - not so much in the movie, but in the failure of any physical medium to replicate a cherished memory, the form of which has taken its own physical, unmalleable form. Am I making sense? Vague words to a vague emotion. It's like reading "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and then actually touring Italy and witnessing nothing but ruin and decay where once stood the marbled capital of a great empire. So seeing FoTR wasn't so much an entertaining experience as it was educational; I now know that the only legitimate adaptation that can exist is the one each of us has possesses inside him or her. Be that as it may, it's still a great movie, and I encourage others to go and see it.

Originally posted by EMINEM:
<STRONG>I... I honestly don't know what to write right now! Did I like the movie? I think so. Was I disappointed by FoTR? I think so, too! By itself the movie was captivating. The scenery, special effects, acting, screenplay et al were at times breath-taking. It quite simply is the best movie of 2001. I cried twice; the first when Gandalf slid into Khazad-dhum, the second during Boromir's death scene with Aragorn. The movie is not an independent entity, however; it is based on a beloved book I have read many times, and though I understand that this was Peter Jackson's vision of the story, I can't shake the feeling of disappointment that MY version of FoTR, the version I've played out in my imagination since age fourteen, was not the same picture that was put on display yesterday afternoon. I suspect that even if JRR Tolkien directed and produced the movie himself, it still would have failed to live up to MY personal interpretation of events. The "Ring" trilogy has moved even beyond Tolkien's ken. Though Tolkien wrote the book, and Jackson produced the movie, the story itself, along with its characters, is now in my mind's possession. Tolkien and Jackson came close to reproducing what my imagination has sculpted, fashioned and refined over the years of perusing the books (indeed, some scenes approached obejective correlativity), but anything short of exact representation is doomed to leave one such as I in a state of bitterness - not so much in the movie, but in the failure of any physical medium to replicate a cherished memory, the form of which has taken its own physical, unmalleable form. Am I making sense? Vague words to a vague emotion. It's like reading "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and then actually touring Italy and witnessing nothing but ruin and decay where once stood the marbled capital of a great empire. So seeing FoTR wasn't so much an entertaining experience as it was educational; I now know that the only legitimate adaptation that can exist is the one each of us has possesses inside him or her. Be that as it may, it's still a great movie, and I encourage others to go and see it.</STRONG>

I think this was a very intelligent and honest response. I felt the same way at points, but then gave up on it. The movie was the movie, your memory of the world from the book a different entity entirely. And that's a good thing. Celebrate the various versions floating around the world. They are both good to have, and make the original richer. I don't think the movie reduced the books at all. And some moments were non-trivially clever, and did things the book did not do (for example seeing the reflections of arguing members of Elrond's gathering in the glossy glow of the ring).

Yes the book still is vastly more detailed, richer, cleverer, and deeper (and funnier). The movie is wonderful, vastly more accessible and visual, and more heart-thumpingly exciting. Good things all.

And as a corallary to the movie, I finally figured out a not-entirely half-arsed reason for rangers (i.e. Aragorn) to be dual-wielders. Light travelling. Seeing Gimli's huge axe (2 handed), and Boromir's clunky shield, and then Aragorn with his sword + whatever was at hand (torch, dagger, etc.) just worked. It's lighter, faster, and smarter to parry with a dagger/stick than carry a huge shield around. Well, that's just something that struck me.

Legalos was great, but mostly just because he was allowed to be Hollywood glam; everybody else was ill-shaven and had that "dirty" makeup on. Hollywood does elves well.

And was it just me, or did Gimli simply not -- work -- in the movie very well? He just rang false. Oh well.

@EMINEM I agree completely. In some ways, I think it's better to see the movie before reading the books; but then you miss out on having your own personal interpretation of the descriptions and events. I, personally, am glad I read the books first.