Peter Jackson passed over for The Hobbit and LOTR Prequel by New Line

[Adrian II]

Whoa! So, let me make sure I understand what you're saying, LOTR is childish because there's not enough emphasis on sexuality ?!

Yous have it right, my friend. The Hobbitses mention no nooky, hear no nooky, see no nooky. They certainly don't engage in it.

LOTR is clean wholesome fun for the entire family. At least when you read the Revised Standard Version, the one approved by the Vatican. I have heard others mentioned in which Frodo and Sauron...

.. but hey, this is the Frontroom.

Seriously though, as I was Googling for 'LOTR' and 'sexuality' to see if I had made some stupid mistake or omission, I stumbled upon an essay by a PhD student by the name of Stephen Bond who says it much better than I could:

'One would have to go through Freudian contortions to find anything related to sexuality in LOTR, and in this respect it suffers in comparison to the other Ring saga (from which Tolkien borrowed the 'Ring of Power' idea). Der Ring des Nibelungen has its own severe problems, but it's clearly a work of much greater depth and maturity than Tolkien's Ring, with much more interesting things to say about sexuality. Take the scene where the teenage hero Siegfried, who has tamed bears, forged a sword, slain a dragon, killed his stepfather -- the scene where the fearless Siegfried first encounters a woman, first beholds the female form, and for the first time in his life feels fear. Wagner (or the writer of the Saga of the Volsungs) touches on something fairly profound here. Swords, dragons, magic rings, warriors, battles -- to which one might add orcs, elves, wizards and kings -- they're all kids' stuff, easy stuff. But entering the world of love and adult sexuality -- that's real white-hot terror, that's what separates the men from the boys. It's a ring of fire Tolkien's fiction is too timid to cross.

[Gregoshi]

I'm with Blodrast. LOTR isn't nearly as black and white as it appears.

Aside from the cases Blodrast mentions, there is also the dilemma of the elves. Through their three rings of power, they were able to maintain their ability to keep their realms in Middle Earth as "young" and vibrant places to live - but only as long as the One ring remaind lost. Once it was found, they had a terrible choice - become enslaved to Sauron should he regain the ring, or destroy it. The latter choice would destroy the power of their rings, and their lands as well, thus forcing them to leave Middle Earth and return to Valinor ("into the West").

Also, despite the Jackson-invented aid at Helms Deep in the movies, the elves (good guys) refused to aid Rohan and Gondor (the other good guys), save for the Fellowship. And the aid for the Fellowship was reluctantly given at first only through the respect the elves had for Gandalf.

The ents were yet another shade of Good. They had their own definition of "good" which was maintaining the forests. They refused to help neither Good nor Evil, though they tended to like Evil a lot less. It was only the destructive actions of Saruman the forced them into action.

The One Ring itself was a catalyst that played on the human mind. Through temptation of power, it could ruin a man, elf or wizard of the purest good. Evil itself slumbers in the heart of all good men. It is the good man who is able to maintain dominance over his evil in normal circumstances. The Ring tips the balance though. The Theoden/Grima relationship also demonstrates how a good man can be twisted to evil.

As for doc's remark about The Silmarillion rewriting the Bible, Tolkien was merely writing a fiction mythology for England. Every "real" mythology has a creation myth, therefore, so does his. I don't see what is so terrible about that.

[Sardo]

It's like with LOTR Tolkien tried to write the 'new' testament and then with the Silmarillon he tried to add the old. Of course, Tolkien would probably turn over in his grave if he read me compare his books to the Bible, considering his views on the subject

He'd also be turning in his grave if he saw you claiming that he 'added' the Silmarillion, as he'd started work on that in the trenches of the Great War, 1917, and never really finished it. The LotR was, in a sense, the later work.

Now, I get the point about the story not being character-driven and all that, but to be honest, I don't care too much for all the fancy psychological subtleties that are apparently so much better (and sexuality is really unnecessary in such stories, as far as I'm concerned). I like the mythical, heroic characters, and the really evil ones - and by the way, for a really nicely ambiguous character, look at Saruman: he could have been one of the greatest 'good guys', and he's offered a chance of redemption several times, and each time he's compelled to reject it, but not without inner struggle.
Faramir's temptation in the films goes completely against his character in the book, and I'm more a fan of the determined, strong-willed book-Aragorn than the self-doubting film-version. So you could say that these complaints simply don't matter much to me (and so much the better for my enjoyment).

Still, Tolkien's best-developed character, and my personal favourite, is not even in the LotR. Take up the Silmarillion, or better yet Unfinished Tales, and look for the tale of the Children of Hurin (I think it's being released in a separate book next year). Turin Turambar has all the ambiguity you want - a great hero with some very dark sides to his character, and he's ultimately driven to his destruction. Doom still had something to do with that of course, but still.

A disclaimer: this post may not be as coherent as I should like, and I'm not addressing a few things, I think, but it's past 2am and I should actually be in bed.

Edit: Nevertheless, though:

the other Ring saga (from which Tolkien borrowed the 'Ring of Power' idea)

Tolkien's response to that was, more or less: "Both rings are round, and that's as far as the comparison goes."

Also, good points made by Gregoshi that I wish I'd made myself. The Elves couldn't help Rohan or Gondor though, as they were themselves at war with Sauron, and assaulted several times.

[Adrian II]

Still, Tolkien's best-developed character, and my personal favourite, is not even in the LotR. Take up the Silmarillion, or better yet Unfinished Tales, and look for the tale of the Children of Hurin (I think it's being released in a separate book next year). Turin Turambar has all the ambiguity you want - a great hero with some very dark sides to his character, and he's ultimately driven to his destruction. Doom still had something to do with that of course, but still.

I have to hand it to you Tolkienites, you know how to give and take a punch. This thread has given me food for thought and I will look into the Unfinished Tales and see what gives.

[Motep]

They were good books, and decent enough movies.

However, the books were alot better than the movies, and what the HELL did they do to Frodo?

[Adrian II]

Which reminds me that Tolkien used to read chapters of his work to friends and one night one of them, who wasn't much impressed with it anyway, awoke from his slumber and groaned 'Oh God, not another procreating elf!'

[Soulforged]

Yous have it right, my friend. The Hobbitses mention no nooky, hear no nooky, see no nooky. They certainly don't engage in it.

Oh come on, that's absurd!!! Just read how many times Sam expresses his love to Frodo and how he holds his hand from time to time. Or what about that scene of the monologue of Pippin about the different sizes of the "fruits" in Brandigamo's farm?

[Gregoshi]

Tolkien is one of those authors you either find dry and boring or rich and fascinating. Fortunately for me, I find his writing fitting in the latter category. When I first started reading Tolkien, I couldn't believe it was fiction. There was so much detail and depth to the story I thought that it couldn't be made up. Everything I read before and since feels like a Hollywood movie set - it looks good from the front but there is nothing behind it. I found that with Tolkien, a simple one sentence reference in LOTR often has a whole short story length (minimum) back story. Somehow for me, that became very apparent just reading The Hobbit and LOTR. I sensed the rich history of the elves, men and Middle Earth. I love it. Maybe it is the history buff in me.

I am also taken by Tolkien's use of language. Often in my many re-readings of the books I find I'm saddened that I can't walk amongst the trees of Lothlorien or the streets of Minas Tirith. One of my favourite passages that captures what enchants me about Tolkien is the account of the fall of the elven High King Fingolfin in The Silmarillion. I've edited the passage to shorten it a bit:

Thus he (Fingolfin) came alone to Angband’s gates, and he sounded his horn, and smote once more upon the brazen doors, and challenged Morgoth to come forth to single combat. And Morgoth came...

...climbing slowly from his subterranean throne, and the rumour of his feet was like thunder underground. And he issued forth clad in black armour; and he stood before the King like a tower, iron-crowned, and his vast shield, sable un-blazoned, cast a shadow over him like a storm cloud. But Fingolfin gleamed beneath it as a star; for his mail was overlaid with silver, and his blue shield was set with crystals; and he drew his sword Ringil, that glittered like ice.

Then Morgoth hurled aloft Grond, the Hammer of the Underworld, and swung it down like a bolt of thunder. But Fingolfin sprang aside, and Grond rent a mighty pit in the earth, whence smoke and fire darted. Many times Morgoth essayed to smite him, and each time Fingolfin leaped away, as a lightning shoots from under a dark cloud; and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds, and seven time’s Morgoth gave a cry of anguish, whereat the hosts of Angband fell upon their faces in dismay, and the cries echoed in the North-lands.

But at the last the King grew weary, and Morgoth bore down his shield upon him. Thrice he was crushed to his knees, and thrice arose again and bore up his broken shield and stricken helm. But the earth was all rent and pitted about him, and he stumbled and fell backward before the feet of Morgoth; and Morgoth set his left foot upon his neck, and the weight of it was like a fallen hill. Yet with his last and desperate stroke Fingolfin hewed the foot with Ringil, and the blood gushed forth black and smoking and filled the pits of Grond.

Thus died Fingolfin, High King of the Noldor, most proud and valiant of the Elven-kings of old. The Orcs made no boast of that duel at the gate; neither do the Elves sing of it, for their sorrow is too deep.

When I read that passage, feel the sorrow of the elves. Others, who aren't Tolkien fans, probably just roll their eyes.

Concerning the movies, I thought Jackson did an excellent job of capturing the spirit of Middle Earth. The parts of the movies that bothered me the most were where Jackson had to simplify the story to shorten it. Often, the simplification was too Hollywood-ish in my mind (Aragorn falling off the cliff in The Two Towers - my turn to ). But on the whole he put the same depth into the movie that Tolkien did in his stories. If you ever watched the extras on the LOTR DVDs, there is so much detail in the sets and costumes that is not apparent to the casual eye - but maybe to the subconcious. Jackson & crew didn't have to do that and the movies would have still been good. But thanks to their extra efforts, there is an extra richness to the tapestry that sprawls across the screen as we watch the movies. That is a key element that sets the LOTR movies apart from every other movie of its type.

As for the no nooky comment, Sam has children at the end of the movie/books, so we know that ain't so!

[Blodrast]

@ AdrianII: My friend, I think you're looking for things in places they were not meant to be. For example, don't get me wrong, I'm as horny as the next male (or maybe more ), but I like to keep different things in different baskets. I will agree with you that good/bad, its analysis (to an extent), and some plausible characters are all things that definitely belong in a good story.
But nooky - my friend, for that, I frequent all those places with lots of popups

A good western is made (or unmade) by cowboys (and perhaps indians), shooting each other like crazy; a complicated plot neither adds, nor deducts from the quality of the movie.

A good thriller/mystery/crime movie is made or unmade by its plot, and the subtlety by which it is unravelled. Character building is important here, too. Comic situations/lines ? If anything, they ruin the mood of the film and the atmosphere (for most types of mystery/crime movies), so they better not even be there.

Likewise, in a "good" pr0n, I really, really couldn't care less about the plot that consists of a few lines which 2 or 3 illiterate beauties with the bust size greater than their IQ are struggling to vomit. All I care for is, erm, the action.

@ Gregoshi: Thanks for the quote , it is pretty well chosen to make your point
In the same spirit of your post, I'd like to mention that I'm (duh) also one of the lucky ones who greatly enjoy Tolkien's work.
LOTR has lots of purely descriptive passages (of nature, things, landscapes, interiors, decorations, what have you). Purely descriptive, and that add nothing to the actual plot - but the richness of detail contributes immensely to the immersion and the feeling you're "there", in the story.
Well, let me tell you something, although I love reading in general, I usually skip descriptions as soon as I spot them. I loathe them. Tolkien is the only author (with Maugham, on occasion) who has managed to keep me reading them all the way through - and enjoy them, nothing less!

One last thing: I thought the attention to detail as far as the construction of languages, as well as all other things, was simply overwhelming, and helped immensely to get the reader immersed in his world.

AdrianII, we half agree: It is a story (that's the part we agree on), but it's not just a kids story

And thank you all for such a nice, civilized and fruitful discussion on this

[doc_bean]

if only evil had been restored to its proper abode, the human mind, instead of embodied in a shiny thingamy.

That was pretty much what the ending was about...

While Good and Evil are not relative or questionable in LOTR, it does put a large emphasis on corruption. The ability to do evil exists in us all. I still stand by my point that it's vie'w on morality is very close to the bible, where people are essentially good, but can be corrupted by the forces of evil.

It is perhaps rather simplistic, but I think you're being to harsh on it, after all that view on marolity has existed for countless millenia. Homerus perhaps explores relative morailty a little more, and that might make him seem more 'advanced' since it's closer to our current viewpoint on morality, but that doesn't necessarily make it superior, objectively speaking.

[Soulforged]

While Good and Evil are not relative or questionable in LOTR, it does put a large emphasis on corruption. The ability to do evil exists in us all. I still stand by my point that it's vie'w on morality is very close to the bible, where people are essentially good, but can be corrupted by the forces of evil.

That's incorrect. The people on the Bible are more often real people of real times, and do commit evil by their own means. Saying that some force "corrupts" them, IS NOT the same as saying that the "ability to do evil exists in us all". The devil is just a part of psique as god, but are moral imperatives inside you. In the Tolkien world everything that corrupts is outside you. Even taking Turin Turambar in the Silmarillon, he actually is predestined to be corrupted at some point and die a tragic death, Morgoth knows it. It's more like in the jewish tradition. Everything is caused by the Silmarils. If you put the chain of events since the creation of the Silmarils in logical order you'll notice that everything that follows their creation is related causally. That's a very simplistic way to explain Evil. Love, hate, good, evil, etc. are all predetermined. That makes the story of Tolkien twodimensional. It still doesn't bore me because I like epic narration but I understand very well why other people might not like it. The Lord of the Rings attemps to add a little comedy with the hobbits, but I don't like it, so I never liked the books, I only read them to understand the movies better.

So, Gollum is either black or white, either evil or good, right ? Remember how he changes soooo many times during the movie? Remember the inner struggle, with the clash between the "nice Smeagol" and "bad Gollum" ? How about the scene where he decides to kill Frodo and Sam, that's like 5 minutes or more in the movie, a scene that has absolutely no other purpose than to show you the duality of the character.

I believe you're mistaken. Gollum is only black, manipulative, treacherous creature. Smeagol on the other side is white. But they're two different persons in the same body. There's no duality here: Gollum is Gollum, and will forever be Gollum, a creation of the One Ring. Smeagol is Smeagol and will forever be Smeagol. They are not two faces of the same coin, they're two separate coins that don't coexist in the same space at the same time.

[Sardo]

I believe you're mistaken. Gollum is only black, manipulative, treacherous creature. Smeagol on the other side is white. But they're two different persons in the same body. There's no duality here: Gollum is Gollum, and will forever be Gollum, a creation of the One Ring. Smeagol is Smeagol and will forever be Smeagol. They are not two faces of the same coin, they're two separate coins that don't coexist in the same space at the same time.

I would rather say that this is an exaggeration from the film, and that in the book Gollum and Sméagol are less distinguishable - Sméagol has his nasty sides, too.

Another point regarding evil: of course most of the time evil seems to come from the outside and corrupt otherwise decent people, but I would still like to point out a few cases where it seems to be slightly otherwise. Firstly, there's the root of all evil himself, Melkor: he's originally the mightiest of the Ainur (think angels, except perhaps a bit more potent) and he turns evil because of his own pride (much like Lucifer, if I remember aright). He then starts turning lots of other people evil of course, corrupting them from outside, but then some people are very susceptible to his evil, too.
Fëanor, the mightiest elf and creator of the Noldor, was a right [bad name] before Morgoth ever started whispering in his ear. There's Eol the Dark Elf, who's quite a resentful character, turning not-so-good without any help from the Enemy. Saruman, like I mentioned, persists in his bad ways out of pride, even without being compelled any longer from without - indeed, even while he's now very fearful of the real bad guys. This is why I find the scene where he almost gives in to Gandalf so compelling: the outcome is practically predetermined, sure, but the predetermination lies within Saruman's own personality. And finally Sauron himself was not always evil: after Morgoth's defeat he was quite willing to work for the good guys. However, being afraid of punishment, he stayed behind in Middle Earth to put it to good order, and this rekindled his lust for power.

This has taken far too long for just some examples trying to show that not all is black and white in Tolkien's writings, but... that's the geek in me, I guess...
Also, on topic: New Line is evil and creates a vacuum for making PJ sad!

[The Wizard]

I'd like to ask all the folks who thought the LOTR movies sucked to please tell us of a great film(s) in the same genre so that we may enjoy it as they did.

Now, I thought the movies were pretty damn reasonable, but:

Try Musa [The Warrior], a flick from South Korea. Not quite as large a scale as LOTR's, but the money they spent on SFX (and hence large scale) in LOTR they spent on good actors and a decent script. Once again, don't expect a piece of art evoking true emotions, but the atmosphere of senseless carnage caused by the pride of a few men is moving, to a point.

Alternatively, try Sword in the Moon, another South Korean movie. Not as good as Musa in my book, but others might like it better.

On the books... I read the trilogy, and stopped there. It took me two years, if not three. Compare that to that time in weeks it took me to get through George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, of which Book Three is almost as large as the trilogy's 1244 pages in the Dutch translation (strangely I read this one in Dutch, something I don't often do with books) alone, and you know what attitude I have towards LOTR.

Tolkien shines in creating a world, and the historical appendices of the trilogy were probably my favorite part -- but he fails in breathing life into it, IMO. This is my main gripe with LOTR: the characters simply do not develop, and basically remain secondary to the world -- flat characters. Unacceptable to anything considering itself a story, or even literature.

[The Stranger]

I dont know if someone read the Silmarillion... that is quite good... its a bit biblical but its good... I never liked the hobbit or the Fellowship, i thought The Two Towers were great untill i actually read it and i felt largely dissapointed... Two Towers movie was oke... better than Harry Potter 3&4 wherein he is basicly a big whining he killed my daddy loser... which i hated... I liked Helmsdeep battle scene but that basicly was it... though i never mind watching it but i wanna see it again to make up my mind

[caravel]

The Silmarillion is really background and plot material, put together into a single volume by Tolkien's son. It contains the plot for which to base a good novel, but the only actual "story" in the book is the tale of Turin Turambar.

Whatever you say about Tolkien's work, it is highly imaginitive, and I feel leaves it open to the reader to actually form their own opinions and conceptions of the various characters.

At the end of the day though this is a fantasy novel, and this is often how fantasy novels tend to turn out. This is a story on a global scale, not a personal one, so going through an entire chapter of bonking hobbits, or a stressed wizard's family life, seems rather irrelevant on such a scale. This type of book is ok for some people and not for others. The characters in LOTR and the Silmarillion are not black and white (There are many supposedly good characters that show a weak and bad side. They are not all saints and sinners.) but whether you actually like these books or not often is.

[Gregoshi]

I read The Silmarillion and love it. The first part of the book on the creation of the world was very hard to get through the first time I read it, but the rest of it is wonderous and yet very sad as it goes on.

I've also read Unfinished Tales and several of the later books. Unfinished Tales is very good too the second time I read it. I didn't care much for it the first time. However, in later books the stories get too fragmented and the presentation of alternate parts of the story makes for a very difficult read. I can only read that stuff in small chunks. I'm currently working on The Book of Lost Tales 1 (&2) which are rather different than the Middle Earth we know and love. You can see the foundations of the later works but it is a bit alien. I'm staring at The Lays of Beleriand, The Shaping of Middle Earth and The Lost Road and Other Writings on my book shelf. I figured myself a rather diehard Tolkien fan but these books are making me question my "diehard" status. Maybe some of the others aren't so bad, but the Lost Tales are very tough to get through.

[caravel]

I read The Silmarillion and love it. The first part of the book on the creation of the world was very hard to get through the first time I read it, but the rest of it is wonderous and yet very sad as it goes on.

I've also read Unfinished Tales and several of the later books. Unfinished Tales is very good too the second time I read it. I didn't care much for it the first time. However, in later books the stories get too fragmented and the presentation of alternate parts of the story makes for a very difficult read. I can only read that stuff in small chunks. I'm currently working on The Book of Lost Tales 1 (&2) which are rather different than the Middle Earth we know and love. You can see the foundations of the later works but it is a bit alien. I'm staring at The Lays of Beleriand, The Shaping of Middle Earth and The Lost Road and Other Writings on my book shelf. I figured myself a rather diehard Tolkien fan but these books are making me question my "diehard" status. Maybe some of the others aren't so bad, but the Lost Tales are very tough to get through.

I've read The Hobbit, LOTR, the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. I first read the Hobbit, probably about 20 years ago, and LOTR and the Silmarillion soon after. Unfinished Tales, I picked up a few years back. I was a hardcore Tolkien fan, reading the books through over and over, and I still think his books are brilliant classics, but I'm no longer as enthralled as I was back then, and I do find them rather "biblical" and self indulgent in places. The novelty wears off eventually I suppose.

[Soulforged]

I would rather say that this is an exaggeration from the film, and that in the book Gollum and Sméagol are less distinguishable - Sméagol has his nasty sides, too.

I don't think so. It gives you the illusion of exageration or even hyperbole because it's vissual and easier to comprehend. The book describes two separate persons. Sméagol is not dark, and that's for sure, until...well until he sees the Ring.

Another point regarding evil: of course most of the time evil seems to come from the outside and corrupt otherwise decent people, but I would still like to point out a few cases where it seems to be slightly otherwise. Firstly, there's the root of all evil himself, Melkor: he's originally the mightiest of the Ainur (think angels, except perhaps a bit more potent) and he turns evil because of his own pride (much like Lucifer, if I remember aright). He then starts turning lots of other people evil of course, corrupting them from outside, but then some people are very susceptible to his evil, too.

My point is not exactly that evil always comes from outside. What I'm saying is, regardless of where the evil comes from, evil creatures are always evil and good creatures are always good by the own nature. Or better said, creatures are predestined to be good or evil, except if there's some greater force wich interveins and changes its fate, like Melkor corrupting the elves to create the orcs, but in that last case we're talking again of a natural or divine force wich acts from outside.

There's Eol the Dark Elf, who's quite a resentful character, turning not-so-good without any help from the Enemy.

This is the perfect example of evil nature in the Silmarillon.

Saruman, like I mentioned, persists in his bad ways out of pride, even without being compelled any longer from without - indeed, even while he's now very fearful of the real bad guys. This is why I find the scene where he almost gives in to Gandalf so compelling: the outcome is practically predetermined, sure, but the predetermination lies within Saruman's own personality.

Saruman is corrupted forever when he uses the Palantir and Sauron catches him.

And finally Sauron himself was not always evil: after Morgoth's defeat he was quite willing to work for the good guys. However, being afraid of punishment, he stayed behind in Middle Earth to put it to good order, and this rekindled his lust for power.

You're mistaken here. If he wasn't always evil it's because evil didn't exist always in Ea. Evil came after his creation and corrupted him (Melkor did it). After Morgoth's defeat he only mixed himself with the Numenor to corrupt them from inside just as Morgoth did before the fall of the Trees. The reality is that Sauron is the first and only maia corrupted, but since he falls he never returns to the light.

Another thing that makes stories very rich and is lacking in the Tolkien's litterature is the topic of "redemption", either because the "good" is not guilty or because the one who is always "bad", well will always be bad and cannot be saved or save himself. This is something than another series of fantasy, Star Wars, doesn't do, though Star Wars is still a childs story with a lot of pedagogy (moral teachings more than anything). The "Dragonlance" series if much more mature and rich.

[Sardo]

Well, I now wish I had brought my books from home, but I'll have to do without the exact quotations and work from memory here.

Sméagol is not dark, and that's for sure, until...well until he sees the Ring.

I do believe Gandalf states in the Shadows of the Past chapter that Sméagol was indeed already a rather nasty, sneaky fellow and that the Ring merely enhanced those traits and brought out the worst in him. That would, incidentally, also be part of the reason why Bilbo kept it for so long without being harmed: as Gollum started his ownership of the Ring with murder, Bilbo started his with pity.

Saruman is corrupted forever when he uses the Palantir and Sauron catches him.

Yes, but does he not use the Palantir in the first place out of pride and a desire for mastery? I think Saruman is a great example of an essentially good being (and one of the greatest in Middle Earth at that) slowly being corrupted both from inside and outside.

You're mistaken here.

I don't think I am. I am pretty sure - and this is where I most feel the lack of my books - that Tolkien stated that after the overthrow of Morgoth (and long before his involvement with Numenor, of course), Sauron was at first probably quite sincere in his repentance, and in his concern for the ordening of Middle Earth afterward. Of course, as you said, he never returns to the light after all, as he is afraid to face the punishment for his deeds, and is pretty much left alone in Middle Earth, where his hunger for power rears its head again soon enough.

On redemption: see Boromir.
Also, redemption is offered to some of the 'bad guys', several times in fact, namely to Saruman and Grima, and they can save themselves, except Saruman decides for the both of them (but not without a trace of doubt), and Grima ultimately picks the wrong way of freeing himself.

In conclusion I would like to stress that I'm not actually disagreeing with the notion that Tolkien's characters aren't exactly the most well-developed in the history of literature - I am trying to make the case that all may not be as bad as some seem to think. Moreover, I'm not looking for loads of psychological subtleties when I read Tolkien anyway - I'm looking for that large-scale, epic, mythical quality his works possess.

[yesdachi]

I care less about character development and more about seeing a cave troll smash the place up! You give me a 3 hour movie of a cave troll fighting a Balrog and I’ll show you a fan boy with the fullest bladder ever! I think the character development was adequate with everyone in the 3 films, what more do you need to know to “get” the story. It would have been nice to know more about some of the characters but I didn’t need to in order to follow the story. I would watch another movie focusing on any of a dozen parts of the movies if they made them, but all that character development didn’t need to be in the books or movies and IMO any more character development would have almost been distracting.

[Gregoshi]

Actually, the hobbits developed the most in the story. Just about everything they did was so uncharacteristic of hobbits, yet they did what had to be done.

Regarding Saruman, I just did a little confirmative(?) research. His downfall started long before Sauron "captured" him via the palantir. Though he was senior of the wizards, he was jealous of Gandalf's status among others. Many perceived Gandalf as the stronger (though Gandalf would disagree with that assessment). Saruman was scheming to obtain the Ring for his own, but was later ensnared by Sauron. Sauron just took Saruman's growing malice and redirected it to aid him.

Last note on good being good and evil being evil, there were 5 wizards (very strong good guys) sent to oppose Sauron, yet only Gandalf stayed true. The other four all failed in some way.

[Soulforged]

I do believe Gandalf states in the Shadows of the Past chapter that Sméagol was indeed already a rather nasty, sneaky fellow and that the Ring merely enhanced those traits and brought out the worst in him. That would, incidentally, also be part of the reason why Bilbo kept it for so long without being harmed: as Gollum started his ownership of the Ring with murder, Bilbo started his with pity.

Yes, that's what the Ring does, get the worst of everyone. Sneaky and nasty don't make up for a "bad fellow", in fact they make him more coward and obscure than any other thing.

Yes, but does he not use the Palantir in the first place out of pride and a desire for mastery? I think Saruman is a great example of an essentially good being (and one of the greatest in Middle Earth at that) slowly being corrupted both from inside and outside.

Also this quote:

Regarding Saruman, I just did a little confirmative(?) research. His downfall started long before Sauron "captured" him via the palantir. Though he was senior of the wizards, he was jealous of Gandalf's status among others. Many perceived Gandalf as the stronger (though Gandalf would disagree with that assessment). Saruman was scheming to obtain the Ring for his own, but was later ensnared by Sauron. Sauron just took Saruman's growing malice and redirected it to aid him.

Then if you put it like that Saruman falls because he's seduced by the Ring, but the actual moment of his fall is when he uses the Palantir.

Last note on good being good and evil being evil, there were 5wizards (very strong good guys) sent to oppose Sauron, yet only Gandalf stayed true. The other four all failed in some way.

Yet they're "corrupted" wich is an exception for the rule of predetermination.

I don't think I am. I am pretty sure - and this is where I most feel the lack of my books - that Tolkien stated that after the overthrow of Morgoth (and long before his involvement with Numenor, of course), Sauron was at first probably quite sincere in his repentance, and in his concern for the ordening of Middle Earth afterward. Of course, as you said, he never returns to the light after all, as he is afraid to face the punishment for his deeds, and is pretty much left alone in Middle Earth, where his hunger for power rears its head again soon enough.

Yes, p. 339 in my book. However read a little further and you'll discover that he's driven to do such thing only because he feels fear, wich isn't exactly honorable and morally heroic.

On redemption: see Boromir.

That isn't redemption exactly. When I said that the "good" is always free of guilt I was refering exactly to that scene. He falls incidentally by the spell of the Ring. If you want to take examples of redemption you've to go to the Nirnaeth Arnodiad in the Silmarillon and the last resistence of Hurin and Huor, however that's a kind of devious redemption, they're actually redeeming humankind before the eyes of the elves, but it's the best example you'll find.

Also, redemption is offered to some of the 'bad guys', several times in fact, namely to Saruman and Grima, and they can save themselves, except Saruman decides for the both of them (but not without a trace of doubt), and Grima ultimately picks the wrong way of freeing himself.

I never said that opportunities to redeem were not offered. I only said that the topic was lacking, wich means that the examples can be counted with the fingers of one of your hands. However this only confirms that the bad one will always be bad, he does not redeem himself.

In conclusion I would like to stress that I'm not actually disagreeing with the notion that Tolkien's characters aren't exactly the most well-developed in the history of literature - I am trying to make the case that all may not be as bad as some seem to think. Moreover, I'm not looking for loads of psychological subtleties when I read Tolkien anyway - I'm looking for that large-scale, epic, mythical quality his works possess.

Well if you're looking for that there's better works. Tolkien did his job syntetizing nordic mithology with post christian conceptions, and a little romanticism perhaps... However people who took him as a base have made a lot of progress in the novelistic aspect of fantasy category.

[Gregoshi]

Getting back to the original topic, this just in: Jackson Could Still Direct Hobbit

[The Wizard]

I don't get how you could possibly interpret or harken to the simplistic cardboard from which Tolkien's characters are made of... they never advance past the stage of flat character, unchanging, undeveloping, not affected by the hardships of the supposedly grand struggle against ze great evil.

The irony of it all, as far as Tolkien as a writer is concerned, is that the only character I ever felt any feeling for was Sauron, as he died when the ring was destroyed... poor guy. Frodo, Aragorn, or any of those elves (*shudder*)... nope. Nothing. Well, maybe a little annoyance here and there

But I suppose you could like Tolkien as a writer. To each his own... until you get to A Song of Ice and Fire, that is

[Gregoshi]

"Cardboard", eh? That conveniently explains my fondness of Tolkien and notepads.

A Song of Ice and Fire keeps coming up in discussions about books. I guess I'm going to have to check them out to see what all the chatter is about - I've been looking for something new to read anyway. So, when does the movie come out?

[econ21]

Getting back to the original topic, this just in: Jackson Could Still Direct Hobbit

Excellent. After his three LOTR films, I think Jackson could be relied upon to produce a first rate film adaption. The Hobbit is the easier work to translate to the big screen - snappier dialogue and a tighter plot. By contrast, any other director and I would judge it rather unlikely. I suspect a Jackson Hobbit Film would resemble the Fellowship film - a lighter work than the other two films, but arguably the best of the three. Moreover, Jackson is more guaranteed to bring in MacClellan and Serkis, and it's hard to imagine improving on them - not least because they are so imprinted on our minds.

I just hope Jackson does not try to "improve" on the book, but adding extra stuff. When he stuck to the source material, Jackson did a superb job but his additions were distinctly dodgy - Sauron as PowerRanger Monster, breakdancing wizards, Exorcist style possessions (Theoden & Bilbo), warg attacks (Aragon falling off the cliff), corrupting incorruptible heroes (Faramir) etc. Beefing up the women's roles was the main exception - Arwen's flight from the ring wraiths was the best scene in the trilogy, IMO.

Off-topic: who should play Bilbo? I'd vote for Toby McGuire but I guess his persona as Spiderman rules him out.

[Gregoshi]

Joe Pesci was the first name to pop into my head to play Bilbo, but I suspect he's too old (not to mention that Brooklyn(?) accent). Upon further reflection, Jack Black might do. The role of Bilbo will require a bit of comedic flare, so Jack might be well suited. He also had a bit of a hobbit-like build.

econ, I agree with your assessment of the Jackson "enhancements" to the story. You forgot to mention Legolas, the X-games dude-elf. Anyway, despite all that, I'd have little confidence in any other director doing as well as Jackson could.

Making The Hobbit film would be worth it just for the early scene when Gandalf and the dwarves first show up at Bilbo's place. Bilbo reaction at what is transpiring is probably the funniest thing in all of Tolkien's works.

[Blodrast]

*peers at the blasphemers and hisses: "They are envious, preciouss, yesss, filthy little hobbitses..."

[Aenlic]

Getting back to the original topic, this just in: Jackson Could Still Direct Hobbit

Well, I suppose there is hope then. I find it amusing that Saul Zaentz is talking trash about New Line having to be sued by WETA so Jackson would recieve his due. Zaentz doesn't exactly have a stellar record in that department either. He has a history of stiffing artists. Just ask John Fogerty. On his Centerfield album no less than 3 songs are thinly veiled insults of Zaentz, particulary "Zanz Kant Danz" which was later changed to "Vanz Kant Danz" after Zaentz sued Fogerty for defamation of character.

[Gregoshi]

IGN.com has an article discussing possible replacements for Jackson: The Hobbit Director Roll Call. Some on the list make me cringe. Aside from Jackson, Ridley Scott might do okay, but Ron Howard might be the best choice. I think Ron would try to capture the spirit of the book rather than pull off some weird, "visionary" interpretation. Others on the list I can't comment on because I'm not familar with their work.