Model Boat Mayhem

Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: BrianB6 on June 20, 2020, 03:29:06 am

Title: LOTR
Post by: BrianB6 on June 20, 2020, 03:29:06 am
Bilbo Baggins did not live to eleventy something.   Sir Ian Holm died yesterday aged 88.    <:(
I still have the BBC C.D's of the LOTR which, for me, was far better than the films that were so distorted as to almost loose the plot.   >>:-(
And yes, I have been to Hobbiton.   %%

The new Amazon pre prequel will no doubt be unwatchable.
Title: Re: LOTR
Post by: Umi_Ryuzuki on June 20, 2020, 03:39:27 am
Eighty eight is divisible by eleventy...  ok2   
Priest Vito Cornelius, expert of astro phenomenom...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnM9oPBVNu8
Title: Re: LOTR
Post by: grendel on June 20, 2020, 07:40:39 am
would that be eleventy eight?
Title: Re: LOTR
Post by: tonyH on June 20, 2020, 10:04:55 am
I thought the pre-prequel was the Silmarillion?
Title: Re: LOTR
Post by: Klunk on June 21, 2020, 07:39:04 am
that book was almost unreadable!
Title: Re: LOTR
Post by: tonyH on June 21, 2020, 09:59:05 am
The first dozen pages or so weren't so bad but I lost the will to live very shortly afterwards {:-{
Title: Re: LOTR
Post by: ballastanksian on June 21, 2020, 01:20:53 pm

I think it is the problem when a person invents a world and it's evolution and then gets over enthusiastic thinking the 'history' is as interesting as the stories it is built from for context. The Unfinished tales etc are also hard work. I think fundamentally, the Middle earth 'real life' is boring because like real pre medieval life, it was one of subsistence and loss, which makes a downer of a read.


That's my opinion, so do discuss if you disagree  :-)
Title: Re: LOTR
Post by: tonyH on June 21, 2020, 03:07:52 pm
My trouble with it is that I'd lived with LOTR from the mid 60's as the default book to take bumming around on hols anywhere etc. so I expected more of the same from Silmarrilion when it came out in the late 70's. It was just too much like hard work. Perhaps if I tried again it might work.........but I doubt it {:-{
Title: Re: LOTR
Post by: malcolmfrary on June 21, 2020, 04:17:10 pm
The Silmarillion was heavy going.  Maybe a collection of sepatarate stories that might be filmable.  Might even produce watchable films, but the most watchable films don't come from big, thick books.  They come from quite brief paperbacks.
The Unfinished Tales............anybody remember the throwaway line in Spaceballs,  the one that mentioned "Spaceballs 2 - the search for more money"?..... I felt the UT was headed there.
Don't know if there is a film there, but I have long had a liking for E R Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros.  Not just for something written in 1922, when a fountain pen was a high tech word processor, but a cracking story by any standard.  Apart from the first chapter.
Title: Re: LOTR
Post by: ballastanksian on June 21, 2020, 09:13:27 pm

There were accusations levelled at Christopher Tolkien back in the day that he was cashing in on his father's fame by publishing loads of unfinished work, and adding bits to existing 'completed' works. But then, how  many times have Agatha Christie and other such authors had their work republished and bits added. I suppose it is the same with films. I remember an episode of Big Bang Theory where Leonard (one of the main characters) extolls the worth of watching the directors cut of a film because it has an extra few seconds worth of footage!


To paraphrase: 'There's money in tham thar archives!'
Title: Re: LOTR
Post by: Colin Bishop on June 21, 2020, 09:42:58 pm
The Hobbit and the LOTR were the only books really intended for publication. The rest are varying distillations of Tolkien's obsession with his invented world of Middle Earth.

Colin
Title: Re: LOTR
Post by: tsenecal on June 21, 2020, 11:49:45 pm
i remember Ian Holm as Ash the android from the original "Alien"