|
Th Eagles aren't mysterious. They are Maiar and thier Progeny, attuned to manwe.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
Oh, I have no doubt that they exist, and are maiaistic in nature, but I question their role in the legendarium and wish to posit that their appearance in some stories is... representative of a different phenomenon. IM TRYING TO BACKREAD HERE
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Eagles from the machine mate. Eagles from the machine .
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Radio! posted:Honestly the real question now is half-elves: does their junk change if they choose the doom of Man. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
The eagles, man... the fuckin eagles
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
*60 page spanking montage*
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Bros,Morgoth's Ring, "Myths Transformed", VIII, pp. 409–411 posted:In the last of his notes on this topic, dated by his son to late 1950s, Tolkien decided that the Great Eagles were common animals that had been "taught language by the Valar, and raised to a higher level — but they still had no fëar."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
elise the great posted:Ffff come on guys, incest is canon. Like... boring levels of canon. please please please post more theories and analysis, I would love you forever
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Radio! posted:Bros, 1950s jrrt is at best D level cannon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
elise the great posted:"Hey, the Tolkien thread is aware of your puntl post and still respects you!" This exchange, right here, was when years of reading and enjoying (and lurking) the Tolkien thread paid off.  Especially since I saw the first mention of the post at work, went, "That sounds like..." and once I was out the door I checked and went, "Yep, of course it's Elise." I know how many random Tolkien-related asides of similar nature I've enjoyed over the years from Elise, and now it was finally time to SHARE THE WEALTH DIRECTLY. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
I demand Elise shitpost here!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Weird that all the LoTR is is literature and reader response has been the norm in evaluating literature but we're still so obsessed with whatever Tolkien's intent was even though he was evolving all the time. If he hadn't died, maybe he would have sent another letter saying "the Eagles were from heaven, which was Valor". What I'm saying is, who cares what Tolkien said, the ents and entwives were obviously an allegory about agriculture, which is so much hotter than incest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:As for the visuals, my only gripe is, as others have noted, the lack of agriculture in Gondor. Moria, Minas Tirith, Barad Dur etc are all just magnificent. What I did find a bit interesting in the backstory is that the entire reason why Gondor is in the toilet like this involves a massive plague some time prior to the books - before even The Hobbit - and presumably if it hadn't been for that plague killing a ton of people, Sauron probably couldn't have beat Gondor with the forces he had at hand, evil ghosts and trolls and racism elementals aside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
It's Sauron, the lord of underhanded bullshit, he probably made the plague during his tenure as the Necromancer for just that purpose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
How dare you accuse Tolkien of allegory !!! Interestingly for his professed allegory aversion Saruman is a pretty 1:1 allegory for early 20th century populist leader including propaganda and racism and so on
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
euphronius posted:How dare you accuse Tolkien of allegory !!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Nessus posted:They didn't route through many places which were going mad with crops except the Shire and maybe around Bree, which was probably a lot of it. Also it was winter, which didn't help anything. It's not just Gondor. Eriador is also very depopulated due to "plagues out of Angmar" and can't provide many allies. Gondor is also messed up due to the Kin-Strife (really racist vs somewhat less racist civil war) and the Wainriders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
I'm reading the Lord of the Rings again after 10 years (first time read it in middle school to look cool by reading thick books and retained nothing) but now that I like to read and have gone back I'm having trouble following. I don't really like fantasy n poo poo so I'm not used to these huge time lines and lineages and I'm wondering if I should be holding places with my finger to remind myself of who the gaffers great grandfather is or whatever, and also the map page that tells me nothing (even though there are thorough directions of the path they're taking). It's my light reading before bed, and I'm not even through book one yet... Will I be lost later if i just have fun reading the surface stuff like "lost in forest, two of four Hobbits stuck in tree, rhyme man saves them" or can I keep on keeping on like that? I just feel like names and places keep getting brought up that are written like I should know them but I don't. I'm really enjoying it but I have like a thousand pages to go, but if I get to part three and it's all son of this guy who slain this guy who came from this place in part one, I'd want to wait until I have time to really appreciate it and concentrate more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Everybody's experience is different but I would say this is a series where savoring the texture is important, maybe more so than the story even. It was the author's specialty, wordsmithing and sculpting language and building up intricate histories. Don't shortchange it. (And it gets more formal and lo-and-forsooth as it approaches the end, not less.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Nah mate, just enjoy it. If you want to dig down later you can but there's not going to be a test or anything. Have fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
life is a joke posted:I'm reading the Lord of the Rings again after 10 years (first time read it in middle school to look cool by reading thick books and retained nothing) but now that I like to read and have gone back I'm having trouble following. I don't really like fantasy n poo poo so I'm not used to these huge time lines and lineages and I'm wondering if I should be holding places with my finger to remind myself of who the gaffers great grandfather is or whatever, and also the map page that tells me nothing (even though there are thorough directions of the path they're taking). Part of the fun of LOTR is trying to figure out who ancient person is who just from context clues. But you don't need to understand the history -- the hobbits don't, and they're the main POV characters. Memorizing long lineages isn't required.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Actually, if you can't recreate at least one of the family trees in the appendix from memory, I'm going to flunk you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
The greatest joy of LotR for me is that the first time I read them, I only understood the story bits, and most of the rest went completely over my head... but upon a later re-reading, I connected a few dots about world events, started to recognize the absurdity and unreliability of the hobbit POVs, and got dragged into this huge incredible world that is a mystery even to its own inhabitants and gives itself up only in momentary satisfying glimpses. Which is to say: skip the songs if you like, don't worry about the mythology yet, and look at lots of art and illustrations if you're a visual person, so that you can start to get your hooks into the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
life is a joke posted:I'm reading the Lord of the Rings again after 10 years (first time read it in middle school to look cool by reading thick books and retained nothing) but now that I like to read and have gone back I'm having trouble following. I don't really like fantasy n poo poo so I'm not used to these huge time lines and lineages and I'm wondering if I should be holding places with my finger to remind myself of who the gaffers great grandfather is or whatever, and also the map page that tells me nothing (even though there are thorough directions of the path they're taking).
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
I wouldn't worry about it, just keep reading dude. It's all fairly explicit in the sense of "what you see is what you get" - it's not like Game of Thrones where you have to read between the lines from several POVs before really getting what's going on (and even then you can read it several times and completely miss something). As others have said, it's mainly from the Hobbits' POV and they're pretty clueless about the wider world and its history. The reader being in the same boat is a totally valid way to read it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Aww thanks fellows  . I think it's a really fun read so I'll just keep on. I was worried I didn't have the right mind for it cause I usually read nonfiction or less dense fiction. Looking forward to finishing it this round, hopefully I'll get to read it again next year and absorb more info, and experience the texture.Also I never seen the movies, which is a benefit to me cause everything is unexpected. In my mind gandalf sometimes looks like Ian McKellen and Frodo looks like Elijah Wood but besides that it feels new. life is a joke fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Most of us think they're very well cast so that's not a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Most of us think they're very well cast so that's not a bad thing. With that one glaring exception... Seriously, did anyone at all like Hugo Weaving as Elrond?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Wait, there are people who didn't like him? I thought he was perfect right from the first flashback scene  If there's any person alive who looks more "elvish" I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Liv Tyler i thought was beyond perfect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Wait, there are people who didn't like him? When he was announced I was a bit  I actually think they went a bit too stern and aloof with Elrond's portrayal, though I totally get what they were going for. I can't imagine anyone else as Elrond at this point though. Seconded that Liv Tyler was perfectly cast as Arwen, and I'm going to add Cate Blanchett as Galadriel too. The Mirror scene was just 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
webmeister posted:When he was announced I was a bit I will forever hate how they destroyed Blanchett's performance. All they needed was a background fade to black and some illumination on her. Instead they overdid it and lost the majesty and tragedy of the speech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
I think they did that with Denethor too, in a few scenes. Like when he goes full out "Flee! Flee for your liiives!" (which was actually pretty good) and immediately gets knocked out by Gandalf in front of everyone (that part was funny but not really in a good way). You'd think at least one of Denethor's bodyguards would have objected. But his 100m dash and leap from the top of the hill while on fire... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I will forever hate how they destroyed Blanchett's performance. All they needed was a background fade to black and some illumination on her. Instead they overdid it and lost the majesty and tragedy of the speech. This. Another friend of mine can't even talk about the movie without saying how much he hates that scene. It's the voice processing that kills it for him; he says they turned her into a Dalek. I don't mind it that much myself, but I do agree they could have done it a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
The movies were very unimaginative, looked like World of Warcraft and cut all the cool parts where Tolkien dwells on bucolic landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Except they were all filmed like 4 years before World of Warcraft came out 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
You're crazy if you don't think uruk-hai look like they do in the movies
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
The way the movies did the White Hand was super excellent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
Please give me the tl;dr version of Christopher T.'s objections to the films.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 22:32
|
|
