|
Féanor took down a whole mess of balrogs during his last stand, no? Or am I misremembering?
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
gimli is also supposed to be a young dwarf in lotr, isn't he?
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
The films lose out on a lot of the thematic subtlety - this is unavoidable. That said, I think the aesthetic of the films was pretty good and it did capture most of the overarching stuff, so eyh
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Levitate posted:Yeah they also have that scene where some people swear allegiance to Saruman but I don't think you ever see them fighting. I should remember who those guys are supposed to be...not the wild men I don't think? Maybe I'm wrong those guys are def. the hillmen who fight for him in the book
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
if two dudes are involved in a major fight, one dude murders the other and nicks all his stuff + gets a period of rest and re-convalescence, the survivor is likely to emerge both stronger and beyond doubt, because he just murdered the only dude who could even offer a serious fight on even terms
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Yes? But when you're talking about Eru/God it's kind of meaningless to talk that way because when someone is omnipotent and omniscient then literally everything that happens happens only by their will. occasionalism is a real trend, particularly in islamic theology, but it's a bit harsh to say that it's a trivial conclusion imo
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why are Finns alcoholics cos they drink so much, op
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:This is Shelob in one of the lotr games i say
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Kassad posted:They are unrealistic in the shots where they're all lighting up because you consistently see one beacon from fairly close and it's a pile of logs just a bit taller than a man. Then you can see another beacon lighting up on a mountaintop dozens of miles away and in a few cases you can see its outline against the sky before it burns. The beacons farther away would have to be gigantic to see them like that. that's the sort of quibble that would rightly get one shoved in a locker, though
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2019 08:39
|
|
|
tolkien was an old-style social conservative. he would have no great objections to a lot of commercialism, except that he'd find much of it vulgar - he was certainly not any kind of militant for an egalitarian world order. tolkien believed that there were people fit to rule and people fit to serve, and that the former group had a particular obligation of protection and guidance to the latter. tolkien saw the disruption and filth of the industry and though that it was a great shame that people couldn't e.g. look after their families, but he was no fan of working-class organisations meant to represent an opposing force. he believed in his god, in the land, the family unit and the fundamental decency of man. his breed is almost entirely extinct today - i think maybe the last one around in the anglophone world is peter hitchens - because the progress of free-market capitalism is so obviously opposed to forces like community, family or fancy ideas of benevolence. it almost doesn't make sense to think of tolkien's political views today, because they seem so outlandishly quaint in the face of post-thatcher Conservativism
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
i actually think the sheer completeness of the death of social conservativism is quite fascinating, because it's really come to a point where an ideology which really was the working thought of major parties of government (and often still is the official ideology of those parties) is completely unrecognisable to modern readers. earlier readers had no problems with seeing this aspect of his work; moorcock famously wrote a whole screed about it. idk i think it's an interesting example of how the times inform the reader
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2020 23:11
|
|
|
pretty sure that there will have been Reasons that the eagle gambit was unfeasible, even if it's not explicitly laid out in the book
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2020 10:47
|
|
|
gandalf legitimately freaking out over being offered the ring is great, it's a very fine piece of characterisation. facing durin's bane and his own almost certain death is less stressful to him than the prospect of having an excuse to take the ring
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 12:55
|
|
|
yeah most of the bad decisions (elfs in helm's deep, fangorn being very stupid, faramir, denethor as callously incompetent, theoden being an arsehole etc) are mostly trying for something reasonable. many changes are straightforwardly good, and most of the cast condensation was very well executed. changing from the red arrow to the beacons was imo appropriate, for instance. cutting the weirder non-critical parts like tom bombadil or ghân-buri-ghân was also probably for the best. they hit more than they missed with the adaptation, even if they made a few too many concessions to hollywood convention in my view
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
Hexel posted:They gonna give Galadriel a human lover this woke nonsense has gone too far
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:"Elf-human romance" is kind of the go-to Tolkien revisionism trope, to the point where even Tolkien seemed like he was dipping into it a bit too much later in his career after having established it early on as like a one-time world-shattering all-bets-are-off-we-lay-down-the-guardianship-of-Arda thing. isn't it literally just the one weirdo family?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I think the major factor is Tolkien's own weird brand of politics: he could be described even as an anarcho-monarchist (his idealized societies basically run themselves, after all). I think it's not an accident Gondor's and Arnor's history are full of unfit rulers who had good claims on the crown: while Tolkien was a monarchist, he also had high standards for rulers. Someone might say unreasonably so. Tolkien did also comment somewhere in his letters that he is very aware of the Numenorian bloodline thing not being a real thing and poo poo like it doesn't exist in real life. tolkien's politics are really weird to us today, but he really was part of one of the dominant tendencies of intellectual Conservativism; anti-modernist, skeptical of the corrosive alienating effect of unbridled technological progress, believing in social harmony and hierarchy (with some flexibility, mutually obligatory and within reason), deeply religious and sentimentally humanist. these were the people thatcher wiped out when she became leader of the Conservative party, and they've since been phased almost totally out of western politics outside of a few weird cranks (the most obvious one would be peter hitchens, but hitchens is cantankerous and egotistical in a way tolkien doesn't appear to have been) so it's no wonder it seems so bizarre to us now more than forty years after their final defeat. however, they were a prominent strain of political thinking for centuries in britain and to a lesser extent on the continent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2023 00:44
|
|