The Hobbit Movie Forum » Hobbit Movie

1. Glenn Maillard
   Member

   Strange Thread title, but bear with me. There is always something "fresh" about Tolkien, no matter how many times I read him. I have the same feeling about "Dune" (especially the first book of the series), and the works of Jack Vance. I do not have the same "feeling" when it comes to books like the Potter series, which is Quality Fantasy, but somehow rarely more than old hat.

   I guess the best I can do to explain what I'm getting at is to give a few examples. (Oh and I don't mean "fresh" ideas as being necessarily "original" ideas by the way, there are few existing, if any, I feel).

   Tom Bombadil: A comic character to a large extent who is not in any way "dominated" or even particularly "moved" by the Ring. The Ring is like the Atom Bomb of Midle Earth. Tom's "unmovéd-ness" about the Ring is an idea that strikes me as fresh.

   Bilbo Baggins: Is knocked out very early in the huge culminating battle of The Hobbit. What fantasy author does that to his hero?

   Smaug: Witty lizard, chatty even, who, I might add, has a good idea about the market value of the jools he sleeps upon, intelligent, hey? But then he throws a wobbly. Yes, a wobbly! What a fierce, awesome, mountain shaking wobbly though!

   J.K. Rowling does not seem to display this freshness, or, to be fair, rarely. With her it appears to be trophe after trophe. I don't mean this to be a comparison between Potter and Middle Earth. I'm more interested in Tolkien's "fresh" seeming ideas.

   What think you, guys? More examples required.

   Posted 6 months ago #
2. Julia Mellor
   Member

   Tolkien is obviously my favorite Author, but I do find Harry Potter magical, I dont know how or why, I resisted reading Potter for years thinking it was all hype, and then I read them and they put a spell on me.

   Posted 6 months ago #
3. Julia Mellor
   Member

   I think Gimli is fresh, he's a Romantic with a keen aesthetic sense, you dont expect a dwarf to be falling in love with beauty.

   Posted 6 months ago #
4. Nora Johansen
   Member

   maybe you didn't get that feeling with HP because you're well.. not a teenager? I read the book when I was about the same age as the main characters and it all felt new and mind blowing to me.
   I loved Gimli in the book and movie. particularly when he talks about the glittering caves.

   Posted 6 months ago #
5. Jana N. Miller
   Member

   HP and LOTR are similar, I think, in how their plot is. They are the classic struggle between bad guy(s) and heroes. Here's the plot:

   - Evil person who desires power and enslavement of everyone else (both Voldemort and Sauron share this, as well as just not dying.
   - at time before the current story takes place, many people fought and died to defeat said bad guy
   - bad guy eventually gets defeated, but not entirely. There still exists and object(s) which contain the essence of bad guy.
   - an era of peace
   - Bad guy begins to re-form, using said object(s). Sauron uses ring, Voldemort the horcruxes. This is where the current story begins (Sauron begins to re-form as the Necromancer in the Hobbit/Voldemort in Sorcerer's Stone)
   - Bad guy gets seemingly defeated, but it's a false victory (White Council in Dol Guldur/all times Harry defeats Voldemort up until the Half-Blood Prince). I must note that both Gandalf and Dumbledore had an inkling of what was going on before everyone else, and each goes to find out truth of it before divulging it to Frodo/Harry.
   - Good guys find out why bad guy just won't die (beginning of Fellowship/finding out about horcruxes in Half-Blood Prince)
   - Frodo/Harry is given a task to do-destroy Ring/horcruxes.
   - Frodo/Harry set out on perilous quest to destroy ring/horcruxes (in HP this begins in the last book)
   - After many hardships, both destroy said items, and bad guy is defeated once and for all.

   The difference between HP and LOTR is in how the stories are written, especially the characters. Rowling uses characters that are basically the classic hero/bad guy/minion, but just redefines them. The characters do exactly what you expect them to do, with very few exceptions. An example is Malfoy. He is a classic bully, and acts just like you'd expect a bully to act. He acts all tough, but he's really only looking out for himself. Don't get me wrong, I really like HP, and I think that the characters Rowling created are one of the best portrayals of these classic types of characters. Tolkien's characters, on the other hand, are unique. They don't act like you would expect them to. As you all have already mentioned, there is the Gimli/Legolas thing. An elf and a dwarf become friends for the first time since "the dark days". Merry and Pippin change and "grow up". Faramir does not take the ring, which you would not expect. Tolkien's characters are brand new. He invented them.

   I might also point out that in the Deathly Hallows, the Slytherin locket behaves a lot like the Ring.

   Posted 6 months ago #
6. Julia Mellor
   Member

   I quite like Sirius Black as a character, post stress disorder, anxiety, depression, unrequited revenge, incapacity for normal life after years of torture, oh and being a grumpy git with fits of snarkyness, I dont know how fresh it is but its interesting.

   Posted 6 months ago #
7. Jana N. Miller
   Member

   Hmmm...good point. I'd forgotten about that.

   Posted 6 months ago #
8. Lance Tracy
   Member

   I thought the character of denethor was quite good. The ruler of the most powerful free nation,trying very hard to do the right thing against all hope but ending up being playing right in to the enemies hands despite his genuine intentions. Thought was quite a complex character.

   Posted 6 months ago #
9. Jason Campbell
   Member

   Theoden was a complex character too. A mix of grief, self pity, honour, duty, weighed down by the history of his own line. He had been tricked and drugged and betrayed. He was both kingly to his people and personable with Merry and tender with Eowyn. A lot going on there.

   Posted 6 months ago #
10. Glenn Maillard
    Member

    Gollum and Shelob's friendship? How did that happen? It's not explained - which might be just as well. Did Shelob feel a bit sad for a lonesome despised creature like herself?

    Sam gives Frodo the ring back. A little doubt, but Sam hands it over. A case of the Ring having less power over some than others.

    Treebeard, so old, so much a Greeny without being Politically Correct. (No preaching here, but Nature is advocated in a "deep" way).

    Gollum is a truly tragic figure, but so comical. Like Bombadil in a sense (in his "averageness") but without his Power. (Bombadil has Power, but doesn't ever really use it, except in a small way against Barrow-wights and Old Man Willow).

    HP is a collection of old ideas bundled together - and well - but the instances of "freshness" seem few to me, which is not to say there are none. I like the development of Hermione's and Ron's love - old hat? Don't know, but the thing that interested me most in the movies at least. (I only read the first three books - mostly to my daughter. When she was old enough to read them herself, my interest waned).

    Nora, I wonder if you'll love HP as much when you're old and wizened like me? My love for Tolkien - his depths - continues to grow.

    Posted 6 months ago #
11. Julia Mellor
    Member

    well anyone who remembers their school days will still like HP, anyone who was bullied or a bit of a loner or a bit batty like Neville or Loona Lovegood can relate to it. I think the relationship between the two Dumbledore brothers is also interesting. One being a reluctant hero and the other with hidden demons. I like bossy boots Hermione, I mean who makes the school swot a heroine?

    Posted 6 months ago #
12. Jason Campbell
    Member

    Or anyone who has read Tom Browns Schooldays...

    Posted 6 months ago #
13. Glenn Maillard
    Member

    Characters need not be anything "new" or "cutting edge", they just need to be like all people, "stock standard" but still capable of surprising you because no one is truly a "stock standard ordinary person."

    Umm... characters are always interesting (and possibly scary) when you see them poking their heads out of the box you've (ignorantly) put them in; so why not characters in stories? They're better that way, I think.

    Um.... maybe in a good character "strangeness" seems "ordinary", once you've got to know them.

    Anyhow, all characters of the Tolkien variety seem ordinary - "ordinary" kings, queens, elves, dwarves, Black Riders and hobbits. They're real. You might meet them in the street. Doesn't make them any less interesting - more, in fact. It's like we've met them, not just read about them.

    Um.. I don't think I know what I'm talking about... or do I???

    Posted 6 months ago #
14. Jana N. Miller
    Member

    I get what you mean. Tolkien's characters are real, and they behave like real people would. There isn't anything fake about them.

    Posted 6 months ago #
15. Tim Jones
    Member

    What makes Tolkien so reread for me is that his narratives are embedded in such a convincingly authentic world. Not only is the history, geography, culture, philosophy, and the inhabiting races and languages of Middle earth so thoroughly conceived, but they also exhibit a texture of reality that is utterly believable. If his stories are the boats needed to sail across his mythology, it is so enjoyable to capsize.

    One of my favourite examples is the history of the Rangers of Arnor, exemplified by Aragorn. Not only is Aragorn the leader of a race descended from the Edain, through the Numenoreans, the Faithful and the Kingdom of Arnor, but is himself descended from the Edain, Noldor, Sindar and Mia. But the history of the Noldor is unbeatable for variety and tragedy.

    Posted 6 months ago #
16. Jana N. Miller
    Member

    Tolkien has such a depth. Each time I read it, I get something new out of it, notice something I hadn't noticed before.
    Nice analogy, Tim.

    Posted 6 months ago #
17. Glenn Maillard
    Member

    Because his stories are so grounded (researched in a sense), they act on the reader like real history. And well written history always invites re-assessments. History repeats, but it is not a collection, merely, of trophes. This is how Rowling and Tolkien differ. One seems a collection of old things, cliches even, the latter a collection of things as they happened, and whenever the page is reread, life is immediately placed under the eye for re-assessment. I agree with you Jana, Tolkien begs you to look deeper. Rowling frolics in in the shallows - which is fun, of course.

    Posted 6 months ago #
18. Jana N. Miller
    Member

    Good description.
    That's probably why some people (who are nuts) don't like Tolkien as much, because it reads like a history.
    Although I know for a fact that my neighbor doesn't like LOTR because hobbits creep her out. No joke.

    Posted 6 months ago #
19. Glenn Maillard
    Member

    I think I was editing while you were replying, Jana. Hope you still agree.

    Thinking on it, I have to say I get annoyed when people pooh-pooh Tolkien's writing as being not very literary. James Joyce I find almost impenetrable and self-indulgent. Indeed, who the f^*k has even read Ulysees - including those who grant it great praise? I think I'm well read, and I believe Tolkien was a great literary figure - on a par with Shakespeare and the list of greats after him.

    Posted 6 months ago #
20. Jana N. Miller
    Member

    Yeah, your post looked different than it does now.
    My old literature teacher didn't like the LOTR books either. I and her students through the years are still working on her.

    Posted 6 months ago #
21. Glenn Maillard
    Member

    I think people need to open their minds. I bet your teacher got word that Tolkien wrote simplistic childrens' books, and there her opinion remained.

    Posted 6 months ago #
22. Jana N. Miller
    Member

    No. She started reading the Fellowship, and she didn't finish. I believe her exact words were "she found them wanting" or "they were lacking" or some such thing, but as to what they were lacking I can't remember if she said or not. But every now and then I remind her that she needs to read them.

    Posted 6 months ago #
23. Glenn Maillard
    Member

    I find some literature "deep and meaningful" and others "simple, wise and subtle." Tolkien inhabits the latter sphere. The literary Mafiosa can have the former, along with their tendancy toward utter self-indulgent navel-watching. The best writing "communicates" digestibly, and allows one to seek greater and deeper understandings, or at least, entices you to ask yourself questions of life whilst not disappearing up your own anal passage doing so.

    Mind you, this may not apply to your teacher, who might just not care for fantasy. But being a Literature Teacher, I do judge her guilty of foul Literary Intelligentsia-ism until proven otherwise.

    Posted 6 months ago #
24. Jana N. Miller
    Member

    That's why she should read it, if only because she's a literature teacher. Don't get me wrong, she's one of the best teachers I have ever had, and I've learned more from her than a lot of other teachers combined. I'm still working on her, though.

    Posted 6 months ago #
25. Glenn Maillard
    Member

    Excellent, Jana, keep up the good work! Muslim extremists. Christian evangelists. Comunist manifestoeans. Das Kapalists. All of them, I just cannot stomach... But Tolkienfervorism - of the worst kind - can only be applauded, from pulpit and rooftop. Thank Eru for their good sense!

    Posted 6 months ago #
26. Julia Mellor
    Member

    I find that reading Tolkien, reaches the parts other writers rarely touch, ie it feeds the soul. Its like a nutrient or like a simple but wholesome dinner, it warms the cockles, and makes you warm inside when the wide world outside is cold and harsh. Inside those books are old friends, its comforting and heartwarming, funny and sad. The language is simple but beautiful, the characters brave and good, faithful and loyal, its a world all of us wish existed, to live in a world of chivalry and where Elves Dragons and magic creatures still roam.

    Posted 6 months ago #
27. Jana N. Miller
    Member

    Just so you know, I'm a Christian.

    Posted 6 months ago #
28. Jason Campbell
    Member

    Well thats ironic Jana as I comapre my view of a LotR's film as a bit like the Jewish view on the Messiah. I'm still waiting on one to come along and I'm amazed, shocked and slightly worried at all these people who seem to have taken an imposter to be the real thing!

    Posted 6 months ago #
29. Jana N. Miller
    Member

    Well, LOTR isn't the Bible. It's a novel. A very very good one, but a novel none the less.
    The movies are just movies based on a novel. Of course you can't expect them to be perfect.

    Posted 6 months ago #
30. Jason Campbell
    Member

    Oh I think you will find I can Jana!

    Posted 6 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must register or log in to post.