All posts by FH2104
@Guy who types stuff 1.1 I promise, if I felt like any of that applied to me, then I wouldn't be offended.
If you can locate where I've called Tolkien racist then I shall apologise. But given I haven't, and never would because he patently is not, I don't think I need to hold my breath for that either. I can't believe I'm getting grief for this and the guy who said John Rhys-Davies is Arabian got off free lol. I'm sorry but I just can't take you seriously, so with the best will in the world I won't leave the wiki at your demand. I'd much rather be a jerk for defending the programme for the right reasons, than not a jerk for attacking it for the wrong ones.
Do I like The Lord of the Rings. Yes, I do. Do I like the films. Yes, but not as much, and they don't do as much for me as they do for everyone else, even though they are clearly cinematic masterpieces. My qualms with the films are documented on here and of no interest to anyone other than me, unless they ask. Do I like the fanbase. Increasingly, no. Not least because of ridiculous words like "bastardising" to describe a TV show you don't like because it presents different fictional versions of the fictional facts you'd made the effort to learn or read.
@WizardWarrior1 I've not said anything of the sort. Of course it was predominantly white. But what it wasn't was entirely white.
@WizardWarrior1 Not being funny, but if Tolkien doesn't mention ethnicities then that doesn't mean we should just assume it. European history isn't quite as white as you seem to be thinking. I presume you've never seen a picture of Alexandre Dumas, or Samuel Coleridge-Taylor. And never heard of Ignatius Sancho, or Dido Elizabeth Belle. (There's simply no way Tolkien didn't know Dumas.) Bare in mind that with Sancho, in Tudor times, there was already an active African community in England large enough to be considered "too many" by Elizabeth I (which admittedly could be as few as a handful depending on quite how racist she was. But anyway). White until proven otherwise is like innocent until proven guilty in my book. So "accuracy" is automatically a somewhat weak argument. But not as bad as some others.
@Immediate need Literally no idea what you're talking about. Or who you think "you people" refers to. I'd love to know, but given you think John Rhys-Davies is Arabian, I won't hold my breath for anything sensible.
@Immediate need "For one thing", John Rhys-Davies is Welsh you plonker, not an Arab. He's got the most Welsh name in the world. He's not Arabian for playing Sallah any more than he is a real dwarf for playing Gimli. Dear lord!
But beyond being factually wrong, if all this is is you defending the films because you like them, then there's really no point to you responding whatsoever, because that isn't the point at all.
@Immediate need If you can briefly set aside your "OMG so woke", do you genuinely think it's just a coincidence that literally every cast member is white?
@WizardWarrior1 I know you weren't addressing me, but IMO the answer is yes, probably. As loathe as I am to credit anything to Harvey Weinstein, he suggested Morgan Freeman for Gandalf, which I think would have been fantastic. As soon as that discussion has been opened, which it was, then it has to be justifiably shut. Nobody cast Ian McKellen without noticing that that left the entire cast of all three films white. So while it's not for me to say or even guess what the thinking was behind that, there was definitely thinking of some kind.
It's like the argument behind taking down statues of people who don't reflect our modern understanding of being worthy of commemoration. The moment the conversation is started, it's as much a choice to keep it up than it is to take it down.
@WizardWarrior1 My problem with it is that The Silmarillion is exactly like a text book. Except nothing in it is true, which makes it worse.
"Beautifully crafted story" I find implausible given its origins as a scattered series of notes, but not impossible, so I'll allow it (as in ignore it). But you can't just say "written phenomenally" as if that means something. Nothing would give me more joy than somebody pulling out a line or a passage and sharing with me where exactly the beautiful writing can be found. Because with The Lord of the Rings, I can do that. With this, nobody seems to even try!
@Alkor of Forodwaith That doesn't answer the question at all. It isn't only billion-dollar companies that can have "agendas"—taking any opportunity to criticise the perceived politics when it wasn't remotely relevant to the question is exactly that.
Re the OP—no. It's all on here, but there's a big "non-canon" banner at the top of any page to avoid confusion.
@WizardWarrior1 Not correct no, but do I think by and large one goes with the other, then yes. It's not a solid rule, but I do think it applies to this. My question about The Silmarillion is that other than "this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened", what does it actually contain that I'm missing.
@WizardWarrior1 Completely disagree (to the first). Saying that anything has evolved for the worst is necessarily an opinion rather than a fact. Sure vocabularies have shrunk, but there's also thousands of new words. If the argument is that people are more stupid than they used to be then I wouldn't disagree with that. But I don't think language is to blame. I'm not American, but neither was Tolkien, and I don't see why that would be any different here.
There might be some truth in what you say there (to the second). But bare in mind that Tolkien can write. If The Silmarillion was the only example of his powers then sure, I'd never have touched him with a barge pole, and his entire canon would have about the same fan club as The Eye of Argon. (Speaking of terrible books.) This is a work of fiction, and that it is written in a way that suggests it isn't, does not count in its favour. He does understand how these things work, which is why he made both his books about the Hobbits' quests, not about the paraphernalia. I don't enormously relate to the good people of Middlemarch or Mudfog, but they do provide me with reason to continue reading. Apart from things, what is in The Silmarillion that I'm missing?
(Incidentally I think you'd be bang on if this was non-fiction. Although I would still suggest that the best non-fiction finds a way to relate its subject to its audience. Otherwise what's the point in telling it at all?)
@WizardWarrior1 Presumably we both enjoy The Lord of the Rings, so I doubt it differs that much. But sure, Copperfield, Middlemarch, Tenant of Wildfell Hall. All great. And all value some of the same things I do, like character, humour, and tension. The Silmarillion possesses too many of the first, none at all of the second, and the only time I've felt tense was sweating when I realised I still had 99% of it left.
@Crystal Vulptex Language evolves rather than deteriorates. People don't not write like they used to because they're worse writers (though having said that classics are usually classics for a reason), but because tools change. You're unlikely to make a living by selling cave art today.
It's impossible to know precisely what you mean by "old literature", but there's a number of things it clearly doesn't cover, like—to pick something even from the same century—Brideshead Revisited. The Silmarillion wasn't written in a way that was normal for the time. It was deliberately pompous and important, which creates an atmosphere of phoniness so all-consuming that it is absolutely impossible to relate to. If facts are your things—fictional facts mind you, which in my book are much worse—then tally ho. But there's no mileage in pretending to like it because you like "old" literature.
@Crystal Vulptex Funny, that's almost like you didn't understand a word of what I said.
@WizardWarrior1 It is the worst novel by an author of substance that I have ever read. Or haven't read, as the case is. Even ignoring the indigestible pseudo-biblical style, it's difficult to describe quite how bad something needs to be for me not finish it even once, let alone on three separate occasions. And I love Tolkien. True, his gift was never for character. But it was for more than just a list of names and events. Nobody who only picks up The Silmarillion would ever imagine in their wildest dreams that he had a great sense of humour. People who get more than I do out of memorising things might pleasure themselves over it, but the banality of the writing is staggering. It's not well-written at all, it's written from a completely unemotional standpoint which relegates the "story" to nothing more than a sequence of events. I'm willing to believe there are decent tracts within. But I've seen no evidence at all that those bits are anything like good enough to make the thing worth finishing. The Silmarillion is the work of a man who thinks David Copperfield would have been better if it started with the Big Bang. At least it would be if it was his work and perhaps there's the problem. How good can you expect a novel to be when its final extant form was a series of notes. Apart from being rubbish, maybe that's what I hate most about it. Its existence is purely commercial. The only artist involved in its making had been dead for four years by the time it came out.
I've attempted it three times. Never got more than ooh... a hundred pages in? Awful. Much as I love Tolkien I don't value his lore enough to read something so dreadful.
I don't trust anyone who doesn't want to be a hobbit. I bet Elon Musk doesn't want to be a hobbit.
This discussion was had on here not that long ago—my opinion was, and still is, that she took way more from Tolkien than people are actually suggesting. The Dementors and Nazgûl aren't only similar visually: read TLOTR and marvel at how precisely how similar the effect the Nazgûl has on the hobbits is to the effect of the Dementors. The way it's written is extraordinarily similar. Even more outrageous is the (I believe single) use of "he who we do not name" (or something along those lines) for Sauron, which then became the moniker for Voldemort.
Thing is, I don't think that takes away from Rowling's act of genius, which was mapping existing fantasy tropes and elements found specifically in TLOTR onto a modern child (ie her readership). But to suggest that she didn't take anything from Tolkien is also to suggest that if Tolkien didn't exist her books would have been identical. Which is completely untrue.
Given all of Tolkien's non-Hobbit stories could feasibly be described as spin-offs themselves, there can be no issue there in theory. And I don't have one. I just don't care that much. I don't feel the need to watch, read, or know everything related to Tolkien.
@Fandyllic There's a number of reasons that's sloppy thinking. Only a fool would prefer, say, longer version, for the sole reason that there's more of it. Don't forget that the films aren't Tolkien. They're films inspired by Tolkien. So complaints about pacing and unnecessary detail are completely legitimate. (As it happens, they're also completely valid about Tolkien too. Being a fan, however casual or...intense (?) doesn't mean you can't or indeed shouldn't identify bits that are crap. And there's loads of those too.)
@Rincewindthe23rd I know that from the book, but I don't think the film(s) does enough to explain that on its own. My evidence for this is that no one's even certain what the fifth army is meant to be—the films and the books seem to have different ideas on that too. You say Wargs, others say Eagles, others say a different type of Orc. I saw someone even say hobbits!
Having said that, I do really like the third Hobbit film. It is fully focused on one thing (apart from the Dol Guldur shenanigans which I can always be tempted to fast-forward through) which gives it a nice tight structure. And as much as Azog's personal grudge against Thorin is very silly, it isn't that distracting. And The Hobbit is by far my favourite Tolkien story. So that's why I chose that one—none of which explains why I accidentally chose the War of the Last Alliance instead.