The Lord Of The Rings General Discussion Thread

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

On 13/4/2024 at 2:04 PM, Chen G. said:

I actually wrote a lengthy essay arguing to the opposite in that particular case...

 

But I feel like the Star Wars case is very different.

 

Here's a lengthy essay arguing the opposite.  

 

While you make your points, as usual, very thoroughly, I'm afraid I don't find any of these arguments to be very persuasive. Let’s start with talking about what we’re talking about…the best order for first time viewers. Not the director’s preferred order, nor the logical order for repeated viewings, which is of course a matter of personal preference. And of course, we’re talking about the films, not the books.
 

Your central thesis seems to be that The Lord of the Rings movies “spoil” The Hobbit movies in a “major” way for first time viewers. But I think this must be put into the context of, as opposed to the book, which is arguably (if not retroactively) a prelude, The Hobbit films are in every way a prequel to the Lord of the Rings films, and all that entails.
 

So the notion that they "spoil" anything just takes this whole "spoiler" thing to an even more absurd level than it's already at. Spoilers are mostly about people, real people, "spoiling" a film before you have a chance to see it, e.g. telling someone the ending of The Sixth Sense. There aren't any characters or plot developments in The Lord of the Rings that "spoil", The Hobbit in the sense that the latter films would be "spoiled" by watching the former first. Unless you think simply having any knowledge of any future event “spoils” a film. In which case, The Hobbit is spoiled from the first shot.

 

If you're going to suggest that the Middle-Earth films are the only such film series that shouldn't be watched in release order, what's the really compelling reason for making this one exception? Is it really as different case from Star Wars as you suggest? I think most people would agree that, like Star Wars, a lot of the power and impact of some key scenes in the original films are lessened by viewing the prequels first, as you've pointed out yourself…

 

On 12/4/2024 at 2:30 PM, Chen G. said:

Imagine watching all that stuff and then seeing the original for the first time:

 

Vader's entrance? Meh. Seen him plenty for that to maintain its drama.

The Droids wandering through the dunes? Meh, we've seen endless amounts of far-more-impressively-framed desert shots AND we know Tatooine so its no longer about the Droids venturing into the unknown.

The cantina? Pfft, we've seen more weird aliens than stars in the sky.

The Death Star blowing up Leia's home? Pfft, please! We've seen the Death Star blow up several planets by this point.

The lightsaber battle? Pfft, we've seen people - including Vader and Obi Wan - slash and jump and throw objects at each other, so these two geezers gently poking at each other? NEXT!

 

etc... You get my point.

 

I could make a similar list of bits where The Hobbit takes away from similar beats in LOTR, and I’m sure you can imagine what they’d be. I just don't see any distinction between The Hobbit prequel and the Star Wars prequels in this regard. The Hobbit movies tell the "backstory" of Lord of the RIngs movies, that's what a prequel typically is. No one would seriously argue that The Fellowship of the Ring is a "sequel" to Battle of the Five Armies, any more than A New Hope is a sequel to Revenge of the Sith.  But in both cases, the latter are prequels to the former. The Hobbit films just function a prequel, they look that way, they’re structured that way and they’re certainly scripted that way. I mean…wow, they seriously scripted as prequels, including the very first shot. And the last one. It’s structured as if you’ve already seen LOTR. That's the simple reality, no matter how any individual may look at the films personally (which is of course their right), nor whatever Peter Jackson says.  As talented as he is, Jackson can't turn back time, because unlike the book, his Hobbit was made after his LOTR. Almost every shot, every plot beat, and numerous characters are built around the idea that you've seen his LOTR. 

 

And even conceding your point about spoilers, what's more important, possibly knowing that, I don't know, Bilbo's magic Ring is the One Ring ahead of time, or having all those dramatic moments in LOTR undercut by what you see in The Hobbit?

 

And, let's be honest, is an adult is watching these films for the first time, especially not pre-disposed to these kinds films, the more likely to continue the series starting with An Unexpected Journey or Fellowship of the Ring? Even The Hobbit's biggest defenders would have to concede it's the latter.

 

The most compelling reason, of course, to not suggest first time viewers start with The Hobbit is that you’re robbing them of an experience that you, yourself, had. Why would you keep that experience for yourself, not for others? The Lord of the Rings films inspired you to dive into the world of Tolkien, so why is starting there good for one person but not good enough for others?  I can't think of a single film series (not defacto anthologies, e.g. Bond flicks) where release order is not the right choice for first time viewers. Not one.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, whatever order any of us chooses for subsequent viewings is of course fine, and if "chronological" is best for you, have at it. But you really can't say chronological is best for a first time viewer because you've personally never experienced those films in that order as a first time viewer.  So by recommending this, you're running the risk of "spoiling" the experience of watching the films, in the true meaning of the word, for first time viewers.

 

 

[Bilbo 3,860]

I can’t wait for a tell all book in about 20 years explaining that this show was just a money laundering operation and nobody put any time or effort into making anything good. It’s such a large IP there was always going to be enough people to watch it no matter how much it sucked to keep up the facade. 

[Jay 39,745]

Wrong thread?

[enderdrag64 913]

15 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Here's a lengthy essay arguing the opposite.  

 

While you make your points, as usual, very thoroughly, I'm afraid I don't find any of these arguments to be very persuasive. Let’s start with talking about what we’re talking about…the best order for first time viewers. Not the director’s preferred order, nor the logical order for repeated viewings, which is of course a matter of personal preference. And of course, we’re talking about the films, not the books.
 

Your central thesis seems to be that The Lord of the Rings movies “spoil” The Hobbit movies in a “major” way for first time viewers. But I think this must be put into the context of, as opposed to the book, which is arguably (if not retroactively) a prelude, The Hobbit films are in every way a prequel to the Lord of the Rings films, and all that entails.
 

So the notion that they "spoil" anything just takes this whole "spoiler" thing to an even more absurd level than it's already at. Spoilers are mostly about people, real people, "spoiling" a film before you have a chance to see it, e.g. telling someone the ending of The Sixth Sense. There aren't any characters or plot developments in The Lord of the Rings that "spoil", The Hobbit in the sense that the latter films would be "spoiled" by watching the former first. Unless you think simply having any knowledge of any future event “spoils” a film. In which case, The Hobbit is spoiled from the first shot.

 

If you're going to suggest that the Middle-Earth films are the only such film series that shouldn't be watched in release order, what's the really compelling reason for making this one exception? Is it really as different case from Star Wars as you suggest? I think most people would agree that, like Star Wars, a lot of the power and impact of some key scenes in the original films are lessened by viewing the prequels first, as you've pointed out yourself…

 

 

I could make a similar list of bits where The Hobbit takes away from similar beats in LOTR, and I’m sure you can imagine what they’d be. I just don't see any distinction between The Hobbit prequel and the Star Wars prequels in this regard. The Hobbit movies tell the "backstory" of Lord of the RIngs movies, that's what a prequel typically is. No one would seriously argue that The Fellowship of the Ring is a "sequel" to Battle of the Five Armies, any more than A New Hope is a sequel to Revenge of the Sith.  But in both cases, the latter are prequels to the former. The Hobbit films just function a prequel, they look that way, they’re structured that way and they’re certainly scripted that way. I mean…wow, they seriously scripted as prequels, including the very first shot. And the last one. It’s structured as if you’ve already seen LOTR. That's the simple reality, no matter how any individual may look at the films personally (which is of course their right), nor whatever Peter Jackson says.  As talented as he is, Jackson can't turn back time, because unlike the book, his Hobbit was made after his LOTR. Almost every shot, every plot beat, and numerous characters are built around the idea that you've seen his LOTR. 

 

And even conceding your point about spoilers, what's more important, possibly knowing that, I don't know, Bilbo's magic Ring is the One Ring ahead of time, or having all those dramatic moments in LOTR undercut by what you see in The Hobbit?

 

And, let's be honest, is an adult is watching these films for the first time, especially not pre-disposed to these kinds films, the more likely to continue the series starting with An Unexpected Journey or Fellowship of the Ring? Even The Hobbit's biggest defenders would have to concede it's the latter.

 

The most compelling reason, of course, to not suggest first time viewers start with The Hobbit is that you’re robbing them of an experience that you, yourself, had. Why would you keep that experience for yourself, not for others? The Lord of the Rings films inspired you to dive into the world of Tolkien, so why is starting there good for one person but not good enough for others?  I can't think of a single film series (not defacto anthologies, e.g. Bond flicks) where release order is not the right choice for first time viewers. Not one.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, whatever order any of us chooses for subsequent viewings is of course fine, and if "chronological" is best for you, have at it. But you really can't say chronological is best for a first time viewer because you've personally never experienced those films in that order as a first time viewer.  So by recommending this, you're running the risk of "spoiling" the experience of watching the films, in the true meaning of the word, for first time viewers.

 

 

I think I agree with Chen more on this one;

 

The Lord of the Rings is the sequel to The Hobbit, and while it's not essential to watch the latter first, it is obviously to me that that's how it was intended to be consumed.

 

There are many references to The Hobbit in Lord of the Rings, a large number of which were kept in the film trilogy, and these aren't just passing references or cameos but in some cases entire moments or scenes only make sense with the context of The Hobbit.

 

Here's a non-exhaustive list of references off the top of my head:

 

- Bilbo is writing There and Back Again about his adventure

- Gandalf mentions the incident with the dragon and being barely involved in it

- the open map on Bilbo's desk showing the Lonely Mountain

- the circumstances in which Bilbo found the ring and the creature Gollum - these are so important to the story that they had to be summarized in the Prologue of the LOTR trilogy or the story literally wouldn't make sense to someone who hadn't read the Hobbit book.

- Sam telling Frodo "look it's Bilbo's Trolls" to try to wake him up after the Morgul blade wound - while not a major moment it loses its intended emotional impact when you don't know anything about the trolls

- Rivendell is intended to be a moment where Frodo sees a place he's only heard Bilbo's tales of, but it loses that significance in the other order

- the mentions of Thorin giving Bilbo the Mithril Vest, as well as Gollum recognizing Sting (Frodo's "You've seen it before"); again you can understand them without seeing the Hobbit but they lose their significance when the audience doesn't know what's being referred to

- Balin's tomb, the fate of the Dwarves of Moria - again a huge emotional moment that's just non existent if you watch LOTR first; you'd have no idea who these people were, when it's meant to show the fate of some of Bilbo's friends from the first book

 

 

On the flip side the Hobbit doesn't really make many references to LOTR, and the majority of those it does make were added by Peter Jackson. My preferred method of watching the Hobbit is via book cut fanedits (my favorite being the M4 edit), which largely cuts most of these out. But even if you watch the unaltered films, they aren't very spoilery as Chen mentioned. What, you learn that Galadriel, Saruman, Sauron, Narsil, Legolas and Gimli exist, you learn that Sauron is growing in power and Bilbo's ring might be evil. Certainly nothing that ruins the LOTR trilogy. 

 

Actually the worst addition by PJ in that regard is probably the Tauriel/Kili stuff because it lessens the significance of Legolas and Gimli's friendship. Fortunately the edit I mentioned before cuts out nearly all of this, just leaving a small cameo of Legolas at Mirkwood, where he would be anyway since Thranduil is his father.

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

50 minutes ago, enderdrag64 said:

The Lord of the Rings is the sequel to The Hobbit, and while it's not essential to watch the latter first, it is obviously to me that that's how it was intended to be consumed.

Which did you watch first?

[Monoverantus 532]

1 hour ago, enderdrag64 said:

What, you learn that Galadriel, Saruman, Sauron, Narsil, Legolas and Gimli exist, you learn that Sauron is growing in power and Bilbo's ring might be evil. Certainly nothing that ruins the LOTR trilogy. 

I don't know if anyone's brought it up, but the Hobbit movies certainly spoil that Galadriel is a good guy. The Fellowship of the Ring obviously wants a first time viewer to feel ambiguous at the beginning fo the Lórien scene, uncertain if you should trust Gimli's words or not. That mystery is absolutely deflated by watching The Hobbit first.

[enderdrag64 913]

39 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Which did you watch first?

I first saw them in the order

AUJ->DOS->FOTR->TTT->ROTK->BOTFA

 

Mainly because I watched The Hobbit upon release but I was waiting to watch the LOTR films until I'd finished reading the books.

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

Ah, so you're just a Padawan learner. Very well then, carry on. 

[Doo_liss 6,604]

1 hour ago, enderdrag64 said:

I first saw them in the order

AUJ->DOS->FOTR->TTT->ROTK->BOTFA

 

Mainly because I watched The Hobbit upon release but I was waiting to watch the LOTR films until I'd finished reading the books.

That's like a reverse machete order haha

[Edmilson 9,104]

Honestly, asking newbies to the Jackson Middle Earth to watch the Hobbit trilogy before LOTR feels like those anime fans that are like "the first 400 episodes are bad but after that it gets really good, I promise you!". In other words: newbies have to suffer through hours (six, in this case) of lower-quality movies in order to get to the good stuff, and this feels like homework.

 

For the record, I really like An Unexpected Journey. Still, I wouldn't present this as the first PJ Middle Earth movie rather than Fellowship to a newbie. Unless the newbie has some sort of OCD and needs to consume everything in chronological order 

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

18 hours ago, Edmilson said:

For the record, I really like An Unexpected Journey. Still, I wouldn't present this as the first PJ Middle Earth movie rather than Fellowship to a newbie. Unless the newbie has some sort of OCD and needs to consume everything in chronological order 

 

I mean, whenever someone who has seen LOTR asks me if they should watch The Hobbit, I always say "absolutely". And even though I personally prefer M4's one-film edit, I still tell them to watch all three original films first and make up their own mind. 

 

And I agree AUJ is the best of those films, and it's a pretty decent film for the first 40 minutes or so. Though again, I'd never suggest starting with it to anyone (well, any adult). 

[enderdrag64 913]

42 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

I mean, whenever someone who has seen LOTR asks me if they should watch The Hobbit, I always say "absolutely". And even though I personally prefer M4's one-film edit, I still tell them to watch all three original films and make up their own mind. 

 

And I agree AUJ is the best of those films, and it's a pretty decent film for the first 40 minutes or so. Though again, I'd never suggest starting with it to anyone.

That's interesting, I forgot you also like the M4 edit.

 

I agree completely that people should definitely watch the original films to see for themselves if they like them or not, although for a first time viewing I think I would recommend people to watch:

 

M4 Hobbit -> LOTR EEs

 

in that order, and then if they like what they saw they can go back and watch the Hobbit EEs and see what was cut.

 

Are you saying that you'd instead recommend 

 

LOTR -> Hobbit -> M4 if you want something better?

[A. A. Ron 1,947]

If they'd adapted The Hobbit as a really solid standalone movie or two, I don't think it would matter if new fans started with it or FOTR. As it is, The Hobbit trilogy is too unwieldy and has way too many prequel-isms for me to ever recommend it as a starting point, even if I actually liked them as movies.

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

36 minutes ago, enderdrag64 said:

Are you saying that you'd instead recommend 

 

LOTR -> Hobbit -> M4 if you want something better?

 

I love the M4 edit, and it's the only way I'll watch those films now. It's by far the best of the one-film fan edits, IMO. Thoroughly professional job. Though again, I think people should watch the originals the first time and make up their own mind. I'd never suggest someone start with a fan edit.

 

And yeah, I think release order is always the preferred way to watch any film cyclical film series the first time, for the reasons I mentioned above. 

[Bilbo 3,860]

21 hours ago, Jay said:

Wrong thread?

Yeah. Thought I was in the Rings of Power thread. Dunno how I ended up in here…

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

6 minutes ago, Bilbo said:

Yeah. Thought I was in the Rings of Power thread. Dunno how I ended up in here…

 

You step into Tolkien Central, and if you don't keep your feet, you never know where you'll be swept off to.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,440]

In De Ban Van De Ring

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

[Edmilson 9,104]

36 minutes ago, #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal said:

In De Ban Van De Ring

O Senhor dos Anéis. Each book/movie of the trilogy is:

 

1. A Sociedade do Anel;

2. As Duas Torres;

3. O Retorno do Rei

[Glóin the Dark 1,326]

Laura Rings.

[Doo_liss 6,604]

The Lord of the Rings.

[Jurassic Shark 13,351]

Ringenes Herre

[Bilbo 3,860]

6 hours ago, Glóin the Dark said:

Laura Rings.

Alright Cilla 

[Romão 2,323]

7 hours ago, Edmilson said:

O Senhor dos Anéis. Each book/movie of the trilogy is:

 

1. A Sociedade do Anel;

2. As Duas Torres;

3. O Retorno do Rei

 

Curious how we have small variations in both strands of the Portuguese language: 

 

1. A Irmandade do Anel 

2. As Duas Torres

3. O Regresso do Rei

[Monoverantus 532]

Ringarnas Herre, or if you're Åke Ohlmarks and don't give a shit about accurate translations: Härskarringen (The Lord Ring).

[Jurassic Shark 13,351]

Hey, you're Swedish.

[Monoverantus 532]

Skål!

[Jurassic Shark 13,351]

[Chen G. 4,705]

17 hours ago, #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal said:

In De Ban Van De Ring

 

[Bilbo 3,860]

9 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Hey, you're Swedish.

Which one is the chef?

[Monoverantus 532]

2 hours ago, Bilbo said:

Which one is the chef?

[Bilbo 3,860]

1 hour ago, Monoverantus said:

Looks like your cabbage a boom boom just went up in your face! 

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

7 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

 

These are really cool. When were these published?

 

These vintage editions, with Tolkien illustrated covers, are my favourites. 

 

Anyone else have Tolkien book covers from their respective countries to show off?

 

 

 

[Holko 10,391]

27 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Anyone else have Tolkien book covers from their respective countries to show off?

 

 

 

(no, we don't know either)

[Jurassic Shark 13,351]

Orc tongue?

[Nick1Ø66 6,056]

19 minutes ago, Holko said:

 

 

 

(no, we don't know either)

 

I've seen these! I met a couple Hungarian women on the Camino de Santiago, both were huge Tolkien fans, and one was reading this edition of The Two Towers, carried it all the way across Spain in her backpack. They also talked about all the weird Hungarian & Russian dubs of Star Wars they grew up with.

[Chen G. 4,705]

40 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

These are really cool. When were these published?

 

There's more to your question than you think. 

 

This is the revised Hebrew version from 1998. It supplanted an edition from 1979 that many of the older fans vehemently prefer for its splendid Hebrew. The older version, however, did not include the appendices at all and showed no understanding of Tolkien's mythos at all: the lady doing it clearly didn't know what to do with the term "Valar" because its translated in all sorts of ways all over the place. Elves are translated as Lilithities (as in, Lilith). It was a minor war going on between the two versions.

 

There's also the very famous Hebrew translation of The Hobbit.

[Holko 10,391]

13 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

all the weird Hungarian & Russian dubs of Star Wars

Hahaa the one there it's just some rural guy reading the horrible, probably on the fly translations over the original audio?

 

[VenomVeVenom 86]

22 hours ago, Romão said:

 

Curious how we have small variations in both strands of the Portuguese language: 

 

1. A Irmandade do Anel 

2. As Duas Torres

3. O Regresso do Rei

I actually think Irmandade (European Portuguese) fits better than Sociedade (Brazilian Portuguese), and I'm Brazilian, lol. Sociedade sounds too "big", as if it refers to a society of hundreds of people.

[Edmilson 9,104]

13 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

How do you pronounce this?

 

6 hours ago, Holko said:

 

 

 

(no, we don't know either)

Let me guess: "Gyuruk" means "ring", "Ura" means "Lord", "Szovetsgé" means "Fellowship", "Két" means "Two" (hey mom, I know how to count in Hungarian! lol), "Torony" is "Towers". Not sure, between "Király Visszatér", what means "Return" and what means "King" lol.

 

6 minutes ago, VenomVeVenom said:

I actually think Irmandade (European Portuguese) fits better than Sociedade (Brazilian Portuguese), and I'm Brazilian, lol. Sociedade sounds too "big", as if it refers to a society of hundreds of people.

Opa, legal encontrar outro brasileiro por aqui! Seja bem vindo!

[Doo_liss 6,604]

11 minutes ago, VenomVeVenom said:

I actually think Irmandade (European Portuguese) fits better than Sociedade (Brazilian Portuguese), and I'm Brazilian, lol. Sociedade sounds too "big", as if it refers to a society of hundreds of people.

To be fair, each member represents a people of Middle-Earth. Dwarves, Elves, Men, Hobbits, and if you include Gandalf, Maiar.

 

@Edmilson Kiràly is king.

 

Somehow Palpatine Visszatér

[Chen G. 4,705]

4 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

How do you pronounce this?

 

Sar HaTabaot (שר הטבעות) for Lord of the Rings. Then Akhvat HaTabaat (אחוות הטבעת), Shney HaTzrikhim (שני הצריחים) and Shivat HaMelekh (שיבת המלך) for the respective volumes.

 

Tolkien famously wrote a translation guide for his book, but its clear he was thinking strictly of European languages, not of Semitic ones, although he did have some basic grasp of Hebrew, at least. It was pretty much unusable for translating his works to Hebrew.

[VenomVeVenom 86]

3 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Opa, legal encontrar outro brasileiro por aqui! Seja bem vindo!

Obrigado! Sou novo aqui, finalmente encontrei meu povo hehe. (O povo fissurado em LOTR e sua trilha sonora )

 

2 minutes ago, The Great Gonzales said:

To be fair, each member represents a people of Middle-Earth. Dwarves, Elves, Men, Hobbits, and if you include Gandalf, Maiar.

Yeah, what I meant is that in Brazilian Portuguese we generally use the word "sociedade" almost the same way as the word "society", as in a large or conceptual group of people

[Chen G. 4,705]

Well, the Hebrew translates more literally as "The Brotherhood of the Ring" so.... 

[Edmilson 9,104]

Speaking of Brazilian Portuguese, here's a fun fact: "Star Wars" was first released here as "Guerra nas Estrelas" which in English is more like "War at the Stars". But that only while the Originals were the only SW movies, since at least the Prequels it's all been padronized to  the original "Star Wars" title in English. But not the Episode names though, those received a Portuguese translation, for example: TPM is "Star Wars Episódio I: A Ameaça Fantasma".

 

9 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Sar HaTabaot (שר הטבעות) for Lord of the Rings. Then Akhvat HaTabaat (אחוות הטבעת), Shney HaTzrikhim (שני הצריחים) and Shivat HaMelekh (שיבת המלך) for the respective volumes.

 

Let me try: Tabaot is the plural for "ring" and Tabaat is the singular. "Akhvat" is obviously "Fellowship". Ha is "of".

[Chen G. 4,705]

5 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Ha is "of".

 

"Ha" is "The"

 

Its "The Fellowship of THE Ring" etc...

 

Otherwise you're right on the money, yes.

[Doo_liss 6,604]

Melekh is king.

[Chen G. 4,705]

Now y'all be carefull studying hebrew... in 2024 its much frowned upon! 

 

We also have good translations of Unfinished Tales,Children of Hurin and Tales from the Perilous Realm.

[Edmilson 9,104]

13 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

"Ha" is "The"

 

Its "The Fellowship of THE Ring" etc...

 

Otherwise you're right on the money, yes.

So the fact that there isn't a "Ha" before the name of each work means that there isn't an article before the title, right?

 

Instead of "THE Lord of the Rings" it's just "Lord of the Rings", instead of "THE Fellowship of the Ring" is just "Fellowship of the Ring", etc, correct?

[Chen G. 4,705]

Sorta, yeah.

 

You could also say the "The" article is implied. Hard to explain.