# I finally know what's wrong with Lord of the Rings (films)



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

For years now i kind of put Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter in the same loop- fantastic visuals; but that's the only reason you go see them, because as films they just don't have that certain something, that certain emotional connectivity which the best films should have. I've never been able to figure out why that was, never been able to put my finger on it.. particularly the LOTR films which SHOULD be amazing but aren't. i could never find an answer- until that is i saw the last two Harry Potter films..

I left Harry Potter 7.1 thinking "wow that was actually a properly well made film", the way they set it had a very apocalypse feel to it and i left with a similar feeling in my gut that i had after films like 28 Days Later and The Road.. it felt very real, and that's a feeling that definitely goes in the "great film" bracket. I just watched Harry Potter 7.2- and that film is brilliant- a truly brilliant film which i'm not afraid to put up there as a great film just because it bears the franchise of Harry Potter. It has a very Tarantino moment with the death of Snape, and all round you just feel the whole story come together seamlessly, with great music as well, and i felt the same magic (both figurative and literal..) in the film as i felt in J.K.Rowling's written words.

Now i thought to myself, why is it that none of the first 6 films, although some of them are ok, measure up to that? is it just the directing? i asked the same question i've been asking myself about the LOTR films since they came out- and it hit me.. the first 5-6 films are kids films. that's what they are- they're told from the perspective of children and are designed intrinsically to be kids films, wheras the final two are created as proper films from the perspective of adults and carrying deep content. and that's when i had my answer about the LOTR films..

The LOTR films aren't about children, they aren't supposed to be told from the perspective of children.. but they are.. in essence.. _kids films_. they carry all the innocence and optimistic world view of children's movies- and all kids films lack emotional connectivity.. Of course that's what they are supposed to be.. really.. but it's difficult to make a true epic within that constraint. in contrast- watership down a cartoon movie about some rabbits is an adult movie supposed to be for children (from what i remember, i haven't seen it in a while). and whilst that answer is anticlimatically simple, i at least finally have an answer as to why i've always been so disappointed with those trilogy of films.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

I don't know if I'd label all of the HP movies except the last as "kids films," I think the series made a distinct jump once Columbus left the project and Prisoner of Azkaban came out. But even the books started on a very innocent "kids level" with Harry being young, and finished with him having to deal with the more complexity and ambiguity of adulthood. The movies, theme and content-wise, necessarily deepened as the series progressed as well. 

With LOTR, I could only ever stand to watch the latter two once apiece. My son, who had not read the books at the time but was 10-11 when the last came out, meanwhile watched them over and over. I don't know it was that they were "childlike" per se, but I don't feel that overall they were that complex in terms of adult issues, compared with the nuances in the writing. A lot of the substance of the patterns in the books was written out and things like adult depth (for example, Shelob became just a gigantic spider in the movie, but in reality she was brood of Ungoliant and a devourer of the Light, there was a lot more to her than "just a spider"). Jackson seemed to get really absorbed in B-rate horror (like the whole unnecessary expansion of the journey through the halls of the dead) or cheesy action (like Gandalf and Saruman beating each other up in Movie #1 in the Old Men Hitting Each Other with Sticks scene and firing AD&D style magic at each other) and miss a lot of the abstract depth behind the characters and what they represented. In that sense, I did find them very child-like.

In contrast, I love Pan's Labyrinth. The movie is a dark fairy tale told from the perspective of a child, and yet the entire movie is not child-like, it deals with the issues from a very adult level, and the child in question has to make some very adult choices in terms of their complexity and ambiguity.


----------



## caramel_choctop (Sep 20, 2010)

*Disclaimer:* I am not hating on LOTR (movies/books) or HP here. Much of what I say is generalisation.

-

To be fair, I think part of the problem for Peter Jackson was also the complexity of the books: trying to cram a three-volume epic into film isn't easy. I don't particularly care for the HP films myself, tbh, but I can see where you're coming from with regard to LOTR. 

The LOTR books rely _less_ on direct emotional bonding/empathy/relatability with the characters, and more on conveying an overarching 'mythology' of two races (Elves and Men, with some Dwarvish lore thrown in). This is especially true when LOTR is taken together with the mythology of the Silmarillion. I'm not saying that LOTR characters are cardboard cutouts, because I can name a few that are certainly rich (cases in point: Gollum/Smeagol, Sam Gamgee). 
But LOTR is _less about specific and particular people_ and more about overarching mythologies; it's the tying up of an enormously complex mythological creation narrative begun in the Silmarillion, as well as being a story in its own right. 
This makes it harder for some people to connect with characters*, because the ‘focus’ (think of a magnifying glass) is never narrowed down to a few characters, but sort of transcends the characters in favour of the grander scheme. We never delve really, really deeply into a character’s heart - seeing his/her desires, thoughts, dreams, fears - like we do in, say, Supernatural (where there are really only Sam and Dean to focus on).

Basically, these characters and their journey have to be taken in the context of Tolkien’s highly detailed geography, topography, history and mythology of Middle-Earth. The Silm begins with *the actual creation of Middle-Earth*: remember, he’s trying to tell the story of an entire world here, from finish to start. All this is pretty intimidating even to seasoned Tolkien readers, let alone novices to LOTR.

With HP this isn’t the case. We get to see all the action from Harry’s viewpoint, and thus we have a far more intimate picture of all the characters that Harry is associated with. So, although Rowling’s world is rich and inventive, it’s all filtered through the ‘lens’ of Harry’s perception. Heck, even in The Silmarillion we get narrower focus on characters (the Feanorians, Turin et al). So that makes it easier for us to empathise, to relate, to feel character nuances, to form emotional connections, all that jazz.
In LOTR, on the other hand, there is no one person (or even two or three people) who sees and interprets everything. Tolkien favours a very broad, big-picture approach. 

This blurring of characters is even further simplified in the movie. Or, should I say, because all the nuances are taken out (like Jennwocky was saying), the characters might seem even less ‘real’ or ‘human’ in the films, less distinct personalities than mere archetypes. Against all the epic SFX Jackson employs, this is further highlighted. So that’s why the movies kind of seem (to some people) like a haze of CGI and sweeping landscapes.
--
Far out, how did this turn into an essay? XD I hope it doesn’t come across as patronising or anything; I was just trying to justify Jackson/Tolkien and also agree with your viewpoint and then it kind of turned into this massive explanation, LOL. 

*I realise character development *does* depend on various factors including the author’s skill, the narrative itself, and the complexity of the character, but it’s a general argument I’m making here. I am not accusing Tolkien of being a bad writer: on the contrary, I think his writing is visionary and quite beautiful.

EDIT: Oh, and Tolkien's works are supposed to be 'high' and distant - both in writing style and in content. Okay, if I talk any more I'll just keep repeating myself, haha.


----------



## Turelie (Jul 22, 2010)

I always thought Peter Jackson was what was wrong with the Lord of the Rings films. :laughing: (Imagine my disappointment at hearing he's doing The Hobbit too. :bored You're right though about how they were made into children's films, and that's not what they're meant to be.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

LOTR is an epic and really stands out as a book. However, the films are great too, just not so much as the books. The books are more about mythology than the individuals. They have the feeling of a folksy historical novel almost. Harry Potter is about one person, so it can go into all the emotions.


----------



## Kakarookee (Mar 27, 2011)

I've known what's wrong with LOTR movies all along, no Tom Bombadil, no awesome movie.


----------



## MiriMiriAru (May 1, 2011)

LOTR with Tom Bombadil would have been badass. I could quite happily give up the platform-game-adventure Moria sequence complete with stair-surfing in favour of the Tom Bombadil telling the barrow wights to bugger off scene.

Another thing I think that was missing, I think, was Glorfindel (I mean come on, he was in the book for all of ten seconds, all cutting him gained was a lot of cheese). How could they _not_ want the reincarnation of a guy who died fighting the lord of Balrogs, and is so badass that he rides around the Trollshaws with bells on his horse.

I don't think that Peter Jackson made LOTR a children's movie, so much as a kind of shit movie. Yes, yes, limitations, time constraints and all that, but come on, did the film studio not look at his filmography up until that point and have least a bit of a WTF moment?


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

I loved the LOTR movies, but with the exception of the second movie, I'd probably not watch them again. You know why? Because Middle Earth folklore is boring. Quite frankly I dont even find Harry Potter to be that interesting either. Wizards, goblins, fairies, elves, blah blah. They've been done before. It's childish imagery. You know why the last two harry potter's were interesting? Because they were the climax. The first 5-6 films had no real confrontation. There was this horribly evil villan who's name you can't even utter, but the main character is too much of a pussy to fight him. The only reason I even took my time to rent the movies was to listen to Emma Watson speak to me in her british accent. The last two movies were interesting because the main character actually confronted the villans. He stopped being a pussy and actually stood up for himself. 

Lord of the Rings would have been better if they completely got rid of all the Hobbits. The Hobbits were boring, stupid, and there was WAYYYY too much homoerotic tension between all of the supposedly hetero hobbits. They sucked. This is why LOTR: The Two Towers is the best movie. It's pretty much 2 hours of Aragon, Gimli, and Legolas kicking Orc ass. No one gives a shit about Froto. I wish his whiny annoying ass died in the first movie when we was stabbed by the Nazgul.

At the end of the day both of them are horribly overrated. The best movie series of the last decade was The Matrix trilogy. They took complex philosophical issues and made them culturally relevant. Plus they used badass CGI fight scenes and the movies are incredibly quotable, and dont give me this the second and third movies sucked bullshit. Pay attention to the writing, those movies are just as philosophically dense and they (despite not being as mind blowing as the original) were still amazing and did their job in finishing the storyline.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> LOTR is an epic and really stands out as a book. However, the films are great too, just not so much as the books. The books are more about mythology than the individuals. They have the feeling of a folksy historical novel almost. Harry Potter is about one person, so it can go into all the emotions.


Yeah, this is kind of how I feel about it too.


----------



## caramel_choctop (Sep 20, 2010)

@Kakarookee @Zombie Jesus: I agree Tom Bombadil was awesome in the books, but Jackson would probably have wrecked him entirely. Case in point: Treebeard. _What the heck was with Treebeard?!_ And no Quickbeam?

/devastation


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Peter Jackson should have stopped after the release of Braindead, arguably his best work, if not THE BEST WORK, ever.


----------



## MiriMiriAru (May 1, 2011)

Erbse said:


> Peter Jackson should have stopped after the release of Braindead, arguably his best work, if not THE BEST WORK, ever.


I think it's hard for him to accept that he peaked and created his masterwork so early in his career, before he made any money out of it.


----------



## Roudy79 (Jun 29, 2011)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> Lord of the Rings would have been better if they completely got rid of all the Hobbits. The Hobbits were boring, stupid, and there was WAYYYY too much homoerotic tension between all of the supposedly hetero hobbits. They sucked. This is why LOTR: The Two Towers is the best movie. It's pretty much 2 hours of Aragon, Gimli, and Legolas kicking Orc ass. No one gives a shit about Froto. I wish his whiny annoying ass died in the first movie when we was stabbed by the Nazgul..


Yes! My thoughts exactly. The battle that had the trees fighting the Orcs was the greatest thing in the movie. Throughout there was not enough depth, in my view - they just travelled from place to place. And Frodo? Don't get me started.


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

I remember watching LoTR movie trilogy when I was ten or eleven. I didn't really get into the books until I was thirteen. (Mostly because they were kind of hard to find.) I managed to track down the books, and I didn't look back. They were AMAZING! The movies are nothing compared to the books. They were just so rich and full of culture. 

I think what seperates LoTR and HP is that Lord of the Rings focused more on the world that they're in. All the characters' intentions are for Middle Earth. The Nine Walkers are on a quest for Middle Earth and Frodo needs to destroy the Ring for Middle Earth. They are also representations of their races. Aragorn represents men, Legolas represents the Silvan elves, Gimli for the Dwarves, and the Hobbits. 

Harry Potter is a character novel. It's a coming of age novel. That's why it focuses more on human emotions and feelings.


----------



## Hosker (Jan 19, 2011)

Neither Harry Potter nor LoTR were written for children. I would say the early Harry Potter movies were made with children in mind, but the LoTR films definitely weren't.

EDIT: the hobbits weren't naive and innocent because they were child like; it was because it was all they had ever known. They come from a friendly, close off community, and seldom had wars or times of hardship - none in their own time.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

Tridentus said:


> For years now i kind of put Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter in the same loop- fantastic visuals; but that's the only reason you go see them, because as films they just don't have that certain something, that certain emotional connectivity which the best films should have. I've never been able to figure out why that was, never been able to put my finger on it.. particularly the LOTR films which SHOULD be amazing but aren't. i could never find an answer- until that is i saw the last two Harry Potter films..
> 
> I left Harry Potter 7.1 thinking "wow that was actually a properly well made film", the way they set it had a very apocalypse feel to it and i left with a similar feeling in my gut that i had after films like 28 Days Later and The Road.. it felt very real, and that's a feeling that definitely goes in the "great film" bracket. I just watched Harry Potter 7.2- and that film is brilliant- a truly brilliant film which i'm not afraid to put up there as a great film just because it bears the franchise of Harry Potter. It has a very Tarantino moment with the death of Snape, and all round you just feel the whole story come together seamlessly, with great music as well, and i felt the same magic (both figurative and literal..) in the film as i felt in J.K.Rowling's written words.
> 
> ...



I think you just have frodo envy and wish you had a ring of your own. You're schmiegel aren't you!

Honestly though the way you turn completely opinionated ideas into concrete facts... reeks of arrogance.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Frodo is the biggest problem.
The guy is supposed to be _50_ and he looks like a twelve year old. All you ever get from him is the pain of carrying the ring - never a sense of the strength that allows him to carry it. A little whiny prepubescent bitch.

And fuck you Arwen for stealing Glorfindel's horse. Bitch.


----------



## MiriMiriAru (May 1, 2011)

NotSoRighteousRob said:


> You're schmiegel aren't you!


When did Gollum become german? Or yiddish?

This also illustrates another annoying feature of those films: his bloody name was supposed to be pronounced SMAY-a-gol! (or close enough, stupid english spelling conventions) That's why there's an acute accept above the "e". They got the Rohirrim names/words right(ish), so a big WTF to you Peter Jackson!


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

NotSoRighteousRob said:


> I think you just have frodo envy and wish you had a ring of your own. You're schmiegel aren't you!
> 
> Honestly though the way you turn completely opinionated ideas into concrete facts... reeks of arrogance.


well i pretty much take it for granted that people know i'm coming from a subjective place- that's why it's written in an article style. JEEZ what is up with people today? WHY OH WHY would you think that i'm trying to make these facts? it's an opinion i just happen not to have put "in my opinion" at the start of every sentence- get off your judgemental high horse.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> I loved the LOTR movies, but with the exception of the second movie, I'd probably not watch them again. You know why? Because Middle Earth folklore is boring. Quite frankly I dont even find Harry Potter to be that interesting either. Wizards, goblins, fairies, elves, blah blah. They've been done before. It's childish imagery.


Ha ha... well, I'll assume you're talking more about HP here, but Tolkien kind of was the first writer in last century to pull all those concepts together and popularize them. He published in the 50's, I think, and became the direct source for today's modern fantasy market and RPGs.

JKR succeeded because she tapped kids during their transition from childhood to adulthood, in a setting that is very real to children: School. She also wrote on a level that both children and adults could enjoy. They could identify with Harry's journey, while wishing they had the ability to do the cool things he could do.



> Lord of the Rings would have been better if they completely got rid of all the Hobbits.


Another funny comment, since hobbits were Tolkien's connection to "normalcy" in LotR -- they were the common man, accessible to human readers, and embodying Tolkien's own ideals. Without the hobbits, the story wouldn't have been grounded.



> The Hobbits were boring, stupid, and there was WAYYYY too much homoerotic tension between all of the supposedly hetero hobbits.


Did it make you anxious? It must be kind of unsettling to watch two guys have a relationship that isn't sexual but is still emotionally intimate and loyal. 



> At the end of the day both of them are horribly overrated. The best movie series of the last decade was The Matrix trilogy.


Whatever.

First movie: Classic, completely. It deserves to be seen as one of the best movies of that decade, in any genre.
Second movie: Mentally intriguing, a great linear plot flow
Third movie: Some great concepts that were never actualized, being ruined by the comic-book style dialogue and scene cuts. Sloppy writing, gooey broad sentiments rather than nuanced drama. It was nowhere near as tight and coherent as the first movie, and I've seen much better movies since. It is the movie I still want badly to like, but I find most of it hard to watch. Again, it was a matter of how the ideas were realized; the ideas themselves (especially with Neo and Smith being a binary pair) were really good.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

Tridentus said:


> well i pretty much take it for granted that people know i'm coming from a subjective place- that's why it's written in an article style. JEEZ what is up with people today? WHY OH WHY would you think that i'm trying to make these facts? it's an opinion i just happen not to have put "in my opinion" at the start of every sentence- get off your judgemental high horse.


I am not concerned whether you take things for granted or realize that in fact there are people that would find you calling their favorite films "Kid's films". You do not have to put "in my opinion" to write an opinionated post. I believe you were well aware of the way your choosing of words could be construed as insulting and intentionally chose to write this way in order to have a more dramatic flair of style.

I personally don't care for either movies or styles, I know of people who are obsessed with either films and I found certain statements of yours to be over bearing to ever be taken seriously. Learn to accept constructive criticism if you want to be able to write reviews that can be accepted by both parties that either enjoy or don't care for a particular series or film. Me calling you out on your writing style has less to do with me being judgmental and me just calling it how I see it... Come to think of it... It's almost _exactly_ what you perceived to do isn't it?

*edit
I realize harry potter is in fact designed for children, I hadn't been aware that that was the audience The lord of the rings was focused on, in fact I believe box office sales would show otherwise. But who am I to use empirical evidence to disprove someones opinionated thread.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Oh god, it's going to be another Katy Perry incident...


----------



## nekudah (Aug 12, 2011)

I liked Aragorn alot (Viggo Mortenson)


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> Ha ha... well, I'll assume you're talking more about HP here, but Tolkien kind of was the first writer in last century to pull all those concepts together and popularize them. He published in the 50's, I think, and became the direct source for today's modern fantasy market and RPGs


Well I was talking about both. Middle Earth is uninteresting and Tolkien has boring prose. I mean, there are parts of Middle Earth I find appealing. When they were in Moria, the Elven areas, The Nazgul, the few times Frodo almost died (made me happy inside) and a few other places. 



> JKR succeeded because she tapped kids during their transition from childhood to adulthood, in a setting that is very real to children: School. She also wrote on a level that both children and adults could enjoy. They could identify with Harry's journey, while wishing they had the ability to do the cool things he could do.


Didn't work for me. I found the stories dull as a kid. I would much rather watch the socio-political drama unfold in Gundam Wing while they simultaneously exposed 8 year olds to existential questions and complex moral issues. Plus there were giant robots fucking each other up in space



> Another funny comment, since hobbits were Tolkien's connection to "normalcy" in LotR -- they were the common man, accessible to human readers, and embodying Tolkien's own ideals. Without the hobbits, the story wouldn't have been grounded.


I hate Hobbits with a passion. And I dont understand your comment about normalcy considering they had actual humans in the films. The Hobbits were shitty characters and I hated all of them. 



> Did it make you anxious? It must be kind of unsettling to watch two guys have a relationship that isn't sexual but is still emotionally intimate and loyal.


It didn't make me 'anxious'. And that's beyond emotional intimacy and loyalty. Sam obviously wanted to have sex with Frodo, and I have no issue with that. My real issue is that they never explicitly stated it, and that upset me. I waited all three movies for Sam to at least kiss Frodo a little bit, but then in the end they tried to play it off like they was straight and it was just the stress of the situation that made them act that way. Yeah right



> Whatever.
> 
> First movie: Classic, completely. It deserves to be seen as one of the best movies of that decade, in any genre.
> Second movie: Mentally intriguing, a great linear plot flow
> Third movie: Some great concepts that were never actualized, being ruined by the comic-book style dialogue and scene cuts. Sloppy writing, gooey broad sentiments rather than nuanced drama. It was nowhere near as tight and coherent as the first movie, and I've seen much better movies since. It is the movie I still want badly to like, but I find most of it hard to watch. Again, it was a matter of how the ideas were realized; the ideas themselves (especially with Neo and Smith being a binary pair) were really good.


I'll admit the last movie began to cross over into "let's pour a lot of money into this" territory, but I went to those movies for the conceptual aspect. Also, I'd rather watch a movie about how our universe is potentially a virtual reality simulation than watch hairy footed "little people" walk across Europe to throw a ring in a volcano.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

And wtf was with the Uruk-jar coming out of weird pods in the mud? And Christopher Lee hamming up Saruman like he is some crazy drama horror character? And utterly overdoing the Theoden illness thingy...too much unnecessary drama...and FARAMIR! The ENTIRE POINT is he is supposed to be DIFFERENT from Boromir, not make the same damn mistake. So lame.


Also:


> The male intimacy that Tolkien describes, particularly the relationship between Frodo and Sam, often has an unsettling ffect on readers whose reactions may range from dissatisfaction to erotic excitement. Neither of these extremes usually recognizes that the Frodo-Sam relationship reflects a historically contingent mode of British male friendship that belongs to the First World War.


http://www.cellardoor.the-green-door.net/images/Academic Article Whole Text.pdf


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

lirulin said:


> Also:
> 
> http://www.cellardoor.the-green-door.net/images/Academic Article Whole Text.pdf



So, gay before it was socially acceptable to come out of the closet. Like how men in America used to live with their "brother-in-law" for like 50 years.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> So, gay before it was socially acceptable to come out of the closet. Like how men in America used to live with their "brother-in-law" for like 50 years.


Not even slightly. Tolkien would have opposed that interpretation wholeheartedly.



> Santanu Das's exploration of male intimacy in the
> trenches indicates that the situation was far more complex and resistant to categories of sexual
> identity and gender roles. According to Das, in the unique experience that was the
> First World War, "A new world of largely nongenital tactile tenderness was opening up in which pity,
> ...


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

lirulin said:


> Not even slightly. Tolkien would have opposed that interpretation wholeheartedly.


Fine, so we wont put a "label" on it. But there was obvious homoerotic tension, that in the historical context was perfectly normal, but by today's knowledge and labels we would refer to as homoerotic. If you ask those men with the "brother-in-laws" they wouldn't call themselves homosexual either. Different time periods I suppose.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> Fine, so we wont put a "label" on it. But there was obvious homoerotic tension, that in the historical context was perfectly normal, but by today's knowledge and labels we would refer to as homoerotic. If you ask those men with the "brother-in-laws" they wouldn't call themselves homosexual either. Different time periods I suppose.


You say you won't put a label, and then you call it homoerotic tension? :dry:

Tolkien was a conservative Christian and would not have written his characters like that. What he did believe in was the idea that male friendship was the purest form of connection since, with women, sex always got in the way. And that male friendship was part of the nobler part of life where women had no place, as they lived in the domestic sphere, kind of thing. (He states as much in his letters.) That hardly points to homoeroticism... It isn't about that.

People can chose to reread or reinterpret it as homoeroticism, and I think the movie did that, since they had no idea how to deal with the real intent in the current context, but it was by no means part of the story as it was written and I think that is important to understand. The actual intent and creation of the characters was meant to speak to something different, something more complex than repressed sexual tension.


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

lirulin said:


> You say you won't put a label, and then you call it homoerotic tension? :dry:
> 
> Tolkien was a conservative Christian and would not have written his characters like that. What he did believe in was the idea that male friendship was the purest form of connection since, with women, sex always got in the way. And that male friendship was part of the nobler part of life where women had no place, as they lived in the domestic sphere, kind of thing. (He states as much in his letters.) That hardly points to homoeroticism... It isn't about that.
> 
> People can chose to reread or reinterpret it as homoeroticism, and I think the movie did that, since they had no idea how to deal with the real intent in the current context, but it was by no means part of the story as it was written and I think that is important to understand. The actual intent and creation of the characters was meant to speak to something different, something more complex than repressed sexual tension.


Have you ever noticed that the people most avidly against homosexuality tend to be repressed homosexuals themselves? That's not to say that he was gay, but that was obvious homosexual tension whether he intended for it to be so or not. "And that male friendship was part of the nobler part of life where women had no place" that sounds very much like homoeroticism to me. But again that was during a time period when men could not befriend females in a non-sexual mannor so whatever. I'm sure he meant something noble and pure about it, but that's not how it came across to anyone else.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> Well I was talking about both. Middle Earth is uninteresting and Tolkien has boring prose. I mean, there are parts of Middle Earth I find appealing. When they were in Moria, the Elven areas, The Nazgul, the few times Frodo almost died (made me happy inside) and a few other places.


Those were some of my favorite parts too (well, aside from killing off Frodo).

Moria's probably one of my favorite scenes, based on how it was written, in any book I've read from any genre.

But Tolkien was a linguist, and he approached his writing more from a broad mythic OR from a tedious historical perspective. Most of the middle of The Two Towers is some of the most boring, pointless prose I have ever read. It's ironic that he was still responsible for some of the more haunting passages I've ever read (such as Aragorn leaving the glen in Lothlorien as a living man for the last time, or the whole piece with Shelob, or the pains that lingered with Frodo leading him to eventually leave Middle-Earth in order to find healing, or the bonding of Faramir and Eowyn, or the fight on Weathertop, etc.... just some places where his "mythic style" really shone). 

Even a good writer isn't perfect, it's usually about accepting the dross in order to enjoy the good stuff.



> I hate Hobbits with a passion. And I dont understand your comment about normalcy considering they had actual humans in the films. The Hobbits were shitty characters and I hated all of them.


You're focusing on the surface. Look at how Tolkien used humans in his books. he centered the narrative camera on the concerns of hobbits, and the humans were generally seen as "not like us" and either buffoonish, or threatening, or self-absorbed. Only a few men in the books proved to be noble, but basically Tolkien made the hobbits the center of his narrative and humans were as alien as the elves.



> It didn't make me 'anxious'. And that's beyond emotional intimacy and loyalty. Sam obviously wanted to have sex with Frodo, and I have no issue with that.


Uh... my point is that you feel the need to sexualize it. Sam didn't want to have sex with Frodo at all. It says more that you read it as him sexually wanting Frodo, than understanding that what you saw doesn't need to be part of a romantic same-sex relationship.



> My real issue is that they never explicitly stated it, and that upset me. I waited all three movies for Sam to at least kiss Frodo a little bit, but then in the end they tried to play it off like they was straight and it was just the stress of the situation that made them act that way. Yeah right


Women can dote on each other just fine in those ways without being sexually interested in each other, it's called "emotional intimacy." For some reason, men are not allowed to do without being considered "gay." It's kind of sad.



> Also, I'd rather watch a movie about how our universe is potentially a virtual reality simulation than watch hairy footed "little people" walk across Europe to throw a ring in a volcano.


It would be even cooler if they'd trebuchet an SUV with a working player piano in the back into the volcano. Or 50,000,000 ping pong balls. A ring doesn't make much of a splash.


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> You're focusing on the surface. Look at how Tolkien used humans in his books. he centered the narrative camera on the concerns of hobbits, and the humans were generally seen as "not like us" and either buffoonish, or threatening, or self-absorbed. Only a few men in the books proved to be noble, but basically Tolkien made the hobbits the center of his narrative and humans were as alien as the elves.


We are buffoonish, threatening, and self absorbed. When was the last time you met a "noble" human? It's a real look at our species and I still identified more with them.



> Uh... my point is that you feel the need to sexualize it. Sam didn't want to have sex with Frodo at all. It says more that you read it as him sexually wanting Frodo, than understanding that what you saw doesn't need to be part of a romantic same-sex relationship.


In men (and I might be generalizing, but as a male, who also knows other males, it holds true), emotional intimacy is tied with sex. You can be emotionally close with male friends that you have, and I have and have had male friends that others would consider a "bromance" (Turk and JD level stuff), but even those dont come close to the level of sexual tension between the two of them. They had "you're my first love, and no other person I have sex with will ever compare to you" eyes with each other. 



> Women can dote on each other just fine in those ways without being sexually interested in each other, it's called "emotional intimacy." For some reason, men are not allowed to do without being considered "gay." It's kind of sad.


I dont really know where you're from, so people might still view homosexuals negatively where you are, but I mean it in a literal statement that Sam is probably gay for Frodo. It's not sad, it's just literal. Men dont naturally "dote" on each other. It's not that we're against it, but it's not something most men do. It's just not how we're programmed. Even if you brought it back to MBTI most males are thinker types. It's just not our thing. I have male friends that are a little more affectionate, but again the levels between them were beyond that. 



> It would be even cooler if they'd trebuchet an SUV with a working player piano in the back into the volcano. Or 50,000,000 ping pong balls. A ring doesn't make much of a splash.


the ring wasn't really my issue to be honest. I enjoyed the movies and the story, I just have an irrational hatred for the hobbits. I actually almost never got past the beginning because I couldn't handle the first 30 minutes of The Fellowship being held in The Shire. I dont know why I hate them, it might be an aesthetic thing.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> Have you ever noticed that the people most avidly against homosexuality tend to be repressed homosexuals themselves? That's not to say that he was gay, but that was obvious homosexual tension whether he intended for it to be so or not. "And that male friendship was part of the nobler part of life where women had no place" that sounds very much like homoeroticism to me. But again that was during a time period when men could not befriend females in a non-sexual mannor so whatever. I'm sure he meant something noble and pure about it, but that's not how it came across to anyone else.


It's pretty normal _sexism_ really. And clearly not everyone who thinks women are inferior or different *pats head* are gay, though I might start using that argument to piss off sexist people. Then again, it is false, so maybe not. 

And it was far more about the war and the intense bonds that happen when you are risking death every day than it was about being turned on. Especially in trenches full of rat piss, corpses, mud, and other forms of refuse. Men expressing affection for each other is not necessarily sexual in any way. There was also the sense of total alienation prompted by the senselessness of the war and wastage of lives that can help bond with those in the same position. Probably a certain alienation from women, as most able-bodied men shared the same horrific experiences and women were, with a number of important exceptions, just at home being protect, not there. Shared trauma on a huge scale and given that women were not soldiers, that trauma was specific to men. (Not that women weren't also in war zones for other reasons.) Also, those who study the context and time period do not, in fact, mistake it for homoeroticism any more than King Arthur and Lancelot were totally flaming. You are also mistaken in your claim that it comes across as homoerotic _everyone_ but Tolkien. It comes off as homoerotic to those who cannot see male affection as anything but distant or flaming, but it is allowed to be more complex than that, even if that is unfortunately restricted to situations of extreme duress.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> We are buffoonish, threatening, and self absorbed. When was the last time you met a "noble" human? It's a real look at our species and I still identified more with them.


That's fine. But I'm saying if you actually deconstruct the story, that's how Tolkien was approaching it. Humans aren't the center of The Lord of the Rings; the hobbits are the protagonists. That is why the story starts with hobbits, revolves around hobbits, and ends with hobbits; and why men are responsnible for the scouring of the shire, just as Tolkien was watching men destroying the natural fauna of his beloved England due to industrialization at that time in history. 

It can't be much more obvious than that.



> In men (and I might be generalizing, but as a male, who also knows other males, it holds true), emotional intimacy is tied with sex. You can be emotionally close with male friends that you have, and I have and have had male friends that others would consider a "bromance" (Turk and JD level stuff), but even those dont come close to the level of sexual tension between the two of them. They had "you're my first love, and no other person I have sex with will ever compare to you" eyes with each other.


I think men do sexualize intimacy as par for the course, but I think it's a mistake to layer it in here. There is no sexual tension in the narrative. It's the same sort of thinking that David and Jonathan in the OT Bible "had to be lovers" beacuse people just can't get past sexualizing things.



> I dont really know where you're from,


The United States, East coast.



> so people might still view homosexuals negatively where you are, but I mean it in a literal statement that Sam is probably gay for Frodo. It's not sad, it's just literal.


I just don't see his behavior as gay. Sorry. Unfortunately, it's become synonymous with gay because men are not typically allowed to behave that way without being gay. That's more a condemnation of society in the restrictions placed on men IMO.



> Even if you brought it back to MBTI most males are thinker types. It's just not our thing. I have male friends that are a little more affectionate, but again the levels between them were beyond that.


Lol... "Most men are Thinker types." True. So what types were Frodo and Sam in the book? Sam is most definitely ISFJ; Frodo is most definitely IFP (although in the book he's more N, and in the movie he's more S, I think). So we're not talking about "T" men. We're talking about two F men. Which means that your trying to interpret them as T guys is simply erroneous. 

meaniwhile, the issue you're describing -- about INFP guys having to deal with criticism of their masculinity and such because of their F-style behavior ---is discussed regularly on these forums. I've seen more than enough INFP guys dealing with being called "gay" while they can be anything but. It's what's happening right now in this conversation.



> the ring wasn't really my issue to be honest. I enjoyed the movies and the story, I just have an irrational hatred for the hobbits. I actually almost never got past the beginning because I couldn't handle the first 30 minutes of The Fellowship being held in The Shire. I dont know why I hate them, it might be an aesthetic thing.


Well, they are kinda short.

... anyway, you don't have to like them. You're not the first to not enjoy hobbits. I'm not particularly fond of them, I'm preferential to elves.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

NotSoRighteousRob said:


> I am not concerned whether you take things for granted or realize that in fact there are people that would find you calling their favorite films "Kid's films". You do not have to put "in my opinion" to write an opinionated post. I believe you were well aware of the way your choosing of words could be construed as insulting and intentionally chose to write this way in order to have a more dramatic flair of style.
> 
> I personally don't care for either movies or styles, I know of people who are obsessed with either films and I found certain statements of yours to be over bearing to ever be taken seriously. Learn to accept constructive criticism if you want to be able to write reviews that can be accepted by both parties that either enjoy or don't care for a particular series or film. Me calling you out on your writing style has less to do with me being judgmental and me just calling it how I see it... Come to think of it... It's almost _exactly_ what you perceived to do isn't it?
> 
> ...


ok first of all.. you don't get it. i don't mean kids movie as in "made for kids" or not- i'm talking about how the film was made not how it was labelled- that's the entire point, of course LOTR wasn't packaged exclusively to kids- it's a "family" movie, but i was saying there is something at the core of the film and in how it is told which appears to come from the soul of a child- hence my argument. it's a very vague intangible argument but nevertheless.

listen i don't know what your beef is.. first you call me arrogant, i'm thinking "well ok, that's not fair.." and dooon't wuss out and claim that was constructive criticism, comon you know why and how you said that- and then you post again and expand what you're trying to say and i'm left thinking "ok, so what? how does that make me arrogant?". i don't care one jack about whether people like the film- i'm sure plenty of my friends like the film, i'm sure most people do.. fair enough. i'm offering my opinion on why i thought harry potter 7.2 was a good film and using my opinion of LOTR as a loose metaphor. now- i know that is a very intangible argument but the reason why i didn't particularly enjoy the movies i mentioned was also intangible so i guess it fits. if people are thin skinned enough to be insulted by it, a viewpoint about a _movie_, then my review is the least of their problems. i expect anyone who disagrees with me to think "well he's wrong.." i don't expect them to go "oh no.. now i feel like LOTR is a kids movie- wait a minute.. i'm not a kid! *cries*" that would be completely ridiculous.
i don't even care if people like my review or agree with it- i mean it'd be nice, but i'm just putting my thoughts out there to see if people want to discuss them and to see if people find them interesting. that's it. kaput. no more. finite. end. if you didn't like it then don't call me arrogant for no apparent reason- just don't reply, or say you disagree and say why, and we can start a discussion. don't call someone arrogant for no reason- that's just not on.

if i missed your point it's because- like literally- i don't understand it one bit. to me you just said a whole bunch of things i'm aware of but don't consider bad and a whole bunch of things that didn't make sense. i don't expect people to be offended by it, i think that idea is ridiculous. you don't look up a review of your favourite artist's latest album, see the reviewer beating the crap out of it with a literative stick (using much choicier metaphors than i do) and go cry about it, you accept it, go ok i wonder why he thought that.. go back and listen to it and think either "you know what? he had a point", or "no way! that guys wrong.. oh well.".

i'm wondering why i should have to be called arrogant.. and to be honest i feel i deserve an apology.


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> That's fine. But I'm saying if you actually deconstruct the story, that's how Tolkien was approaching it. Humans aren't the center of The Lord of the Rings; the hobbits are the protagonists. That is why the story starts with hobbits, revolves around hobbits, and ends with hobbits; and why men are responsnible for the scouring of the shire, just as Tolkien was watching men destroying the natural fauna of his beloved England due to industrialization at that time in history.
> 
> It can't be much more obvious than that.


I'm sure that was his intention, but alas I hate hobbits and I couldn't identify with any of them. The flawed animal nature of man is much easier to identify with, plus I have an irrational hatred towards hobbits. I dont understand it, but I hate them.



> I think men do sexualize intimacy as par for the course, but I think it's a mistake to layer it in here. There is no sexual tension in the narrative. It's the same sort of thinking that David and Jonathan in the OT Bible "had to be lovers" beacuse people just can't get past sexualizing things.


It's not a "mistake" it's just what happens. Ideally, it would be nice if people didn't think or act this way, but that's human nature, and as a writer you have to realize that people will probably still view it that way. It's not "sexualizing" we are just sexual beings and therefore it's the natural connection to make. Painting 2D characters that aren't sexual, is not realistic because we all know that those feelings exist, and we as humans will compare them to our past experiences. You can't just remove that factor, no matter how "noble" you think a nonsexual, but emotionally intimate relationship is.



> The United States, East coast.


That's a long stretch of land missy. If you're gay in NYC, no one gives a fuck. Take it to parts of Georgia or the Appalachian mountains and see how quick that sentiment changes. 




> I just don't see his behavior as gay. Sorry. Unfortunately, it's become synonymous with gay because men are not typically allowed to behave that way without being gay. That's more a condemnation of society in the restrictions placed on men IMO.


It's not that men aren't "allowed to behave that way", it's that men typically dont behave that way anyway, and thus it's just become a societal norm. Acting outside that norm isn't "frowned upon" it's just atypical, and it throws people off, but believe me, his behavior was gay. Even gay men were convinced he was gay.



> Lol... "Most men are Thinker types." True. So what types were Frodo and Sam in the book? Sam is most definitely ISFJ; Frodo is most definitely IFP (although in the book he's more N, and in the movie he's more S, I think). So we're not talking about "T" men. We're talking about two F men. Which means that your trying to interpret them as T guys is simply erroneous.


I know F men, and they dont act that way either. I know homosexual F types that would act this way with another male however.



> meaniwhile, the issue you're describing -- about INFP guys having to deal with criticism of their masculinity and such because of their F-style behavior ---is discussed regularly on these forums. I've seen more than enough INFP guys dealing with being called "gay" while they can be anything but. It's what's happening right now in this conversation.


I've been mistaken as gay a lot as well and I'm an ENTP. Happens when you step outside of typical male behavior, though mine was probably more closely linked to my father being a professional male dancer.




lirulin said:


> It's pretty normal _sexism_ really. And clearly not everyone who thinks women are inferior or different *pats head* are gay, though I might start using that argument to piss off sexist people. Then again, it is false, so maybe not.
> 
> And it was far more about the war and the intense bonds that happen when you are risking death every day than it was about being turned on. Especially in trenches full of rat piss, corpses, mud, and other forms of refuse. Men expressing affection for each other is not necessarily sexual in any way. There was also the sense of total alienation prompted by the senselessness of the war and wastage of lives that can help bond with those in the same position. Probably a certain alienation from women, as most able-bodied men shared the same horrific experiences and women were, with a number of important exceptions, just at home being protect, not there. Shared trauma on a huge scale and given that women were not soldiers, that trauma was specific to men. (Not that women weren't also in war zones for other reasons.) Also, those who study the context and time period do not, in fact, mistake it for homoeroticism any more than King Arthur and Lancelot were totally flaming. You are also mistaken in your claim that it comes across as homoerotic _everyone_ but Tolkien. It comes off as homoerotic to those who cannot see male affection as anything but distant or flaming, but it is allowed to be more complex than that, even if that is unfortunately restricted to situations of extreme duress.


It wasn't "male affection" it was far beyond that. It was the kind of affection that I would exude if my wife was put in a similar situation, not the kind of affection I would put forth if my best friend was. And believe me, that's a really close friend. Sam on multiple occasions gave Frodo "if you and I weren't on this mountain, I would take you to pound town" looks. 

But take whatever spin on the story you want. It's literature, interpret how you feel.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> It wasn't "male affection" it was far beyond that. It was the kind of affection that I would exude if my wife was put in a similar situation, not the kind of affection I would put forth if my best friend was. And believe me, that's a really close friend. Sam on multiple occasions gave Frodo "if you and I weren't on this mountain, I would take you to pound town" looks.
> 
> But take whatever spin on the story you want. It's literature, interpret how you feel.


I am relying on Tolkien's letters, what he has written about his intentions himself, and also some analyses based on them and ones that look at the historical context of the time. You are the one making the spin based on how you feel, rather than the story itself. It doesn't matter the limits of your emotional expression to friends; you are neither Frodo nor Sam, nor were you, I presume, in WWI to experience the context Tolkien was referencing. And like I said, people can do that, create spin false to the spirit of the story, but it isn't fair to claim that this is part of the actual story when the authors' words contradict that, and it _is_ important to understand what he was _really_ writing about - which was not homoeroticism. And, like I said, Jackson may have played up that interpretation in the movie, to make it easier to swallow for current audiences who do not understand the context JRR was writing about, but that is simply not what the real story was about. JRR was quite clear on that point.


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

lirulin said:


> I am relying on Tolkien's letters, what he has written about his intentions himself, and also some analyses based on them and ones that look at the historical context of the time. You are the one making the spin based on how you feel, rather than the story itself. It doesn't matter the limits of your emotional expression; you are neither Frodo nor Sam. And like I said, people can do that, create spin false to the spirit of the story, but it is important to understand what he was _really_ writing about. And it was not homoeroticism.


Alice in Wonderland wasn't really about drugs, but it is still a staple in drug culture. I'll stick with my interpretation lol


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> Alice in Wonderland wasn't really about drugs, but it is still a staple in drug culture.


Right, a lot of it was referencing migraines. Doesn't mean drug culture can't reference it; that's different from claiming he wrote it about drugs. Some assassins love J.D. Salinger but the book wasn't about murdering people...



Mr.Xl Vii said:


> I'll stick with my interpretation lol


There's nothing wrong with reading things a certain way; I'm just pointing out that pretending that the evidence isn't there is a bit silly. You can acknowledge that T never wrote it about homoeroticism, and in face intended it to be about something else entirely - and still decide to relate it to homoeroticism if that suits your fancy. But claiming your interpretation is the right one is mistaken, is all. The actual context & intention & characters are different to what you choose to see.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

@Tridentus 
If I had been making any type of personal attack it would have been much more in depth and not a one sentence jab. I honestly felt as though your original post would be construed as offensive to someone in my family and therefore felt it could be seen the same way by someone on the forum. But maybe it is just me. I have no desire to continue to defend my position when while writing similar posts to yours I did so with specific intent of a certain goal. If you were not seeking this same result than you do in fact have my apologies. I can only compare what I see by a self-reflection as I am not entirely adept at reading the sub-context of meaning behind typed words.

Had I been writing the same article or whatever it would be considered I would have expected it to aggravate or upset someone. If you were unaware of this then I don't see why you continue to pursue the subject and take it for what it is. All opinions will be met with criticism both negative and positive. I even tried to lighten the criticism with a joke about frodo and ring envy, so maybe you need to apologize to me for wasting my time explaining what I just tried to explain. 

I will not continue to defend my previous statements. It is bound to just aggravate you further.

Maybe I'm actually becoming a civilized person... normally I would have loved the opportunity to infuriate someone, or maybe my approaching deadline just won't give me the time to have my "fun" like I used to. Either way i wish you the best.


----------

