The Iron Tower + Two Ways To Appreciate Middle Earth

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Think of me what you will, but the Rankin-Bass animated Hobbit adaptation was truer in spirit and tone to the book than the recent trilogy was.

I don't know what I would think of it now, but I hated it when it came out. It realized none of the magic for me. I was youngish and no doubt my expectations were high, and it failed to deliver big time. Abysmal and truly awful in fact, are the memories I was left with.

But hey, I might love it now and think it artistic or something.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

From the Mithgar FB page: Among other things, the original was written in an eroff/troff format, and converting it to a Word-compatible RTF file will be quite error-prone and tedious. And I need it in RTF for my Legend Maker converter to turn it into a mobi file to upload to Amazon Kindle.

Actually I have no idea what he means by that.

What is a Legend Mobi converter? The thing is, even though it was converted to Mobi, it could be converted yet again so it could be cleaned up and made into ePub and then from there into Mobi/Kf8. That would work in a roundabout way.

Does anyone know what eroff/troff format is and what software uses this format?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Timboli

I don't know what I would think of it now, but I hated it when it came out. It realized none of the magic for me. I was youngish and no doubt my expectations were high, and it failed to deliver big time. Abysmal and truly awful in fact, are the memories I was left with.

But hey, I might love it now and think it artistic or something.

I didn't care much for the animated version of the Hobbit either and I saw it as an adult (1977) when I was in my full throat Tolkien phase. It was a TV special and the animation was done by a Japanese animation company. It was certainly a lot truer to the tone and spirit of the book than the Jackson movie, but it also had more of an Astroboy look and feel as well.

I tend to agree with Timboli, I really liked the Hobbit movies but considered them movies suggested by The Hobbit book, rather than an adaption of the book. Yes, the studio pushed Jackson into turning it into a trilogy for financial purposes, which meant that a whole lot of filler had to be thrown in. Jackson likely could have done it as a single long movie, or perhaps even two movies and stayed much truer to the book.

One of the issues with The Hobbit is that while the story starts off as a children's tale, it's more like the original dark Brothers Grimm tales than the light and airy Disney movies that kids are use to now. I'm not sure you can make a movie that is faithful to the book and have it be successful. The Hobbit was published in 1937. Children were very different back then than today's modern bubble wrapped children.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I didn't care much for the animated version of the Hobbit either and I saw it as an adult (1977) when I was in my full throat Tolkien phase. It was a TV special and the animation was done by a Japanese animation company. It was certainly a lot truer to the tone and spirit of the book than the Jackson movie, but it also had more of an Astroboy look and feel as well.

I disagree. Yes, the animation was done by a Japanese studio, but nothing in The Hobbit screams anime to me. I think the animation style is beautiful.

I tend to agree with Timboli, I really liked the Hobbit movies but considered them movies suggested by The Hobbit book, rather than an adaption of the book. Yes, the studio pushed Jackson into turning it into a trilogy for financial purposes, which meant that a whole lot of filler had to be thrown in. Jackson likely could have done it as a single long movie, or perhaps even two movies and stayed much truer to the book.

I just felt like the Petey Jackson Hobbit movies were a mess as movies. He went too over the top with CG characters bouncing around and everything felt too amped-up. The storm giants and the barrel ride for instance.

One of the issues with The Hobbit is that while the story starts off as a children's tale, it's more like the original dark Brothers Grimm tales than the light and airy Disney movies that kids are use to now. I'm not sure you can make a movie that is faithful to the book and have it be successful. The Hobbit was published in 1937. Children were very different back then than today's modern bubble wrapped children.

I think by virtue of the films being a follow-up to Lord of the Rings, they would have been successful regardless. Look at the box office the tedious Star Wars prequels did. The Hobbit trilogy reminds me of those prequels in many ways.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I just felt like the Petey Jackson Hobbit movies were a mess as movies. He went too over the top with CG characters bouncing around and everything felt too amped-up. The storm giants and the barrel ride for instance.

Yep. Forget comparisons to the book; the movies were a mess on their own merits. I'm perfectly capable (and willing) to allow adaptations to deviate from their subject matter. But they still have to stand up on their own. I don't give bad adaptations free passes just because the original was special to me. Jackson's Hobbit was just off the rails nonsense. I'd have been been ecstatic had the movies been completely different from the original AND great. But they weren't. I couldn't even bring myself to finish the movie "trilogy".

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I disagree. Yes, the animation was done by a Japanese studio, but nothing in The Hobbit screams anime to me. I think the animation style is beautiful.

Well each to their own I guess. I felt is was a poorly done cartoon, where the artwork was the main feature. As good as I might now think that artwork is, back then it wasn't enough and at odds with the visions in my head.

I just felt like the Petey Jackson Hobbit movies were a mess as movies. He went too over the top with CG characters bouncing around and everything felt too amped-up. The storm giants and the barrel ride for instance.

I don't think they were a mess overall, though I will agree they became too Disney-like at times, especially the very slapstick barrel ride and related. It became very ridiculous at times, but aside from that it was entertaining, and really they were what helped divorce the book from the movies, even more. I have found I can dislike a good portion of a movie, but so long as the majority entertains me enough, I feel I have enjoyed it. That happened for me with Iron Man 3. Movies like that will never make my top one thousand, and I will not be in a hurry to watch again, and I went away with some angst, but unlike really bad movies, I did get some worth and feel there was some merit.

I think by virtue of the films being a follow-up to Lord of the Rings, they would have been successful regardless. Look at the box office the tedious Star Wars prequels did. The Hobbit trilogy reminds me of those prequels in many ways.

For sure, which is why I never gauge the greatness of a movie by how many tickets are sold. A better gauge, is how many DVDs and Blu-rays are bought.

That said, I am on the fence regarding Star Wars, as I have only seen the first of these latest additions, and I quite enjoyed that. For sure it had a few failings, but overall it was good enough for me. But then I resisted knowing anything about it before I saw it on Blu-ray.

I no longer torture myself by going to the Cinema, where you have to tolerate the bad behavior of others .... same for many live shows. Thank dog for large TVs, Blu-rays and great surround sound ... not to mention other home comforts.

[Timboli]

One way, that the Tolkien Estate could combat any lessening of appreciation for J.R.R's work, would be to release a heavily edited and simplified version of The Lord Of The Rings especially. This would allow those who have been put off or struggled with the original, to at least read it more easily and gain some appreciation for Tolkien at that level at least. It remains to be seen, if they have great enough intelligence to ever do that, and don't remain trapped in the purist mindset of snobbishness. That would for sure, be one way to help control the narrative, and really be a positive thing in my view.

In a very real way, they would be making Tolkien's work available to the masses, even those not blessed with a mind capable of coping with the original version. So it would be an extremely thoughtful and caring act, while also gaining more profit.

[pwalker8]

Yep, different stokes for different folks. There were aspects about the LOTR and Hobbit movies that I didn't care for, but as a whole, I enjoyed all 6 movies and have re-watched them. I suspect that things like the slapstick barrel ride tend to be a bit of an insider joke, i.e. let's see how far we can push this. I think that started with Legolas riding the shield down the stairs in The Two Towers.

I do think that sales, especially DVD/Blu-Ray/Digital Download sales, are a pretty good approximation of how a movie was received by the general audience. Repeat ticket sales, i.e. the staying power of a movie in the theater is also a reasonable measuring stick.

We are going far off topic, but my biggest gripe with the three Star Wars prequels was I didn't find it to be a believable explanation of why Skywalker became Darth Vader. Basically he was an angst filled teenager who started killing small children in the last half hour of the last movie. I thought the first one was ok. A friend of mine's reaction to the second was "if I wanted to listen to teenage angst, I would have stayed home" (she had three teenagers at the time). I've often said that Dr Horrible's Sing Along Blog was a much, much better explanation of how someone who is basically good turns to evil. My reaction at the end of Dr Horrible was "Wow", my reaction at the end of Revenge of the Sith was "Really?" It's not a coincidence that I've seen the second two only the once.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Timboli

One way, that the Tolkien Estate could combat any lessening of appreciation for J.R.R's work, would be to release a heavily edited and simplified version of The Lord Of The Rings especially. This would allow those who have been put off or struggled with the original, to at least read it more easily and gain some appreciation for Tolkien at that level at least. It remains to be seen, if they have great enough intelligence to ever do that, and don't remain trapped in the purist mindset of snobbishness. That would for sure, be one way to help control the narrative, and really be a positive thing in my view.

In a very real way, they would be making Tolkien's work available to the masses, even those not blessed with a mind capable of coping with the original version. So it would be an extremely thoughtful and caring act, while also gaining more profit.

I don't really like that idea at all. I guess you can release LOTR, the graphic novel or something, but I don't think that some people finding LOTR inaccessible is a problem. You can always buy the cliff notes.

LOTR was written in an earlier time. It's sold over 150 million copies and still is in print some 60+ years after it's release. There are a whole lot of authors who wish they were that inaccessible. You can't please everyone.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

We are going far off topic, but my biggest gripe with the three Star Wars prequels was I didn't find it to be a believable explanation of why Skywalker became Darth Vader. Basically he was an angst filled teenager who started killing small children in the last half hour of the last movie. I thought the first one was ok. A friend of mine's reaction to the second was "if I wanted to listen to teenage angst, I would have stayed home" (she had three teenagers at the time). I've often said that Dr Horrible's Sing Along Blog was a much, much better explanation of how someone who is basically good turns to evil. My reaction at the end of Dr Horrible was "Wow", my reaction at the end of Revenge of the Sith was "Really?" It's not a coincidence that I've seen the second two only the once.

Those are exactly my thoughts. I did like the second prequel even better than the first, but not the third. The reason being that the transformation of Anakin was not at all psychologically believable. Yes, it's science fiction, so perhaps I'm asking too much... but I was very disappointed with the third prequel.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Timboli

One way, that the Tolkien Estate could combat any lessening of appreciation for J.R.R's work, would be to release a heavily edited and simplified version of The Lord Of The Rings especially.

I thought the heavily edited and simplified version of Lord of the Rings was called The Hobbit

Otherwise, an LOTR: Moron Edition seems like a terrible idea.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I don't really like that idea at all. I guess you can release LOTR, the graphic novel or something...

There is a graphic novel version of The Hobbit, illustrated by David Wenzel. I thought it was beautiful (but then, I thought the style of the animated Hobbit was lovely as well).

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Otherwise, an LOTR: Moron Edition seems like a terrible idea.

Plus... it's not as if LOTR is particularly difficult as it is. Long, sure, but it's not like it's full of heady prose and/or byzantine plotlines or anything. 12 and 13 year-olds have been ripping through the books for decades without much trouble. I see little advantage in editing and/or abridging to the point where non-readers will consider picking it up. Reading readers (yep, I said it) who enjoy fantasy are usually perfectly willing to give it a go early on. So just who who would the Moron Edition be targeted toward, and why would the Tolkien Estate be interested in catering to them?

EDIT: the question was to anyone, not just @ZodWallop, whom I quoted to mainly agree with.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Plus... it's not as if LOTR is particularly difficult as it is. Long, sure, but it's not like it's full of heady prose and/or byzantine plotlines or anything. 12 and 13 year-olds have been ripping through the books for decades without much trouble. I see little advantage in editing and/or abridging to the point where non-readers will consider picking it up. Reading readers (yep, I said it) who enjoy fantasy are usually perfectly willing to give it a go early on. So just who who would the Moron Edition be targeted toward, and why would the Tolkien Estate be interested in catering to them?

EDIT: the question was to anyone, not just @ZodWallop, whom I quoted to mainly agree with.

Yes. Those who find the LOTR not to their liking for various reasons (pace is too slow, characters and plot too black-and-white etc. etc. - and while I liked the LOTR myself, I totally understand those reasons) can always watch the movies, which are very accessible and pretty true to the original, as movies go. I very much doubt they would bother with a moron edition, why should they?

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

From the Mithgar FB page: Among other things, the original was written in an eroff/troff format, and converting it to a Word-compatible RTF file will be quite error-prone and tedious. And I need it in RTF for my Legend Maker converter to turn it into a mobi file to upload to Amazon Kindle.

Actually I have no idea what he means by that.

troff is a relatively early unix document processing language. Some of the books written by early unix developers at Bell Labs and elsewhere were done in troff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troff

A list of books written in troff is at

https://www.troff.org/pubs.html

Many of these were published by the likes of Addison-Wesley, McGraw-Hill, Prentice-Hall, and O'Reilly. What was delivered to the publishers was camera ready.