Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 241
- 3
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I watched the full Extended Editions of LoTR in the theater over weekend. It was the first time in years that I have watched them all the way through, and my wife's first time seeing them, ever. We popped edibles in the parking lot and smuggled in a full dinner in her purse for the FOUR HOURS we were in that chair each night three nights in a row. Random disorganized thoughts:
-- This is the first time I've been in a movie theater this year. Last year I attended three movies: I took my dad to a showing of American Graffiti for its fiftieth anniversary, I took my wife to see Barbie and to the Eras Tour movie. Halfway through 2024, I've also seen three movies: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King. So in the past eighteen months, they've convinced me to go to the movies six times, and in that time I've only seen a single new movie (Barbie), plus an "event" film in the Eras Tour. The movie theater business is dying, at a rapid clip, and the cause of its death isn't cost it is competition. Competition from the past. My dad, as many boomers, is under the impression that the problem is that movies cost too much, when he was a kid they were a dollar! Well, from 1960 to today a dollar is $10.59, meaning the difference in price compared to this weekend is $2.41. My wife and I got through the whole trilogy for $78 in tickets, and I ordered a large diet Dr. Pepper (felt like about a liter) for another $21 total, for a total of around $100 on the weekend. Essentially nothing for us, a fancy dinner. No, the problem is that the new movies that come out just aren't compelling enough. The streaming product is that we start a movie, often a movie from some list of "the best [genre] of [decade]" and if we don't like it (like when Elizabethtown was recommended by so many people as a great RomCom, only for me to find it totally unwatchable because Orlando Bloom couldn't do an American accent to save his life) we can stop halfway and try a different one. The only things that pull me into the theater anymore are movies I know I like (LoTR, American Graffiti) or movies that are so important culturally that one ought to see them out of paraseitin (Eras, Barbie). Unless the film industry can figure out how to produce a lot of culturally important events in a hurry, they're dead. Movie theaters are going to look more like amusement parks in density within a decade or two.
-- Going with my lovely wife really felt like an event. It was the same people each night, of course, mostly in the same seats, it felt like clocking in for a shift. It really felt like a moment, I enjoyed that a lot.
-- Comparing the female leads and their plots, Eowyn aged much better than Arwen. Eowyn's story is handled perfectly, Hall of Fame Not Like the Other Girls. She doesn't hulk out, she's not as strong as the lads, she struggles and barely hangs on, her triumph is based on a mix of luck, courage, and legalistic interpretations of prophecy. Just perfectly handled. Arwen, on the other hand, fell flat for me. Victim of her own success: while Tolkien pretty much originated most of the modern system of "races" in every fantasy universe, he was a stoic proper Catholic and viewed human-elf relations as something that might happen a couple times an Age; his hornier progeny have basically agreed that if we can make halves with anything, we will, all the time. So the Human-Elf romance thing just didn't hit that hard for me, though watching it again I did think about how Elrond had seen his brother go down that path. I wonder to what extent it's how common it all is in fantasy, and to what extent this just maps onto interracial marriages in our reality. In Tolkien's day they were mostly pretty rare, and a big deal. Today, it just isn't enough to carry a plot, interracial relationship plots are actually on my "banned plots" list next to "WWII resistance" and "Ivy League NYC Jew/WASP drowns in ennui" which I refuse to read a book about.
-- It's interesting to me how GRRM's argument with Tolkien stays stuck in my head, seeing the film has me thinking those same thoughts:
GRRM has stated that a lot of the inspiration for ASOIAF/AGOT was an attempt to correct or explore Tolkien. What happens the day after the true king takes the throne? What does Aragorn's Tax Policy look like? AGOT opens post RoTK: Ned Stark and Bobbie Baratheon were the heroic kids who overthrew the wicked king, and then what happens? At his best, ASOIAF does provide interesting views and answers and insight into those questions. Characters like Rob Stark and Tyrion Lannister are fantastic explorations of fantasy tropes. But his ultimate failure is simple: he can't land the plane. He can't write the last book. Until he manages to bring the whole thing home, he loses by default.
But watching all three films, in three nights, I kept asking myself the same questions. Why were the tactics practiced in Gondor so uniformly AWFUL? What was the idea when they launched a cavalry charge at a fortification? How exactly were the Orcs kept out of the Shire? Where was Denethor getting all those tomatoes? What do trade routes look like, there are lots of ports but it isn't clear what's on the other side? What did existing power-centers in Gondor do with Aragorn, who has little administrative experience at a city scale? I get it, GRRM, I get it.
-- I vibed with Theoden a lot more in my 30s, and Faramir a lot less. At 12, idk Faramir just made sense to me, I recognized the under-appreciated son immediately. This time, I thought Faramir was kinda whiny and annoying, remaining under Denethor's command even as he's sent to cavalry charge a wall was...just too stupid for me to respect him as a character. How was there no Gondorian alternative government or opposition? Theoden, I got. I didn't really appreciate reading or watching as a teen, the way guilt must feel on him, knowing he let Rohan fall into destruction, and the redemption he finds in Pellenor Fields.
-- The Uruk Hai are overrated Tomato Cans, they can't win a war to save their lives. We see Uruks get killed by everyone who steps to them. In general the film's violence is perfectly choreographed, I loved watching it, but it felt like every cut showed either Bad Guys Killing Good Guys or Good Guys Killing Bad Guys, rarely or never both at the same time. I didn't count, but it felt like 90% of the scenes in Helm's Deep or outside Minas Tirith one side is clearly winning locally. This was overdone aggressively in the Ride of the Rohirrim, it felt like I watched more of them die than they said they had on hand.
-- Fanghorn is FDR, Eomer is De Gaulle, Osgiliath is Verdun and Denethor is Petain, Saruman is a Quisling, the ringbearers trip to Valinor is soldiers accepting their PTSD scarred alcoholic buddies fading into irrelevance. Tolkien rejected Allegory, which is why it's so easy and appealing to map allegories to his work.
-- We loved this movie in the boy scouts, and watching it now it's so obvious that it's a movie about going hiking with your friends. The core key element is Frodo and Sam hiking the distance of the Appalachian Trail. Frodo and Sam were just so fucking good at walking! It makes me think of how, reading War and Peace I thought about Napoleon, and his famous forced marches, and how up until relatively recently, walking really fast (especially as a group) was a top tier military skill. Only since WWI and WWII has walking really fast been rendered pretty much irrelevant. The film constantly features people running when they should be walking, sprinting when they should be jogging, to give the impression of pace. But the reality of traveling that far, carrying weapons, would have been more like A Walk in the Woods than anything else, just trying to keep moving over absurd distances. Makes me want to listen to an audiobook of LoTR while I walk every night for a year or however long it would take.
-- It's sad to me that the media made since the trilogy has been so bad I don't even want to watch it. I might get around to finding somewhere to stream the 2hr cut of all three Hobbit movies. But my wife commented: if they want to make this diverse, why not just make the people from different places be different races? Rohan calls for aid and people turn up from all over, make some of them Arabs or whatever. Make a TV show out of the Blue Wizards that we know piss-all about and how they kept the Chinese out of the war. There's so many stories to tell! Why fuck up the ones we actually got?
-- This has to be the number one fantasy film of all time, collectively, right? Nothing else comes close in my mind. They did such a good job on the adaptation, there are so many Easter Eggs in the acting and the dialogue that people who read the Silmarillion will pick up on, but for the most part none of it gets in the way of someone like my wife enjoying the show.
The funny thing about GRRM's "argument" with Tolkein is that Tolkein wins even on GRRM's own terms. The logistics and economy of Westeros are a complete mess. Martin has 14th century armies fighting 17th century wars across 19th century distances backed up by 11th century agrarian technology and political organization. Ironically, no one has a coherent tax policy, and the difficult nitty gritty details of managing a medieval state or organizing a medieval military campaign are largely ignored in favor of "and then thr knights robbed, raped, and murdered everyone" grimdark "realism." GRRM knows a lot of good stories from the Middle Ages--the family drama of the War of the Roses, Shakespeare's history plays, events like the Black Dinner and Massacre of Glencoe (though, notably, his references are mostly early-modern or maybe very late medieval)--but his understanding of the actual history tends to be pretty shallow and not particularly well-researched.
Tolkein, by contrast, was a professor of medieval language and history, who actually knew quite a bit about the socio-politico organization of medieval societies. It's just that a lot of that information is kept in the background, and often implied rather than stated due to Tolkein's narrative focus. Aragorn's tax policy isn't described in the Lord of the Rings because it's not important to the story, but that doesnt mean Tolkein didnt think about it or that the Reunited Kingdom of Arnor and Gondor was somehow less realistic than The Seven Kingdoms.
We can piece together Aragorn's likely tax policy quite easily. He's the feudal monarch of a large, mostly agrarian society that was recently victorious in a massive war. Aragorn wouldn't have had much of a tax policy. The feudal lords of his kingdom might have their own tax polcies and remit some of that income upward, but their obligations to the king would be almost exclusively in the form of military service (likewise, Aragorn wouldn't be personally responsible for maintaining the local infrastructure, etc.). The crown would have been funded by a combination of rents from tenant farmers on the Pellenor fields and other parts of the royal demesne, fees/tolls on bridges, ferries, and ports, and likely some sort of commercial tariff on merchants operating in Minas Tirith (and maybe Pelargir, I don't recall how the chief port of Gondor is administered). And of course all of this would probably have been dwarfed by tribute/loot extracted from Morder and subjugated peoples to the East and South. None of this is spelled out in the book, but can be inferred from other details Tolkein does provide and due to the general verisimilitude with which these pseudo-historical societies are depicted throughout.
If Tolkein were alive today to debate GRRM and both were asked to describe their king's tax policy (GRRM can pick any of his kings he wants), I guarantee you Tolkein would provide a significantly more nuanced, complex, and historically authentic answer than GRRM could.
I know he has something of a mixed reputation around these parts (mostly due to his habit of assuming his expertise extends much farther than it does when commenting on modern geopolitics, though. I don't think he's terribly controversial when he stays in his lane), but historian Bret Devereaux has a really great series of blog posts discussing the historical authenticity of both authors' work (focusing on his specialty: ancient/medieval military logistics). I'd start here (https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/).
Thanks for reminding me, I have all of acoup's LOTR content to dig into!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe ASOIAF is best understood not as a story, but as performance art with rich social commentary about how our culture rejects the wisdom of the past, proceeds to deconstruct it, first promising to build something better in it's place, then seemingly for nothing but pure spite, only to discover not only that they cannot land the plane, but that there isn't a plane left to land, as they're still flying through the skies at high velocity.
Martin is a skilled writer, but it's not his world building that I enjoy the most, it's his characters. He could model so many different personalities, and make them compelling in their own way. His ideas on tax policy and whatnot are kind if midwitty, and it only shows the wisdom of past writers that they steered clear of such matters, and glossed over them with "happily ever after".
More options
Context Copy link
I highly suggest double checking reading the books with the movies. I know a lot of people dislike the books for being too slow, but one of the important works that make Tolkien Tolkien is his language, not just what happens. Remember that LOTR is not a book series of logistics and accounts but rather an epic poem in the style of Illiad, Homer, and Gilgamesh. GRRM's question is applicable but also somewhat irrelevant, as Tolkien was writing romantically rather than practically.
It's a failure and modern language and how the corporate world has transformed common communication that we now want perfect details and descriptions of logistics, supply chains, and contracts instead of a much more (literally) accounted retailing of a story. While it would be interesting to write a fantasy story in the perspective of a CPA auditing the misty mountain or an insurer assessing a citizens claim that a trebuchet destroyed their home and requires a payout, I'd argue that wasn't the point of LOTR and shouldn't be faulted against it.
My biggest gripe of the movies (beyond that some of the lines and comic insertions of Franz Walsh didn't fit the setting or Tolkien's setting) is that the music really isn't correct. It isn't bad, but the strong Celtic borrowing that Howard Shore used in his composition isn't particularly accurate to the world.
-- In the end I come down on Tolkien's side in that "argument" because I do think LOTR is a masterpiece, and I don't think it's possible to write a profound work with a satisfying ending in the "realistic" or grimdark model of GRRM. However, I do see his point, and I think it's an interesting thing to consider. In the same way we can read between the lines of Homer and start to think about the society he wrote about and the one he was performing for, we can read between the lines of Tolkien and find insight.
-- I'm planning on rereading them later this year, with my wife. She really wants to read the books now, to score "best tits on a woman to read LOTR" points and because she loved the movies. I'm thinking it feels more like a Fall-Winter book, and I've got a lot in the queue right now to clear out. I'm recommending she reads The Hobbit first, it's a quick fun beach read and she'll find out if she likes Tolkien before committing to the trilogy. Then in September we'll start the trilogy together.
-- I'll defend the adaptations, I actually loved the soundtrack in theaters. The theme notes for the Shire and for Rohan are perfect. The tragedy of Theoden is perfectly captured by the strings. The adaptations are works of art in their own right, it's not an easy work to adapt what with needing actors to speak Elvish. My biggest gripe is probably Gandalf, he's more like Asimov's Mule than he is like Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker but that's hard to film, so he ends up doing this weird stage fight with Saruman where they gesture at each other, which might have been fine had it been much shorter but got goofy by the end.
I believe plenty of well endowed women have read LOTR, though probably less now than in the time it was published :) If you want to go a bit further into early Tolkien I'd suggest Farmer Giles of Ham though is essentially a children's rendition of the Hobbit and almost could be considered and early sketch of his later, more substantial, works.
I loved the soundtrack initially, and I agree the Shire and Rohan leitmotif are excellent. My nitpick is after watching the movies after decades of contemplation, not one out of immediate reaction. Gandalf's deus ex machina-esque characterization is further illustrated in the books, in that Gandalf is essentially an angel and not purely human, something which is hard to illustrate and represent in the movie.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link