Welcome to the Lounge

Forogar 3-Dec-20 9:51

Forogar

3-Dec-20 9:51

I'm buying a mug anyway.

- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.

Nelek3-Dec-20 10:14

3-Dec-20 10:14

� Forogar � wrote:
I'm buying a mug anyway.

Me too.

And I offered my help with text translation to spanish.
Not donating though.

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

F-ES Sitecore4-Dec-20 0:35

4-Dec-20 0:35

Meh, the works of Tolkien are both limited and literarily poor. 99% of positive sentiment toward his work is really just nostalgia for the movies of Peter Jackson.

GuyThiebaut4-Dec-20 2:35

GuyThiebaut

4-Dec-20 2:35

Being one of those who has read the three books in the trilogy, plus The Hobbit, I thought they were much better than the film.
Although it's a long ponderous read, but yes I would not class it as literature like the works of say Dickens, Elliot or a more modern writers like Kazuo Ishiguro.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

― Christopher Hitchens

Nelek4-Dec-20 2:49

4-Dec-20 2:49

GuyThiebaut wrote:
I thought they were much better than the film.

99% of the books are better than the films.

M.D.V.

GuyThiebaut4-Dec-20 3:04

GuyThiebaut

4-Dec-20 3:04

Although I thought that two of Kazuo Ishiguro's books that were made into films were fairly well accomplished.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

― Christopher Hitchens

dandy724-Dec-20 9:19

dandy72

4-Dec-20 9:19

FWIW, I saw the movies long before I read the books. I did enjoy the books thoroughly, but I don't think there's any way I would've read them had it not been for the movies.

And I fully realize making such a statement is horrifying to the Tolkien purists. I'll remain polite and just call them...a special bunch.

C^hris L^osinger4-Dec-20 3:29

4-Dec-20 3:29

F-ES Sitecore wrote:
99% of positive sentiment toward his work is really just nostalgia for the movies of Peter Jackson.

maybe if you were born in 1990, that could be true.

turns out, though, that the books are older than Jackson himself. and generations of people had already read and enjoyed them long before Jackson got anywhere near making those movies.

F-ES Sitecore4-Dec-20 4:21

4-Dec-20 4:21

Before the movies a small number of people enjoyed the books for the books. Since the movies a large number of people now like the work, and of that new body of people 99% really only like the movies.

C^hris L^osinger4-Dec-20 4:26

4-Dec-20 4:26

it was a NYT bestseller in 1966, 8 weeks at #1.

F-ES Sitecore4-Dec-20 4:44

4-Dec-20 4:44

And how many people have seen the movies vs read the book? A magnitude of hundreds of thousands I'd guess.

C^hris L^osinger4-Dec-20 5:54

4-Dec-20 5:54

fine. you're right. the world started in 2003.

F-ES Sitecore4-Dec-20 6:06

4-Dec-20 6:06

I didn't say that.

Number of people who enjoy the books before the movies: 1,000,000
Number of people who say they enjoy the books after the movies: 100,000,000

99% of people who say they like the books are really just fans of the movies.

C^hris L^osinger4-Dec-20 6:38

4-Dec-20 6:38

F-ES Sitecore wrote:
99% of people who say they like the books are really just fans of the movies.

the books have sold more than 150,000,000 copies, over 65 years.

Nelek4-Dec-20 14:31

4-Dec-20 14:31

And that only sells...

Add the people who have borrowed it, taken it from the library...

M.D.V.

F-ES Sitecore5-Dec-20 0:20

5-Dec-20 0:20

You really think more people have read the books than seen the movie? You're sticking to that are you?

C^hris L^osinger5-Dec-20 2:42

5-Dec-20 2:42

No, I don't think that.

Try using less straw.

F-ES Sitecore6-Dec-20 2:01

6-Dec-20 2:01

You think there are more people who like the book than like the movies?

dandy724-Dec-20 9:23

dandy72

4-Dec-20 9:23

Chris Losinger wrote:
fine. you're right. the world started in 2003.

Fellowship was released in 2001. Smile | :)

Forogar 4-Dec-20 4:43

Forogar

4-Dec-20 4:43

Quote:
that new body of people 99% really only like the movies.

There are many, many illiterate people in this world. Many of them in the USA.

I first read Tolkien in 1967 (The Hobbit) - I loved it.
Lord of the Rings wasn't read until 1970 - I loved it.

I read the hobbit to my son as a bedtime story over several nights - he loved it.
Being of the younger generation he didn't have patience for the Lord of the Rings books but we went to see the films together and thoroughly enjoyed all of them.

Hmm... I liked both the books and the films and accept that the level of detail and the level of "action" in film need to be adjusted to keep the majority of the audience involved. Not a problem.

- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.

RDM Jr4-Dec-20 10:11

RDM Jr

4-Dec-20 10:11

My first exposure to The Hobbit was in elementary school; my 4th grade teacher read it to us for about half an hour each day right after lunch (so 1966/1967). We didn't get through it during the school year; once it became obvious that wouldn't happen, I got it from the library and read it, then went on to The Lord of the Rings trilogy right after that. As soon as I got my first job, I really liked the books, but the movies just didn't have the same appeal. I thought they were OK, but don't really feel the need to watch them again.

Nelek4-Dec-20 14:30