Haha at first I thought they were talking about David Tennant. I was like whoa that should be interesting. Haha but the other guy looks more like a hobbit.

Hi LotR/Narnia fans! Look what I saw at a mall!

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The first pic is the Witch King of Angmar's helmet that costs $800 ! And the other one of course is Legolas' knives, which I really, really wish I could afford.

I would never call Lord of the Rings scary and especially not The Hobbit! Wowsers. I can't stand the sentiment that children shouldn't view/read scary material. Children often love to be scared. It's knowing what each child can handle rather than saying scary materials are out of bounds. Honestly. Bah.

I would never call Lord of the Rings scary and especially not The Hobbit! Wowsers. I can't stand the sentiment that children shouldn't view/read scary material. It's knowing what each child can handle rather than saying scary materials are out of bounds.

I agree, Warrior 4 Jesus. LotR is no way near scary! Maybe a bit, but it doesn't stay in your mind really long, & make a huge phycological impact, unlike Harry Potter & Eragon (I'm an Eragon reader, and it's scarier than the "Children of Hurin"). And if it is scary, it's usually only because of the bad guys. Real life is scary, but keeping scary stuff out of bounds until, they're like, what? 13? Come on! You'll end up with sissies! You don't give "scary" stuff to easily-prone to getting scared kind of kids. Books often are supposed to match up with other people's tastes, yet you still have to avoid the ones. Ones with witchcraft (Harry Potter is one of them.), blasphemy, immorality, adultery, atheism, anti-Christianity, Anti-Catholicsm, infidelity, paganism, and the like. Even for us Traditional Roman Catholics, the Church before 1962, had a system, where they had to scan religious books for errors or heresies. So, yeah, I don't understand why people grudge books like "The Hobbit", when it can be very morally influential. Sometimes, the scary stuff will teach a reader a lesson in life.

I agree, Warrior 4 Jesus. LotR is no way near scary! Maybe a bit, but it doesn't stay in your mind really long, & make a huge phycological impact, unlike Harry Potter & Eragon (I'm an Eragon reader, and it's scarier than the "Children of Hurin")

I'd wager that Tolkien's work isn't blatantly scary.The Hobbit has it's fright moments, such as the Trolls or the giant spiders of Mirkwood, but those are tailored to a child's fears because it was written for children. His other work, The Silmarillion in particular, is very dark in comparison. It includes tortures, incest, piles of bodies burning on desolated plains, abusive relationships, murders, and self-mutilations. Reading it though, people tend not to realize this because the language is so lofty and it's mostly Elves perpetrating it. HP and Eragon pale in comparison to this, but since they are written in a more vernacular style, it's easier for people to pick out "scary" moments.

Come on! You'll end up with sissies! You don't give "scary" stuff to easily-prone to getting scared kind of kids. Books often are supposed to match up with other people's tastes, yet you still have to avoid the ones. Ones with witchcraft (Harry Potter is one of them.), blasphemy, immorality, adultery, atheism, anti-Christianity, Anti-Catholicsm, infidelity, paganism, and the like.

This is precisely why "scary" is relative to the reader. Some of the greatest novels ever written (LOTR included) contain themes or content that someone, somewhere will find "questionable". For instance, if I refused to read Slaughterhouse 5 because of it's possible atheistic or graphic content, I would miss one of the most gripping anti-war messages ever published. If I refused to read LOTR because of it's magic and pagan-inspired content, I would miss one of the best works of fiction in the world. It always depends on the person doing the reading.

While the content may be scary, i.e being surrounded by flesh eating trolls, the way Tolkien writes it gives the tone some levity, almost humorous. If he had written with a different tone in mind, I bet the story would be much more frightening. Also what's scary and whats not varies with different people.

I'm not a fan of Tolkien's writing style. You're right though that The Silmarillion is pretty dark and creepy at times. Despite it's difficult writing style it has many great stories.

I realized that the only way I can tolerate the things that happen there is precisely because of the distant style. I love the stories (especially Beren and Luthien), but there were violent scenes. That is a place where I would rather be told, than shown. Because if you showed some of that stuff it would be too much. Not like in Eragon where you get graphic descriptions of men and Urgals getting hacked apart and their heads split open. Ugh. The painless soldiers of fail were worse than anything in the Silmarillion. About Elves doing most of the bad stuff, well--if they have more power than men, they will cause more evil if they fall, and it certainly goes against some people's perception that Elves are perfect. But l do say that if I did not read it because of the violence, I would miss all the parallels to the Bible, and the richness of it all. --don't recall anyone mutilating themselves--And the tale of Turin is most definitely the one with the most potentially objectionable material--and that was a man doing it. But I think the main thing is the way these things are treated. Though you have all this bad stuff happening, Tolkien never suggests for a moment that any of that is okay. There are terrible consequences for all the evil that is done. I would have more problems with a violent story that has murder and death being normal and okay.
As for TH, I want to see Bilbo. I read this long before I read LOTR, and I always loved Bilbo's character. "I can't wait for this dratted adventure to be over so I can go home!"

@ Maenad: I never said LOTR was pagan-inspired! It is not! In fact it is Catholic/Christian inspired, because the author is himself, Catholic. Tolkien likes to also use some European myths, but he mostly uses Christian symbolism, yet almost conceals it, so it's definitely harder for non-Catholics to realize that. The Silmarillion is more like a historical fantasy... sub-creation. The history of Middle-Earth,etc. History is mostly full of peril. Peril that is usually caused by man, who gets punished by God for all their crime, pride, hate, ambition,etc. So to write about the history of a world, it's not be a very happy story. I, mean just look at the history of our world, of our ancestors. Wars, murders, suicides, abortion, heretics, slavery, diseases,so forth and so on. When Tolkien writes about violence, he doesn't make it look normal or ok to do. It's less 'explained", unlike Harry Potter & Eragon, where you can get away with grotesque magic violence, in a snap, whereas, with Tolkien it's a more realistic, less "machinized" & done with no big bombs & spells, and the wave of the wand. I do like Eragon, but when it comes to violence parts, the way that Paolini explains it... is WAY too much! I feel like blood is going to literally pour out of the book. That's it for now. I really don't like to lightly argue about what's "scary" in books, etc. Just don't read bad ones like HP where (My school is actually banned from HP, and we know the difference between immoral books, etc. Narnia & LOTR is, however, one of the most loved books at our school, because of the way Lewis depict Christianity through fantasy. I found an article of Narnia vs HP here:http://www.thelionscall.com/articles/harry_potter.cfm) Anyways, hope that TH will get made soon. Hopefully Ian McKellen won't quit on TH. By the way: @ Haleth: I agree with your post!

Thanks. I think you said that really well.
Anyway, I've been waiting for TH to come out for YEARS. I didn't necessarily like everything in the LOTR movies, though they were better than most book-to-movie adaptations cough-PRINCE CASPIAN-cough. But I'm worried that the funny stuff will be cut out. I hope they do the dwarves song in the beginning. I've always thought that was the most hilarious thing.

^^ I think the worst part of the LOTR films is that there's way too much of Arwen in TTT. I mean, I LOVE the movies, but in the books, Arwen's not in there much and she's not in TTT at all!

There's no question that Tolkien's world reflected his Catholicism ElfMaidenAR . He even said that LotR was "fundamentally a 'Catholic' work."

But there is no question that Middle Earth was also very "Pagan inspired". Many of the elements were borrowed from Pagan sources. The Ainur and the Valar are often described as Angelic, yet they are also gods (who are under One God). They were co-creators of the World. And they have many of the attributes of the gods of the European pantheons from Greece and Rome to the Nordic. And I don't think it's any accident that many names and words can be traced to Pagan Myths and legends.

For example, the Maiar (lesser spirits of the same order of the Valar) such as Gandalf, are also known as Istari--which is a word that is actually another iteration of the Goddess Ishtar's name. Even the terms Maiar and Valar have roots in other Myths and Religions.

I think, that like CS Lewis, Tolkien tended to view Pagan Myths as good as long as they were Consecrated in Christ. They both saw Christianity as fulfilling Pagan prophecies and yearnings. And indeed, Tolkien is famous for convincing Lewis that Christ was a True Myth.

So, really, I think that Tolkien's works would rightly be seen as a syncretism of sorts, that blended aspects of Pagan and Christian thought. And it's a shame that Harry Potter is banned at your school, because JK Rowling very much continues in that syncretic vein. She is, after all, a Christian herself and the last book gives it away with quotes from Corinthians and Matthew: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death"--1 Corinthians 15:26 and "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also"--Matthew 6:19.

And this syncretism is really nothing new, it is as old as Christianity itself, and is particularly a big part of Medievalism--which was the focus of Tolkien and Lewis's scholarship.

GB

^^ I think the worst part of the LOTR films is that there's way too much of Arwen in TTT. I mean, I LOVE the movies, but in the books, Arwen's not in there much and she's not in TTT at all!

Yes, they did put a lot more Aragorn/Arwen stuff in the movie than there was in the book. The one thing I didn't really like is the movie Frodo, because I didn't think his acting was really well done. I thought some of my other favorite characters, like Gandalf, Sam, and Aragorn, were done well, though. And the settings were awesome, especially Rivendell.
About the mythology thing, I seem to recall reading in one of Lewis' books about how a lot of the myths were dim 'foreshadowings' of Christ. God was sort of speaking through the myths.
I don't necessarily think all magic use by humans in fantasy is a bad thing. It depends on what they are using it for, and whether they serve good or evil.

I didn't necessarily like everything in the LOTR movies, though they were better than most book-to-movie adaptations cough-PRINCE CASPIAN-cough.

After I saw Prince Caspian for the first time I thought "at least it wasn't as bad as the Two Towers"

But I'm worried that the funny stuff will be cut out. I hope they do the dwarves song in the beginning.

I'm worried about that too, specifically in regard to the songs. I was disappointed that they left most of the songs out of the LotR movies. They also cut some of the funnier parts. (I really like the bath song with Pippin splashing water all over. And the scene where Aragorn gets upset because he has to leave his sword outside when they go in to confront Theoden.)

I just read the scene in FotR where the thing comes out of the water and grabs Frodo. I found it very interesting that Sam was the only one who was able to react and help Frodo. In the movie, I seem to recall a big fight scene. That scene would have been a great way to show Aragorn as human without making not want his throne. *climbs down from soapbox*

By the way, does it say anywhere what happened to the bodies of the wargs that they killed?

The wargs that attacked them on the way to Moria? I figured Gandalf's fire burned them to ashes or something. In LotRO, I don't remember seeing any warg bodies when I investigated the Burnt Tor as they called that particular campsite in the game.

I don't hold out much hope for the book's humor making it into the Hobbit film, but I'm hoping they don't give the dwarves the Gimli effect and make them all a bunch of buffoons.

Not to drag this thread too horribly off-topic, but how on Earth is Harry Potter immoral and Eragon isn't? There's premarital sex in Eldest and Eragon ripping the life force out of enemy soldiers to fuel his spells. I'd say having a "hero" do something like that is far worse than any of Harry's minor rule-breaking.