Before and after the movie

[Mister Underhill]

Esty, you’ve made several fine points, as usual. You’re quite right, of course, that you can only get so much conversation out of examining the details of a dead author’s works, a fact which is probably at least as big a reason for old-time member attrition as any other factor. People move on to new interests and new enthusiasms. But are you surprised that a Tolkien fan should show a bit of nostalgia for the irretrievably lost past? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I miss the challenge of poring through obscure corners of HoME in an effort to back up a tenuous theory; I miss the battles with BW, who now posts almost exclusively in his role as Chief Wight and head policeman; I miss Mithadan’s always stimulating topics and thoughtful debates; I miss the synergy of a good back-and-forth with Sharkey in a thread where one post seems to build off of another; I miss galpsi’s wry, inside humor.

All things change. Still, it’s not only the boards that have changed. I find I have much less free time to post now than in months gone by for one thing, and also I find that I burn out on deep Tolkien discussions more quickly than before. To paraphrase the wise man – of making many posts there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Sometimes Tolkien’s books need to be read and enjoyed simply as stories, rather than picked apart, analyzed, and dissected. It’s fun to pop the hood and check out all the engineering and the mechanical details that make the car go, but sometimes you should just go drive it around.

As time goes by and the population of the Downs changes, certain popular topics, some of which you mentioned, recur again and again. And again the wise man’s words apply: “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” It’s tough to muster up a reply to the thirty-third iteration of the “Who/What is Tom Bombadil” debate, and somewhere along the line I acquired a subliminal aversion to any thread with “Balrog” in the title.

Yet the Downs continues to draw many intelligent, articulate, and funny members. You figure out whose names to look for as you’re scrolling through the daily topics, the ones you can count on for a thoughtful contribution or a laugh or two. And as often as not, one of these bright people comes up with a new topic, or a new angle on an old topic, that you hadn’t considered before. That’s one of the joys of the Downs, which I still heartily enjoy. Another satisfaction which can only be enjoyed over time is to watch members, particularly the younger members – I’ll omit names to spare embarrassment – grow and mature.

Now I’m really starting to sound like a codger, and I perceive that I have strayed well off the before-and-after-the-movie topic. Suffice to say that the Downs has been indelibly changed by the movie’s release – but its plucky heart continues to rot inside its decaying chest. Long may it moulder!

[Lush]

Well well well.
I only read the LotR (and then moved on to other works) after I saw the movie. I had skimmed "The Hobbit" on a babysitting job years ago, and found it really sweet and enchanting, but had not paid attention to the fact that there were other books that Tolkien had to offer.
Of course, I went to see the movie with some of my more indiscreet friends, who, afterwards were saying (loudly) stuff like : "Yeah, but the coolness won't start until they show the big spider, and everyone's gonna think that Frodo died! And watch out for that Gollum dude, 'cause he's going to save the day when he bites off Frodo's finger! Oh, but, like, Frodo won't do so well in the end anyway, 'cause he'll be sick and stuff, and they're gonna take him on this ship..."
Yeah, you get the idea that some of the biggest surprises that Tolkien had up his sleeve were spoiled for me. I don't think I enjoyed the books less because of that. Not at all. And, like any red-blooded female, I had a helluva time getting to know the characters of Aragorn and Legolas a little better. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
As for the morphing of the Downs, you know, "nothing gold can stay..."

[Child of the 7th Age]

Now that all three films are out, at least in the threatrical version, I decided to resurrect this thread. Does anyone have opinions to add, either in terms of the movies' influence on their own reading of Tolkien or the general impact on the discussion of books at the Downs?

Some of those who posted on this thread are still with the site, while others have faded away. I suspect that pattern of "fading" will be accelarated in the coming year, since there will be no PJ flick to draw in newbies. I would guess that the Downs will never return to what is was at its origins: a close knit site where the discussion centered almost exclusively on books. There will probably still be more members than in the pre-PJ days. I would also venture to say that Middle-earth Mirth and N&N are not going away, although the posting there may be a bit less hectic and exuberant as time passes.

More importantly, as Burra noted, we can never recapture the newness of that early experience, when every query was being raised for the first time---just as Frodo could never turn back and become what he was before the Ring. He had to adjust to the profound changes in his life, which is not necessarily a bad thing (unless you happen to be an Elf!)

I do have some concerns how much the movies will indirectly affect the discussions we have in the Books Forum. I have seen a number of posts where a person offered a quote or example that was actually drawn from PJ, and introduced it without explanation into a books discussion. Most of the time, someone else pounces on them and points out the mistake.

Yet, if we're honest, there are instances when all of us, even those who read the books twenty or more years ago, find ourselves influenced by the images and ideas that PJ put forward, sometimes consciously and other times less so. There's a current thread that raises the explicit question of how we view the characters (book versus movie) and I can remember at least two other older ones that discussed similar questions.

Personally, I find that my own images of Samwise and Gandalf have at least been tweaked by Sam Astin and Ian McKellan. Yet there are other movie characters whose influence I sternly resist. To me, even with the staying influence of the Ring, there is no way that Elijah Wood looks or acts fifteen years older than Sam. You do have a sense of Frodo's maturity in Tolkien's writings that is missing in PJ. The latter stresses Frodo's vulnerabilty instead. Wood's Frodo definitely works in PJ's interpretation--but he isn't Tolkien's Frodo (which I prefer).

Again in personal terms, I am still poking around in HoMe but have never fully digested all twelve volumes! But, then, there are only a few who have, even among the old-timers. I find myself giving more time to writing than before. But I still read and keep an eye on the Books forum if anything especially interesting comes up.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 3:03 PM January 01, 2004: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Finwe]

You're very right. Who knows, perhaps all the die-hard movie fans will slowly drift away, and the die-hard book fans will remain. (Yes, that was blatant Tolkien-purist superiority there. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]) It will change the Downs, but who knows, it might be for the better. We can never really say what changes will result in.

[mark12_30]

Happy New Year...

This is less a reply to the thread than to Child's current thoughts. Much of what I posted before has not changed much.

Before the movie trilogy: I had let Tolkien and LotR slip rather thoroughly out of my everyday life, although it did keep trying to resurface invarious ways. The movies drew me back into the legendarium.

While I agree with Child that EJW's interpretation (or rather Wood's presentation of PJ's interpretation) of Frodo is incomplete, if it had not been for Wood's presentation I never would have investigated Tolkien's Frodo as much as I did. For three decades, Frodo was always the most obscure main character in the books to me. Having WoodFrodo to contrast with BookFrodo threw BookFrodo into sharp relief, and continues to do so. Without the movies, then, I'd have been much poorer. BookFrodo is now a big favorite of mine, probably my favorite Tolkien character. WoodFrodo is also a treasure, for different reasons.

(For you Star Trek fans, it's like this: I enjoy both Kirk and Picard for different reasons, and now that I know them both, I wouldn't discard either one.)

I wasn't a forum member until the first movie came out. I joined that February, as I recall. So to me, themovies provided a gateway back into the books, into writing, RPGs, and numerous friendships. While it's quite true for me that the books forum seems to have run it's course, there's still plenty to write. Plenty "to do, and to be."

And there's hal;f a shelf of critical works still to get through. And half of the histories are still waiting. Tolkien's letters still provide much food for thought.

I do miss the discussions in the books forum, espcially the ones that have landed in Hauth-En-Ndengin; but they're still there, after all. I guess FWW has replaced much of that for me.

For now I'm steeped in critical work and in my own writing. When the movies leave the theater, I will return to the trilogy again; I don't dare til then, because it affects me so. I still can't just flip to the final chapter; if I must in order to verify something, as soon as I'm done, I slam it closed and turn away.

[Guinevere]

As I have already written in this thread (in July 02), I had read the books shortly before the first movie came out, and shortly after that, I found the Barrowdowns.
Well, obviously, I am still around here! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
In the mean time I have read more Tolkien (U.T. and all Tolkien's letters, and LotR and the Silmarillion several times over)and, also thanks to the many insightful threads here in the Downs, I think I have come to a deeper understanding. (As a side-effect I have become such an adept as to be able to partake in Quotable quotes, which is a lot of fun.)
As to the movies: While I really was enchanted by the first one, there was a lot that disappointed me in the 2nd and 3rd one.

But I think that just these differences between books and movies stimulated a lot of very interesting discussions here in the forum! Even if some of them got a bit heated... I really enjoyed reading all those brilliant arguments! (Especially because I myself am not so articulate.)
And just like Sharon and Helen said, it often was just the uneasyness about the movie-characters that made me study the book-characters more closely.

I believe just because there are always new members joining that there is never a lack of interesting threads here (even if they are about the same topic as old ones )

[elenquesse]

I read The Hobbit in 5th Grade, and, to be honest, I found it rather boring. I didn't actually notice when the first movie came out, but my brother bought the DVD, so I noticed the relationships (ex. "Unexpected Party"-"Long-expected Party") and found that FotR was an excellent movie. So then I read all three books and was...inspired.

I couldn't say whether the quality of this board has decreased, but I can say that the quality of the fans has decreased. I like to think I am a true fan--even though I caught on with the movies--but some people...they just assume that it's a title easily earned. I could name several who call themselves such when they haven't even read the books or seem to be interested only in Orlando Bloom [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] And if you're going to see the movies for that sole reason, you'll be completely missing the point!!!

P.S. Ironically, there was an article today in The Baltimore Sun on the fans who have been waiting all this time to "come out of the closet".

[Finwe]

I'd like to consider myself a "true Tolkien fan" even though I find myself defending Peter Jackson's movies, sometimes vehemently, in some discussions. I think the line is rather blurred between being a book fan and a movie fan, because I for one, really enjoy both. Now, I can see how the Leggy-boppers and Ary-boppers wouldn't count as "true Tolkien fans," but just because one enjoys the movies a bit more than the books shouldn't immediately "declassify" them as a Tolkien fan.

[Evisse the Blue]

Yet, if we're honest, there are instances when all of us, even those who read the books twenty or more years ago, find ourselves influenced by the images and ideas that PJ put forward,

You are so right, Sharon, and this is one of the things that I really regret but at the same time there is not much I can do to change. It happens, like you said, unconsciously. For instance, a couple of days ago, I was firmly stating that Bilbo was 112 years old when he left to the Grey Havens, forgetting that years have passed bewteen the long expected party and the beginning of Frodo's journey -- luckily I was immediately contradicted by someone and I shamefully recognized my mistake.

So I agree that movie changes our outlook, and not always in good. I admit the last three years were great fun, and not having the movies would have been a loss, in terms of a new experience. The best thing is to keep them separate in our mind. Few and lucky are those who can [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

Finwe, I know what a Leggy-bopper is, but what's an Ary-bopper??

[Gorwingel]

This is an interesting thread.

I was introduced to the world of Tolkien via the films, and did not join this forum until I had read LOTR and become more immersed in the world of Middle Earth. And because I did finish reading the books immediately after I had saw FOTR, I very much have my own ideas about the story, and how I think it should go. I also think that the books are a masterpiece, and I consider myself a die-hard fan of the written works. To me the films are just an adaptation... The books are an original that will never be matched in greatness.

I am a little nervous right now though because I don't really know what is going to happen to the movie forum (which is the place where I post the most), I guess you could say that the movie portion of my experience is basically over. But with the books my journey has just begun. I have so much to study and to learn. I have not yet touched the HoME, and I have only read the Sil once (and enjoyed it), so I have much more to explore and ask questions about at places like here.

I wish though I would have come before, because it must have been a much different world. A world where you had never heard the words "Orlando Bloom is such a hottie", or "Why did PJ have to do that?” I think now that the films are all released that it is now impossible to get unspoiled image of Tolkien's world as he wrote it, without the films images at least influencing you a little. And that is sad. But the films have brought life to this community, and as this world has become such a part of my world, I plan to be here as long as possible [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Finwe]

"Ary-bopper" is a term that I came up with. It means a crazed Aragorn fan. Believe me, I've met LOADS of them. It's scary!

[mark12_30]

I suppose one can look at the movies as another well-known work added to the pile. THink of PJ as another critical interpretation. We've had everything from William Ready, Lin Carter and Humphrey Carpenter to Joseph Pearce, Tom Shippey, Anne Petty, Verilyn Flieger. PJ is another critical interpretation added to the pile. We may agree or disagree. But Tolkien's legendarium is not diminished by any of them; his works are still securely on our shelves, unchanged, waiting for our attention.

I am delighted, really, that so many scholars are reconsidering the Legendarium. Were it not for the movies, they'd have much less of a market for their work.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Before the movie trilogy: I had let Tolkien and LotR slip rather thoroughly out of my everyday life, although it did keep trying to resurface invarious ways. The movies drew me back into the legendarium.

Helen, I couldn't have described it better! There is something in the distant past that was pulled upon by the movies (I didn't pick up the books again until right after I saw TTT, though!). I had a sudden longing to read the books again after that movie, and it wasn't for fascination with any ONE character; it was perhaps a longing for the entirety of Middle Earth itself! (I suspect the Ents did it, really!). I found that, right after my re-reading, that I was hopelessly in love with Pippin, so much so that I wrote an essay about him and posted it here on the Barrowdowns, which I had culled from dozens of Tolkien-related and movie-related sites as my favorite of all of them. I certainly wasn't a Leggybopper or pulled into the movie for a single character--until after I re-read the books! Then, I watched everything Billy Boyd did in FOTR and TTT, and on a slower scale, I watched
everything Elijah Wood did, Frodo being a slower but more intense obsession in the long run. (Even slower, but quite different, is my low-level Aragorn fancy, but, no, I'm NOT an Ary-bopper!) Add one term to the list, though--I'm a Frodophile! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Anyway, the real blessing of the movies was that it plunged me back into Middle Earth in its depth and richness. I don't think I EVER would have read of the rich Gates of Gondolin in "Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin" or marvelled at the harmonic beauty of the Ainulindale or felt the pangs of melancholy at a mind's eye view of Cerin Amroth or Haudh-eh-Elleth if I had not picked up the trilogy again to see "what really happened" after so many years of forgetfulness.

I can say that the onscreen characters have their own reality, although it is not strictly Tolkien's; I have no doubt that Elijah/Frodo REALLY saw the wheel of fire when he spoke of it to Sean/Sam in the Plains of Gorgoroth, and for that alone, he will always be Frodo, if not the Tolkien version, still he went to a place that gave me a greater insight into both Frodo's and Sam's characters at that moment. It has enriched my experience of the books, although the characters and story as shown is not identical.

That's all I can think of at the moment; my head is full and it keeps my thoughts from flowing properly! [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. Finwe, I have met some that I might almost call "Ary-boppers" but I don't think they were that scary (maybe I haven't met a REAL one!). Most of them were also Leggyboppers! One girl just said, "I like the Elf thing and the Ranger!" [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 1:25 PM January 02, 2004: Message edited by: Lyta_Underhill ]

[Firefoot]

I guess I would be one of those people who picked up the book indirectly because of the movie. What I mean is that I borrowed the Hobbit from a friend, having heard it was really good and having no idea what it was about, three or four months after the movie came out. I had no idea that there was a movie or that it was connected to the Hobbit but as soon as I finished the Hobbit I had to find out more. I never saw FotR (or TTT, for that matter) in theaters, and I read LotR three times before I saw FotR. Another one of my movie-LotR loving friends found this site. I've been coming to the BDs off and on for about 1 1/2 years but I didn't join the forum until recently.

The movie has also encouraged me to go deeper into the book and this site encouraged me to read the Sil - I'm almost done reading it for the 2nd time - and I'm going to start UT after I finish the Sil. I couldn't tell you how the discussion here has changed but the movie is what caused me to find LotR so I guess for that reason I am glad the movie was made.

[burrahobbit]

Same as last time, only more (and less).

[mark12_30]

What Effect Will the Movies Have? Any Predictions?

Also of interest:

Loss Of Knowledge

[Neferchoirwen]

I, like a lot of others, read the books because of the first movie. I was a skeptic of books-to-movie projects (still am, but spotting the differences is something I find intellectually stimulating), and I had to ask my lit thesis mentor if the movie is worth watching in spite of not having read anything. Smart as she eternally is, she told me to go ahead and watch it. (I didn't have enough time to read it, so...)
The end result was my turning out to be a fan, and a member of the Downs.

The movies encourage me to think about new ways to think about the themes and the characters, and at the same time, encourage me to have an open mind.

I do regret that I have not seen Return of the King more than once in the theaters. It was all too overwhelming to see again (waiting for it on dvd is just sooo much better: currently asking dad to get me the EE). It all too much for me that I had to be absent from the Downs for half a year! ( I decided that I was overreacting that way, and poof! Signing in again)

[Lalwendë]

Another ace thread recovery from before my time!

Well, I was a fan long before the films, and I have to say that although I was terrified of seeing them, I was also excited. To my relief, I found they were great films. I can't, however, comment on the BarrowDowns pre-films as I didn't even have internet access back then, and when I did, I found this site quite by accident. I loitered for a while and found to my pleasure that it wasn't 'inane' like so many other Tolkien discussion forums.

Personally, I have nothing at all against the films and the new readers they've brought onboard. After all, a new reader is one who is fresh to the books and still possessed of that special, wide-eyed and fanatical new-found enthusiasm. If truth be told, I'm quite jealous of new readers...I wish I could read it all with fresh eyes again. The amazing experience of my first read will never leave me.

Some topics may come around again, but I think that's a good thing, after all, some of those who have been long-time members may have fresh input to make or have a change of heart. And I just cannot conceive of running out of things to say about Tolkien.

I refer to the 1990s as the dark-ages for a Tolkien fan, when it was considered uncool and it was nigh on impossible to find someone to discuss Tolkien with on a regular basis. Everyone was seemingly 'in the closet', so to speak. Like a Viking invader, Peter Jackson swept across all of this bringing widespread acceptance and a whole new audience. And like the Vikings, whether he was brutal or came in peace, well that's open to debate.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I wasn't here before the movies happened... It took me a while to find the BD's, so I can't say what these boards were like before the movies, but I can comment on the whole Tolkien experience.
I will forever regret that I only became a fan of the books a month before the movies came out. Hence, I have hardly any knowledge of what it was to be a Tolkien fan in the long stretch before the movies happened...And the only world I know is one of drooling fangirls (though I don't deny that some of the actors are goodlooking) whose only reason for watching the movies is their "Orlie". I am enough of a fan of LOTR to be quite annoyed by these people. I know that these people are, for whatever reason, far less numerous here than on other boards I've visited.
I can say that, whatever BD was like before LOTR, it seems to me to be still a place of high standards where I can go to find truly deep and intelligent discussion. I feel that every time I come here, I learn something. Hooray!

On my general Tolkien experience... Before the movies, I never cared much one way or the other for the chapters in the book taking plce in the Old Forest. I had no violent dislike (though I know that some do), but I didn't feel totally amazed by them, either. Now, after the movies, I sort of treasure them because the chapters are hidden away in a corner of Middle-Earth completely untouched by anything PJ did... I'm not saying PJ's movies were bad: I loved them! But now the chapters in the Old Forest are somewhat sacred to me because the way I picture them is wholly my own, not affected by PJ's imaginings. What I picture is something unique to me...and I love that.

The reason I read the books was because of the movies. I had heard of The Lord of the Rings (books), but that's all I knew. Then the movies came out, and I didn't even want to go see them at first because I had no idea what they were about. I finally saw The Fellowship a while after The Two Towers came out. I saw it because we were playing the music from The Fellowship in my orchestra class, and all my friends in there loved the movies, so I just had to see what the big deal was. I soon found out. I absolutely LOVED the movies!! In fact I loved them so much, I just had to read the books. I was kind of disappointed that Peter Jackson left out some important details, like in the Fellowship how Frodo waits 13 years before he does anything about the ring!!!! That made me mad, but I guess Jackson couldn't put everything in the movies (that would be a very long movie).
So if I hadn't seen the movies I wouldn't have known how good Tolkien's stuff was, and I probably wouldn't have read the books.

[haltred]

I knew about the books before the movies came out . But found them a bit boring . Then the movies helped put a face to the charecters . Though having
reread the textx several times since I find them mopre and more enjoyable.
I see some archtypeal charecters Sam the loyal friend and comrade , Frodo the
champion who comes inspite of himself, Gandalf the moral back bone of the group, Aragon teh king in waiting and he doesn't really want the job.
Sauron evil incarnate, Sauraman man corrupted by evil, Grima politician
Gollum victim of the power of the ring Afraid I can't type the ring except maybe as evil.
Did the movies change my view of the books ? No . The books are what they are and the movies what they are. To remain true to the books the movies would each have run 8 hours so you couldn't do that . So PJ crafted a rather good story board keeping the essence of the book while keeping the action flowing. And te ending of ROTK is pure magic. And I'll never look at the how it was done making men who are BIG into hobbits & drawves. I'll let the magic that both Tolkien and Jackson bropught to the story live on.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Thanks to all those who gave their recent opinions and ideas on this thread. I am always intrigued at hearing how people first get interested in Tolkien, and what role the movies played.

~Child

[Nurumaiel]

I was first introduced to LotR long before the movies came out. I was just a little lassie when I first watched bits and pieces of the Return of the King cartoon. It had been recorded on video tape and then was recorded over and lost, save the very end, which I watched numerous times, puzzled and intrigued by it. When I was five and going on six my elder brothers received for Christmas some LotR cards, which instantly sparked our interest. We would play a game we called, 'the Frodo game,' for hours on end. I would be Frodo and my brother would be Beregond... two names we had picked up from the cards. My father was a devout fan of LotR, and my godfather, who lived very close by us and who we saw quite frequently, was equally ardent, and we heard discussions on that fascinating subjects all the time. For my sixth birthday I requested a 'movie about Frodo' and after some searching my parents found a copy of the Return of the King cartoon from which I had seen extracted scenes as a very young child. At the end of the film I was almost in tears, and I was saying, 'Yes, Gandalf, there is Hobbit in me, there is!' From then on the road was laid, and I had only to move along it.

One cold and snowy day, when the fire was briskly blazing and the baby was playing about on the floor, my father left the room to return with a rather old-looking book. It was rather large, and it was hardcover, and it was not in the best condition though it was readable. He sat down upon the hearth, opened it up, and began. We were enthralled from the first, delighted to hear more about our dear Frodo, and the Mr. Bilbo Baggins we knew about a little, and that wise old Gandalf, and of the loyal, endearing Samwise Gamgee. We would not let him stop reading until he was completely exhausted the first night, and afterwards we were miserable if he did not read us at least a chapter. His actings out of different scenes were charming to the heart of a child, and the manner in which he spoke when he read of Boromir's death, or of the bittersweetness of Frodo's passing into the West brought a tear to every eye. The laughter when he sang the song of the Man in the Moon, dancing and capering on the hearth, was full of childish delight and bliss. And, oh! weren't we sorry when we did something that incurred the terrible punishment of staying away from the fireplace until we had made up for our wrong. Foolish and stubborn pride brought this punishment upon me once, and I wept heartily, but still would not give in, until at last even pride had to give way. And how happy I was to be sitting at my father's knee, free from disgrace and, more importantly, delighting that I could hear about dear Frodo once again! Sorrow was bountiful when my father closed the book, looked at each one of us gravely and sorrowfully, and said with a little smile, 'The End.' It seemed impossible, and I for one wept the lonesome nights, reflecting that we would never again hear the tale. And, faith, how I would like to go to that fireplace now and sit at my father's feet and say for myself, 'Well, I'm back.'

It was impossible for it to end there, even though the tale itself was done. There was no end of stories made up and acted out, stories of dear Frodo, and even more enjoyable, stories about the numerous children of Sam. Back then we could each take on the role of three or four children apiece, and though it was eventually narrowed down to only two apiece, the fun never ended. Snails provided valuable playmates for 'Little Frodo' and 'Little Merry,' and oh dear, the stories we made up! If Tolkien had been present our only hope of avoiding his wrath would be that he understood children and that their little games were always ridiculous. Faith, taking on the role of 'Little Frodo,' I never ceased to bring the wrath of Gandalf upon me, from drowning his own pet snails (oh, horror that Gandalf should have pet snails! but children can't help it) to things that don't bear mentioning. As ourselves, we always thought of excuses to get Sam and Rosie out of the way, and then as the Gamgee children we would bring about havoc under the care of Gandalf. Fortunately 'Uncy' Frodo always gently intervened when things looked bleakest for Gandalf, if it was not our own real-life supper calling us away from Gamgee mischief. The Gamgees always were the center of attenion. I remember being about eight years old and patiently explaining to a friend of mine just who Frodo and Sam, along with the latter's wife and children, were, just so the two of us could play together that charming 'Frodo game.'

Time went on, and admittedly we would play other games, but somehow those others games always wound up into LotR. Horror of horrors! Could Narnia be played without our dear Frodo? No, nay, never! There was nothing to do but mysteriously bring Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin into Narnia so they could run about with the Pevensie children, and indeed, yes, be captured by the White Witch! Oh, nothing would stop us, not even the barriers between worlds. It was nothing to bring LotR into Narnia, or the other way around, or even to let Darth Vader run rampage in Middle-Earth even the fancy struck us. We grew older, and LotR was never abandoned. Our love for it was renewed with all vigour, for we came of an age where we were capable of reading the grand books ourselves.

And then the movies came out.

If our fervour for LotR had cooled any, it was brought to a raging blaze at that. The children who hadn't even been born on the wintry night when my father first read to us the story became immensely interested in Frodo, and there was no end of excitement and proclaimations of devotion to the movies. They were wonderful, and increased our already burning devotion for LotR, and made it much easier to read the book, for it was much simpler to go through the lengthy descriptions when the films depicted the landscapes in a marvellous way.

And then, slowly, slowly the first excitement of the movies began to fade and things didn't seem quite right. For the most part, Middle-Earth was our own little world still, because nobody we knew really loved it as much as we did. They were only passingly devoted to LotR, and they'd move on whenever the next big film came out. We owned Middle-Earth, still, but it was being invaded by mysterious forces. People would ask us if we liked LotR, and with a fire in our eyes we would cry fervently, 'Yes!' And then they would start talking about New Zealand, and the charming Orlando Bloom, or the big, charming eyes of Elijah Wood, or the amusement they derived from Merry, Pippin, and Gimli. We didn't like what we heard, and annoyance grew in us.

And, of course, after watching the movies numerous times, we noticed something rather... odd... about the characters. They had the names, to be sure, but something was lacking in each of them. Nobility in some, honour in others, and then others seemed to just be missing themselves. The books were brought out, read, and it seemed an entirely different world than that we had seen on the screen. Slowly we began to fade away from the films. We talked about the books instead of the films, we talked about the characters instead of the actors, and we immersed ourselves in our own darling Middle-Earth again.

Assuredly, I love the films very much and I'll always hold them dear, for they were magical and charming. But they weren't LotR to me, not the LotR I grew up with. Watching the films I find myself in a place that is similiar to Middle-Earth, but is not Middle-Earth. The full magic, the full charm, the full honour and nobility, the full of everything held precious in my childhood and now, I only find when I take up the old, worn, half-torn books that my father read, and creep back to the fireplace, and sit down as if I were at my father's feet again, and read of dear Frodo, and of Mr. Bilbo Baggins, and of loyal Samwise Gamgee. And then I smile and murmur softly, 'Well, I'm back.'

[Snowdog]

You say it quite well Nurumaiel! With few notable exceptions... ok, two actually, the movie characters fell short of what the book characters were to me.

I'm an olde book reader here, having read through Hobbit and the Trilogy in 1975-76. They were quite magical these books and the world they created in my mind. I heard of the movies early in 2000, and I approached them with curiosity.

Now, there are so many uber-experts who have never let their imagination go anywhere who think they know all that everyone is thinking when it comes to Middle Earth.

I break down Middle Earth fans thus:

• Old-School Book Fan:
  They read Tolkien’s books sometime between the release of the Hobbit (1937) & the Silmarillion (1977). They came to know the world of Middle Earth through the released writings of J.R.R. Tolkien, and awaited the release of The Silmarillion to relieve their hunger to know more of Middle Earth. Yet were apprehensive as to whether Christopher Tolkien would do justice to the beloved realm of Middle Earth in print, and were even more reluctant with the Bakshi, Rankin/Bass, & Peter Jackson films.
  
• The New-School Book Fan

Of the New-School Book Fans, there are two sub-groups which I call:

• ~The First-Born ~ This group originally discovered the world of Middle Earth after the books Christopher Tolkien released beginning with The Silmarillion in 1977. They include also Unfinished Tales and any of the HoME series. These are the book readers and would have been Old-School Book fans had they been old enough, or had discovered the Hobbit and/or the Trilogy of Lord of the Rings before the Silmarillion came out.
• ~The Edain~ Also known as The Adopted. They are the ones from the groups below who were motivated to seek out and delve deep into the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien & Christopher Tolkien and learn and love the true history of Middle Earth.

The Edain are the cream from many of the groups below.

• The Bakshi Recruit: They first discovered Middle Earth by seeing the Bakshi and/or the Rankin/Bass cartoons. Many went on to read the books and delve ever deeper into Tolkiens writings, and essentially become one of the Edain.
  
• The “Pre-Movie” Book Fan: They heard there was a Lord of the Rings movie in the making, and after looking into it, decided they wanted to read the books before the first movie came out in Dec 2001. Many go on to become Edain New-School Book Fans.
  
• The Movie Recruit: They went to the theatre and saw Fellowship of the Ring, and loved it so much they were inspired to go and read the books, finishing the Two Towers and Return of the King before the release of the movie of the same name. Many go on to become Edain New-School Book Fans.
  
• The Peter Jackson Recruit: Different from the Movie Recruit in that they did not start to read the books until after they saw all three movies. Their viewpoint of Middle Earth is seen through the eyes of Peter Jackson, and they note the differences in the books. Some may go on to become Edain New-School Book Fans, but to most their reading of the books are more an afterthought and of a desire to fill in some of the gaps in the movie, leaving the movie as the cannonized definitive word on their concept of Middle Earth.
  
• The Hardcore Movie Fan: They went to the movies and loved them! They have no desire to read the books or inclined not to do so anytime soon. The movie is Middle Earth, and they like it as presented. Books are boring. They take too much imagination. Who needs to imagine what Middle Earth is like when Peter Jackson already did it for me? Who reads books anyway?

[Alchisiel]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

[*]The Movie Recruit: They went to the theatre and saw Fellowship of the Ring, and loved it so much they were inspired to go and read the books, finishing the Two Towers and Return of the King before the release of the movie of the same name. Many go on to become Edain New-School Book Fans.

I would fall into this category. I watched the Fellowship and got to talking with some coworkers and learned that there were books the movie was based on. So I went to my local Barnes and Noble, bought the Hobbit, and was hooked. After finishing the Hobbit I read the Lord of the Rings books and the Silm-twice. I love the story, but consider the movies as one man's interpretation. I don't get angry about certain parts being left out, that Liv Tyler played Arwen (after all it is just a book folks) or all that hoop-la about Orlando Bloom, Elijah Wood, and Viggo Mortensen. I like both the movies and the books and treat them as separate things, if you get my meaning.

[Neferchoirwen]

Nurumaiel , that was so elegant! I wish that I had parents who were as read as yours and who would have given me the opportunity to be introduced to this world that can only be entered by turning its pages. I remember feeling that feeling of childhood intrigue about a part of an animation that exists in an obscure video tape (in my case, it was a snippet of Puff the Magic Dragon---although, it is a curious thing how as toddlers, we enjoy seeing things like animation without understanding the entire plot---like the way I love the Smurfs movie...oh well).

I do feel annoyed when Lord of the Rings discussions among friends fall into behind the scenes stories, or EE features, and New Zealand. I love the films, but I learned to treat the books as a separate entity from the films.

Snowdog , I was always wondering how to categorize fans, and you've hit the nail right there! I am a movie recruit, and proud of it (but I do regret nursing my book reading bag log to something as ridiculous as not reading LOtR...quite ridiculous for a Lit major such as myself), and am looking forward to giving the gift of middle earth to my kids...and somehow make adopted first born fans out of them (introduce the books to them before I make them watch the films...I'll try, I promise!).

Although, there are people I know (strange as it seems) that haven't seen the movies or read the books (and these are lit majors---less than a handful, as far as I know them). What kind of fans will they be if they choose to read them before they see the films? Just curious...

[Child of the 7th Age]

First, I have already thanked Nurumaiel personally for her wonderful post, but I want to add my thanks here. Not many of our families have been so intimately involved with introducing us to LotR. You have some great memories there!

Snowdog - Those categories are fantastic. I fall into the "Old-School Book Fan". But you might want to have at least one "sub-category" in that group: the "Frodo Lives" generation, the U.S. college students from the late sixties whom Tolkien felt had good inclinations but were also a little nuts and who came at the book from a different angle than his own. (He was undoubtedly correct about this!) Everyone had the books in college and many had posters plastered on their dorm or apartment walls -- usually the psychedelic one done by Barbara Remington that JRRT couldn't stand! We even had pins that said "Gandalf for President".

A number of this group were "tree huggers" and thumbed their nose at the establishment, instead specilizing in baking bread and toting protest signs! Certainly not what Tolkien had anticipated, but we saw LotR as a way to break out of the "bourgeois" constraints left over from the late Fifties and early Sixties.

Looking back, I have to smile but it was a time of excitement. The general reader in the U.S. did not yet know about the books (totally unlike today), and we felt we'd stumbled onto a secret world that was all our own....

Just curious....but is there anyone else out there who had a similar experience in college?

[piosenniel]

Great categorizing, Snowdog!

Another old school fan here . . . the battered old paperbacks from my college days lean haphazardly together on my bookshelf, touching covers with Diet for a Small Planet, another book from back then. I'm sorry to have lost the old buttons of that era in my many moves - but here are a few of them for your perusal:

Frodo lives!

I would concur with the need for a sixties subsection as proposed by Child.

~*~ Pio

[mark12_30]

Snowdog:

Old-school here, too.

I had no Frodo-Lives buttons (or Gandalf for President, either). But I did have several psychedelic posters.

My fellowship was not in college, but in Junior-high. Eomer, Faramir, and Gimli (as we called ourselves) sat cross-legged in the hall during lunch break and swapped fanfics, written and spoken. Mary-Sues, every last one, and all long since burned or shredded. But I wonder if I still have any of those old charcoal drawings...

Soooo... Old-School. Ah....... **cough** if we're neither Edain nor Eldar, What does that make us?

Ents?

Maia?

Valar???



Nuru-- wow.

[lindil]

Were you a first time fan who might never have looked at Tolkien's books if it weren't for the movie, or someone who had known and loved Middle-earth long before Peter Jackson?

No I read LotR at 11 or so in 6th or 7th grade the year before the Silm cam out in 77.

Were these original fears and criticisms justified?

'fraid so. I give Alan Lee and Howe's contributions a solid 'A'.
Casting and setting/Scenery were incredible as well, but the aspect that pretty much ruins 2 and 3 for me are the incredible and usually pointless liberties PJ and co. took with the scirpt. I was one of thousands who signed anti-'xenarwen' petitions and I am at least encouraged by the fact that they seem to have helped to keep her from becoming the warrior princess we all had heard rumours of. Oddly enough, while I am somewhat of a militant [anti- PJ] around here my purist sister in law flatly boycotted 2 and 3 after 1 [unfortunately not the expanded version which added much of what was worth seeing [more Galaldriel, elves, lothlorien and rivendell] and I must say having scene 2, 2+ and 3 [all but 3 multiple times] I might as well have saved the $'s. And put it towards Martin Shaw's audio Silm! It is amazing that PJ could have gotten so much right and then [from the standard purists pov] butchered the rewriting of lines, and equally the many plot discrepancies and charactrerizations. I give much of these a 'D'. I had no heart to see "RotK' again once was painful enough. I suppose I will give the extended version a watch, at least the new scenes.
So... PJ gave me some great imagery and still managed to confirm my worst fears...

Has this board itself changed in any way? Most importantly, has there been any change in the level or type of discussion of Tolkien and Middle-earth that is going on here(for better or for worse)?

Of course, when the 'eldest' of us landed here in the spring and summer of 2000 the movies had yet to really shape the serious Tolkien discussion or attract the thousdands of newbies. I think overall the admins [and Esty!] did an incredible job of making the Downs forums more relevant to both the N&N's and the oldsters. Of course that feeling of being in a cyber coffehouse had to due to shear numbers give way to something more akin to a food court in a large mall, but considering the massive influx, I never saw any other board adapt as well as we did. One thing I have noticed in the last few years are the large number of introspective Downs threads.
Discussing the fellow downsters, the forums and our community which now has a life of it's own. In the first year or so, there was virtually nothing but Tolkien discussions. I may have [without intending] began one of the first introspective-threads with my poll on polls during the ez board days!

Burra posted earlier that " there are still loads more good threads than at the start." Well and truly said. His points about the newness being gone as a bigger factor than the movies are certainly factors, but the movie generated newbies in a hornburg like assault on our little community, forever changing it even as the natural process of aging and maturing was ongoing at the downs.


Even though, for the last year, I am rarely in my barrows, and the longest threads [aften the most interesting] are simply time-prohibitive, this is still my favorite hangout place on the net, by far, changes and all. So many of the great early folks have stuck around as well as some from 2001 and 2 who have become some of the strongest members.[/QUOTE]

And, on a personal level, what did seeing the movie do for you?

Make we want to go back and read the books with the fervent prayer that the movie characters would not be burned in my mind like they are in the post Return of the Jedi novels! I seem to have escaped that disease for the most part, though I recall seeing Caras Galadhon from 'frodo's ' pov while reading not too long ago [fortunately 'Haldir's' commentary was missing[img]ubb/smile.gif[/img]].


Overall the Downs has succesfully navigated the waters of the movie and considering the massive addition of incredibly young members [ agood thing imo] the 'soul' of the Downs has stayed true to the inital warm-hearted and serious community that is here now.

If JRRT were around, I think he would enjoy it way more than the movie!!! [although he wouldf be saddenend to hear that the languages forum is only a secret link treasured by a few [actually if anyone still has it...]

It has been sad to endure so much commercialization [the pringle's 'Gandalf' comes far too easily to mind] and shallow comments by movie-going non-readers, but many of them feasted on the fragments of Tolkien that made it into the movie, and I am certainly pleased to find more worthy studies and such on the Legendarium and Tolkien than ever would have been possible without the massive spillover from the movie.

I am extermely proud that the Downs pre-dated the Movies and that it's essential character is above it, staying true to the Barrow-Wight's goal of a Tolkien/Books oriented community. No small feat in a world full of stalled attempts [being responsible for many myself!] and bitter disputes here is a little bit of Imladris...

Underhill posted :

Yet the Downs continues to draw many intelligent, articulate, and funny members. You figure out whose names to look for as you’re scrolling through the daily topics, the ones you can count on for a thoughtful contribution or a laugh or two. And as often as not, one of these bright people comes up with a new topic, or a new angle on an old topic, that you hadn’t considered before. That’s one of the joys of the Downs, which I still heartily enjoy. Another satisfaction which can only be enjoyed over time is to watch members, particularly the younger members – I’ll omit names to spare embarrassment – grow and mature.

So well said I felt it deserved a repeat.

Snowdog, excellent breakdown - of course I am pleased that I am old-school by a matter of months...

[drigel]

Excellent catorization! I would be remiss though to say that if you are going to subgroup a sixties college students group out of the oldtimers, please give us GenX'rs a place! hehe .. I was in the 5th grade in 1975 when i picked up The Hobbit (what a wonderful age to start reading Tolkien!), and Immediately/ permanently became a fan. I may be an unusual throwback, however. My LOTR paperbacks were smashed between Asimov and Robert E Howard. I have gone through the cycles already succintfully described on this thread. My journey came after the sixties "I have discovered my own little world", but I had the advantage of being able to soak up all the wonderfull, more refined art that was being done during the seventies. Of course it all came to a crashing end with Bakashi lol. Sigh... so many hopes for that flick that were dashed....

I was completely ignorant of the excellent Tolkien internet presense though, until the movies came out and I started researching. So - thank or curse the movies for my involvement here! As a newbie (kinda) to this site - i can definately discern diparate groups here. Some make me think, others dont. I still read on. For me, I get just as irratated by a high faluted philosophical academic as i do a Legolas is so hot popcorn eater ... no offense intended.

As an oldtimer (cough), my view of PJ's endeavour was one of interpretation, which is of course what it was. TTT was where it was very evident to me. My thoughts at the end of that movie was how hard it would be to interpret LOTR to film. ROTK (for me) showed even more evidence of the glaring interpretation decisions made by PJ. And showed me even more insersions of his movie making style which, to me, detracted from the Tolkien experience. Too many Goonies influences. Might work for King Kong - didnt work for LOTR. I will enjoy PJ's interpretation of The Hobbit or Silm as well. But, as I enjoy the different opinions here, I would also appreciate any other filmmakers interpretation as well, as long as the intention and the budget were as honorable as PJ's....

[Snowdog]

Being that I managed to make Old School by a year, and was one who was in line for the opening of the Walden books the day the Silmarillion was released, I didn't have any knowledge of the cultures before 'my' time which was 1975-76. So I will work all your 60's suggestions into it, and hope to get in touch with this charming old gent who told me he read the triligy in 1956 in the U of Washington library. he was a 'beatnik' and was a precurser to the whole 60's Frodo Lives generation.

As an oldtimer (cough), my view of PJ's endeavour was one of interpretation, which is of course what it was. TTT was where it was very evident to me. My thoughts at the end of that movie was how hard it would be to interpret LOTR to film. ROTK (for me) showed even more evidence of the glaring interpretation decisions made by PJ. And showed me even more insersions of his movie making style which, to me, detracted from the Tolkien experience.

I knew his interpretation would be way off as soon as I saw a blade held by "Arwen" at the throat of Aragorn in the wild . Nuclear Galadriel, Elves in Helms Deep, searchlight eye of sauron... But it was all ok for a movie because I know what its really like, stored in my head.

[drigel]

aye snowdog i concur
It didnt kick in for me with the Arwen/Aragorn scene - it was the exorcist Bilbo at Rivendell - yikes. For an oldtimer, it was dissapointing stick with the authors narrative - that scene would have been just as powerfull if you could have dropped the freakish melodramatics

[Encaitare]

Those buttons were great, Pio! Time for me to scour E-bay and find some for my very own.

it was the exorcist Bilbo at Rivendell - yikes. For an oldtimer, it was dissapointing stick with the authors narrative - that scene would have been just as powerfull if you could have dropped the freakish melodramatics

It would have been cool if it had suddenly gone very surreal, with Frodo envisioning Bilbo a tad "Gollum-ized" -- like was planned for Frodo to look for a moment in the EE of TTT, although they took that bit out.

I wish I was an "old-school" fan... too bad I'm too young! I could have been one of the "first born" had I only had a bit more willpower around the age of twelve... I couldn't make it past Tom Bombadil at that age, tricky guy that he is. So I'm just one of the Edain, a new-school book fan. Woohoo!

[Lalwendë]

Snowdog, those categories are great - but I'm disappointed I'm not considered true 'old school' At least I'm one of the first-born though. I first read Tolkien way back in 1982/3, first the Hobbit, then LOTR, then straight onto the Sil and Unfinished Tales, and then onto whatever I could find in the library. I was only12 when I read it. My brother got the books and he loved them, and I thought, 'this has got to be cool if my brother likes it'. So I pinched them from him.

I used to have to sneak the books into school, where I constructed a little hidey hole to go and read in. It was under a pile of those old metal-framed chairs with the canvas seats, which had been piled up in a store room. I took a long time to read it because I did not want it to end and kept going back to parts I found particularly good. I also used to draw pictures of scenes in the books, one which springs to mind was Boromir's death scene. My mum must still have that somewhere as we are a hoarding family.

Everyone had the books in college and many had posters plastered on their dorm or apartment walls -- usually the psychedelic one done by Barbara Remington that JRRT couldn't stand! We even had pins that said "Gandalf for President".

Child - I am jealous. You might laugh at this, but when I read Tolkien I developed this obsession with all things late sixties/early seventies, and accumulated a large number of like-minded friends. This was the 80s, and we would go round listening to Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, early (Gabriel-era) Genesis, Fairport Convention.....We used to write Frodo Lives on everything. And we were considered peculiar.

By the time I got to university - 1989 - Tolkien was sadly considered for geeks, especially to my fellow English students, and I struggled to find anyone who would openly admit to being a fan. Still, me and my goth flatmate were of like minds. We once went to join a uni sci-fi/fantasy society and ran away because all the young men there scared us. Not because we were scared of young men, au contraire, but these were scary men. It was all very Mike Leigh.

[Neferchoirwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Child - I am jealous. You might laugh at this, but when I read Tolkien I developed this obsession with all things late sixties/early seventies, and accumulated a large number of like-minded friends. This was the 80s, and we would go round listening to Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, early (Gabriel-era) Genesis, Fairport Convention.....We used to write Frodo Lives on everything. And we were considered peculiar.

I always thought that I was born in a wrong decade as well. Oh well...

[Snowdog]

Snowdog, those categories are great - but I'm disappointed I'm not considered true 'old school'

Sorry. The cutoff for old-school was the release of Christopher Tolkien's Silmarillion, because before that, the last release was Return of the King in 1955. The late 70's brought the Silmarillion, and the Bakshi & Rankin Bass cartoons, and a bit later the Unfinished Tales and the HoME series by Christopher Tolkien. I suppose a 'New Old-School' catagory could be made for those who read the books without any influence from the Christopher Tolkien releases or the cartoons & movies....

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I'm a Bakshi Recruit Edain I suppose, having had my first taste of Middle Earth in the television movie of The Hobbit. I read TH after seeing the movie, and then spent a long time wondering about the "further adventures" with the Ring that were mentioned at the end of the movie, but not the book. I was still pretty young then, and the sheer size of LotR kept me well away from it (probably for the best).

I then saw the Bakshi cartoon and decided that waiting was for losers and tackled LotR despite its size -- which was greater than anything I'd read before by an order of magnitude. It took me the better part of six months to get through the thing, but get through it I did. . .even the "boring bits."

I'd like to think that in the time since I have become something more than an Edain, however. Perhaps we can add a new category:

Half-Elven: one who has successfully married their Edain experience of the books to deeper lore and become an Elf-friend; one who is of both worlds at once, and yet not belonging to either fully; who has the choice to join those in the West, and thus repudiate their childhood selves who fell in love with the movies, or embrace those early experiences and remain mortal.

[mark12_30]

Half-Elven-- I like it.

THen we can have Valar and Maia (Gandalf-For-President and Pre-Sil.)

**cackles with glee**

I dunno, Snowdog, maybe you should make the Pre-Sil's all elves and the post-Bakshi all Men. Then the Pre-Sil's can be divided up into Noldor, Sindar, etc, without getting all power-hungry and calling themselves Valar....

[tar-ancalime]

I suppose I'm one of the First-Born. I was introduced to Tolkien at an early age by an older relative who's famous in our family for having once (in the 1970s) turned in a term paper written entirely in Tengwar. I have to admit that it was a few years before I made it all the way through the Lord of the Rings; I was halfway through The Two Towers when some junior-high hoodlum stole my book! I was a superstitious kid and I took that as a portent, and didn't get myself another copy for quite a long time.

I saw the Bakshi cartoon shortly after reading The Fellowship of the Ring for the first time and didn't even make it through--I found it incredibly boring! The Peter Jackson movies didn't spark my interest in Tolkien, but they were the catalyst for my feeble pokings around on the Internet which slowly led me to the 'Downs.