The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Review Thread (Spoilers)

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I know Tolkien was not a fan of Disney's films, but didn't Walt own rights to the Hobbit for a while? I think his team couldn't crack it (especially in the borderline bankruptcy years after WWII) -- do you know anything about any of their attempts at adaptation? Thanks, GB.

I have not heard that Disney ever owned the rights to The Hobbit, and have wondered why, since it always seemed (to me) that it would have been a great interest of his. I would love to have seen a Disney animated version of The Hobbit. I also have never understood Tolkien's dislike of Disney. In 1937, while writing The Hobbit and looking for illustrations, he wrote that he would:

"... veto anything from or influenced by the Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing)."

He later wrote that illustrations submitted by Horus Engels for a German translation of The Hobbit were:

"... too 'Disnified' for my tastes: Bilbo with a dribbling nose, and Gandalf as a figure of vulgar fun rather than the Odinic wanderer that I think of... "

By the way ER, sorry to hear you have the flu. During my past week of travel I have been around many people who have it, and I hope that I escape it.

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

I just rewatched the Hobbit production diaries the other night, and I remember hearing someone say that they believed that everyone would Love the Radagast character. That actually irritated me, quite a bit, as much as Lauren Shuler Donner saying how much everyone would LOVE the interpretation of DeadPool in X-Men Origins, and as much as Boyens talking about the "great improvements" that they made to Tolkiens world.

Originally Posted by Mahatma

I feel that what is being read into Tolkiens work might be misconstrued since he stated that the Hobbit is infact a childrens tale-for all ages I think.And as for LotR,I remember he stated something in the preface like 'he didn't have much respect for the critics of his work since the books that apealed to them,didn't apeal to him'.His books are great,but as he himself said:he didn't write them as allegory.Take the books-and movies-for what they are.

These and other posts lately in this thread have made it the best on the forum, with discussions on what people like and dislike about this film and story that is important to them. The fact that the book is one of the most popular and beloved stories of all time, and the magnitude of effort invested into the film make it even more interesting. The film can stand alone on the basis of spectacular action and imagery, where it has few peers.

But readers of the book, such as myself, are equally interested in how well it relates to the actual story. The main message and theme of the book is relatively simple: the development and self discovery of Bilbo Baggins. Most readers do not object to Jackson's added elements to increase the excitement and danger level, such as the inclusion of Azog (despite the fact that this creature is dead in the book version of the story). But my problem with the film is not the added material, but WHAT has been added, and more importantly, what has been omitted.

Frequent readers will note that the story has a certain "feel" to it, that is amplified with each reading. Eventually, the most important parts of the book are related to what is happening in Bilbo's mind, the struggle between the so-called 'Baggins' (timid) and 'Took' (brave) parts of his mind. I was hoping that Jackson, being a Tolkien fan, would emphasize these key moments in the film. As an example, I have previously described how, near the beginning of the story, after all of the dwarves' talk about dragons, Bilbo (feeling brave, or "Tookish"), looks out of his window, sees a wood fire across the stream, and immediately becomes a non-adventurous Baggins again. Later, as he is listening (in a different room) to the dwarves concluding that he is too cowardly to go on the trip:

"Then Mr. Baggins turned the handle and went in. The Took side has won. He suddenly felt he would go without bed and breakfast to be thought fierce. As for 'little fellow bobbing on the mat' it almost made him really fierce. Many a time afterwards the Baggins part regretted what he did now, and he said to himself: "Bilbo, you were a fool; you walked right in and put your foot in it."

Note that I didn't cite that scene as a spoiler, because IT ISN'T IN THE FILM. Nor is one of the most important parts of the story, where he regains consciousness near Gollum's cave and has his mental struggle completely isolated and alone in the dark:

"[Bilbo] sat down on the cold floor and gave himself up to complete miserableness, for a long while... He could not think of what to do, nor could he think of what had happened, or why he had been left behind; or why if he had been left behind, the goblins had not caught him; or even why his head was so sore... After a while he felt for his pipe. It was not broken, and that was something. Then he felt for his pouch, and there was some tobacco in it, and that was something more. Then he felt for matches and he could not find any at all, and that shattered his hopes completely... Now he drew [Sting] out. It shone pale and dim before his eyes. "So it is an elvish blade, too," he thought; and goblins are not very near, and yet not far enough." But somehow he was comforted... "Go back?" he thought. "No good at all! Go sideways? Impossible! Go forward? Only thing to do! On we go!"

Not in the film. How this missed the screenplay, while

[Show spoiler] Azog has his warg devour and orc on Weathertop

did not, leaves one wondering if the screenwriters had been smoking too much of whatever was in Gandalf's pipe. There are plenty of other examples, but the idea is clear.

The second film will be coming out at the end of the year, and I can only hope that Jackson gets back on track and instead of a sequence of increasingly over-the-top action scenes, incorporates the main idea of the story. One test will be a scene (I presume it will be in the film) where

[Show spoiler] Bilbo walks down the tunnel leading to the dragon's den. From the book:

"It was at this point that Bilbo stopped. Going on from there was the bravest thing he ever did. The tremendous things that happened afterwards were as nothing compared to it. He fought the real battle in the tunnel alone, before he ever saw the vast danger that lay in wait."

We can only pray that the screenplay doesn't read: "Azog (mounted on warg) chases Bilbo and dwarves into Thror's treasury."

It is these types of scenes, the psychological, implied scenes that we complete with OUR minds that distinguish great directors from the pack. Let's hope that Jackson proves himself the great director that I think he is with the next two films.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by L-Rouge

I have to admit I never considered Ori to be mentally disabled, maybe excentric.

I read your review, quite detailed, I see you compare to FOTR as a film going experience, I wonder if your comparison of Moria is not so great considering the various creatures that do not present themselves in the Hobbit. Balrog for instance. (which I admit really sold the FOTR to me), not the material to work with in that sense, but the hints of Smaug kept me interested.

I feel I should qualify the comparison by pointing out that FOTR was by far my least favorite of the LOTR films, especially the theatric cut.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

[Show spoiler]I have not heard that Disney ever owned the rights to The Hobbit, and have wondered why, since it always seemed (to me) that it would have been a great interest of his. I would love to have seen a Disney animated version of The Hobbit. I also have never understood Tolkien's dislike of Disney. In 1937, while writing The Hobbit and looking for illustrations, he wrote that he would:

"... veto anything from or influenced by the Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing)."

He later wrote that illustrations submitted by Horus Engels for a German translation of The Hobbit were:

"... too 'Disnified' for my tastes: Bilbo with a dribbling nose, and Gandalf as a figure of vulgar fun rather than the Odinic wanderer that I think of... "

By the way ER, sorry to hear you have the flu. During my past week of travel I have been around many people who have it, and I hope that I escape it.





These and other posts lately in this thread have made it the best on the forum, with discussions on what people like and dislike about this film and story that is important to them. The fact that the book is one of the most popular and beloved stories of all time, and the magnitude of effort invested into the film make it even more interesting. The film can stand alone on the basis of spectacular action and imagery, where it has few peers.

But readers of the book, such as myself, are equally interested in how well it relates to the actual story. The main message and theme of the book is relatively simple: the development and self discovery of Bilbo Baggins. Most readers do not object to Jackson's added elements to increase the excitement and danger level, such as the inclusion of Azog (despite the fact that this creature is dead in the book version of the story). But my problem with the film is not the added material, but WHAT has been added, and more importantly, what has been omitted.

Frequent readers will note that the story has a certain "feel" to it, that is amplified with each reading. Eventually, the most important parts of the book are related to what is happening in Bilbo's mind, the struggle between the so-called 'Baggins' (timid) and 'Took' (brave) parts of his mind. I was hoping that Jackson, being a Tolkien fan, would emphasize these key moments in the film. As an example, I have previously described how, near the beginning of the story, after all of the dwarves' talk about dragons, Bilbo (feeling brave, or "Tookish"), looks out of his window, sees a wood fire across the stream, and immediately becomes a non-adventurous Baggins again. Later, as he is listening (in a different room) to the dwarves concluding that he is too cowardly to go on the trip:

"Then Mr. Baggins turned the handle and went in. The Took side has won. He suddenly felt he would go without bed and breakfast to be thought fierce. As for 'little fellow bobbing on the mat' it almost made him really fierce. Many a time afterwards the Baggins part regretted what he did now, and he said to himself: "Bilbo, you were a fool; you walked right in and put your foot in it."

Note that I didn't cite that scene as a spoiler, because IT ISN'T IN THE FILM. Nor is one of the most important parts of the story, where he regains consciousness near Gollum's cave and has his mental struggle completely isolated and alone in the dark:

"[Bilbo] sat down on the cold floor and gave himself up to complete miserableness, for a long while... He could not think of what to do, nor could he think of what had happened, or why he had been left behind; or why if he had been left behind, the goblins had not caught him; or even why his head was so sore... After a while he felt for his pipe. It was not broken, and that was something. Then he felt for his pouch, and there was some tobacco in it, and that was something more. Then he felt for matches and he could not find any at all, and that shattered his hopes completely... Now he drew [Sting] out. It shone pale and dim before his eyes. "So it is an elvish blade, too," he thought; and goblins are not very near, and yet not far enough." But somehow he was comforted... "Go back?" he thought. "No good at all! Go sideways? Impossible! Go forward? Only thing to do! On we go!"

Not in the film. How this missed the screenplay, while

[Show spoiler] Azog has his warg devour and orc on Weathertop

did not, leaves one wondering if the screenwriters had been smoking too much of whatever was in Gandalf's pipe. There are plenty of other examples, but the idea is clear.

The second film will be coming out at the end of the year, and I can only hope that Jackson gets back on track and instead of a sequence of increasingly over-the-top action scenes, incorporates the main idea of the story. One test will be a scene (I presume it will be in the film) where

[Show spoiler] Bilbo walks down the tunnel leading to the dragon's den. From the book:

"It was at this point that Bilbo stopped. Going on from there was the bravest thing he ever did. The tremendous things that happened afterwards were as nothing compared to it. He fought the real battle in the tunnel alone, before he ever saw the vast danger that lay in wait."

It is these types of scenes, the psychological, implied scenes that we complete with OUR minds that distinguish great directors from the pack. Let's hope that Jackson proves himself the great director that I think he is with the next two films.

Understandibly though, I'm sure WB has told Jackson that they want a big grandiose summer action blockbuster esque movie, so these things are going to happen, where the important thematic elements of the book get left out. And you know what, I'm somewhat okay with that after seeing the film, I loved it. Sounds to me though GB that you have a bit stronger distaste for this film than you did for the LotR adaptations... Which is sad, b/c the die hard Tolkien fans really should have been a main focus with the Target audience. Sure, make your grandiose blockbuster CGI filled action filled trilogy to appeal to the masses, but also make sure that those who have been waiting years to see a film adaptation are not disappointed...

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Sounds to me though GB that you have a bit stronger distaste for this film than you did for the LotR adaptations... Which is sad, b/c the die hard Tolkien fans really should have been a main focus with the Target audience.

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie, threefifty; I tried - and did like many parts, but overall found it a disappointing exhibit of unfulfilled potential. Maybe I'm being too picky.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Understandibly though, I'm sure WB has told Jackson that they want a big grandiose summer action blockbuster esque movie, so these things are going to happen, where the important thematic elements of the book get left out. And you know what, I'm somewhat okay with that after seeing the film, I loved it. Sounds to me though GB that you have a bit stronger distaste for this film than you did for the LotR adaptations... Which is sad, b/c the die hard Tolkien fans really should have been a main focus with the Target audience. Sure, make your grandiose blockbuster CGI filled action filled trilogy to appeal to the masses, but also make sure that those who have been waiting years to see a film adaptation are not disappointed...

The production values didn't disappoint, and I was surprised, actually, to hear people complain about the length of the first act. It's the damn attempts at humour. Comedy is a crazy thing. Walking out - I'm being as honest as my fever will allow - I doubted my reaction and wondered if I would have felt the same way if the film had been adapted in animation in anime. I have to say, yes, I would have felt the same way. The bristling bits of comedy are misjudged. On the one hand, people say it's more childlike in tone, but the movie has incredibly scary moments and drug humour, so that argument doesn't fly with me. On the other hand, it is fantastical in the best traditions of film going back to Prince Achmed (if you haven't seen that, oh, you need to). It's the lapses in taste and tone. Man I'm struggling to make a cohernet argument. Will have to do this later, sorry guys.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie, threefifty; I tried - and did like many parts, but overall found it a disappointing exhibit of unfulfilled potential. Maybe I'm being too picky.

Nah, you like what you like, you don't like what you don't like. I've been called some pretty nasty names on "The InnerNets" b/c I vehemently despise

[Show spoiler]Lucas revision of his original 3 films, to the point where I refuse to buy them on blu ray until he (now Disney) releases them in their unaltered format. I know there are a lot of people out there like me, but I've been ATTACKED for expressing my OPINION that Lucas should release them unaltered, even though they were not his "Vision" because many people want them, and he wouldn't be where he was today without his fans

Please don't start a discussion about that, it was just to prove a point, and does not belong in this thread

My point is, you have your opinion, and its valid. You raised a lot of good points that should be noted. LotR however flawed it was, picked up on a lot of themse from the book, and conveyed them quite well in a lot of areas... The visual of Aeowyn walking out of Meduseld, hopeless, and seeing the flag blow off the pole is strong, and powerful, and seriously is one of my favorite scenes because I knew just what Tolkien was trying to convey by that visual. Theres nothing like that in The Hobbit, yet The Hobbit had some pretty strong themes, even if they were a little more elementary.

EDIT::: I shouldn't say nothing, I should say very little, wrong word choice, but what was there was pretty subtle and kind of difficult to see at times.

I did think there was a lot a wasted potential, and maybe he'll kick it up a notch in the second film (Smaug's attack on Dale would be a brilliant time to kick it up).

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

But humour is all relative. What you see as a lame joke I've seen audiences absolutely love. I'm agree, not liking those jokes doesn't automatically make you a cyinic (I didn't like the Radagst smoking moment but I'm far from a cynic) but I would say that some who disliked those moments are of a more cynical mindset. And some didn't like those jokes simply because they didn't like that sort of humour or thought it was misplaced. And some enjoyed them because they found them genuinely funny or witty. And some found them funny because they have a crass sense of humour. It takes all sorts.



That's a sweeping and grossly inaccurate statement. Even if some fans don't like it (and I have read enough reactions on Tolkien message boards and such like to know that some don't, some do and a lot don't mind/care/have an opinion) I would say 'repulsed' is too strong a word to describe how the majority feel. I am a fan of the books and of Tolkien and have been for years and I loved the Goblin King and his jokes and, though I didn't care for the Radagast smoking bit, I didn't find it 'repulsive', it just didn't work for me - I feel it was moment of good intentions overplayed to silliness.

Ernest, your argument is verging very closely to splitting people simply into 'real fans' and 'apologists' and you're usually better than to revert to such a mindless internet cliche like that.

There's a difference between fans of Tolkien and fans of only the LOTR books. While you are probably correct that there are Tolkien fans who aren't bothered by the movies, I would assert that they are in the minority of the Tolkien fans. Those who are only fans of the books aren't going to be aware of the rest of the Professor's thinking regarding Middle Earth.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

While I personally thought the portrayal of Radagast was a bit over the top, none of it was really that for out of character with what little we actually know about Radagast the Brown.

From Unfinished Tales, The Istari (Page 390 in my HMCO 1st/1st edition)


Additionally while Radagast was sent from the Valar, he was not one of the initial 3 chosen by the Valar (that would have been Curumo (Saruman), Olorin (Gandalf) and Alatar). Yavanna (wife of Aule) forced/begged Curumo to take Aiwdendil (Radagast) with him.

From Unfinished Tales, The Istari (Page 393)


And being a Mair of Yavanna, it isn't outside the realm that Radagast would actually be more concerned with the fauna and flora.

From Unfinished Tales, The Istari (picking up from the last quote)


And a bit more to show that perhaps Radagast wasn't as well received in the from of Istari.
From Unfinished Tales, The Istari (picking up from the last quote)

While all of what you quote is true, I think there was too much liberty taken in Radagast's portrayal.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Some good discussion going on in here. I actually really liked Radagast, but I agree about his appearance. Even an eccentric hermit gone batshit crazy wouldn't walk around covered in feces. But it's Middle-Earth, so who knows.

It was definitely important to make Radagast unique, lest he just be "weaker Gandalf."

However, all the Istari are described by Tolkien as of an "angelic order". The Radagast of the movie doesn't fit that at all. Saruman and Gandalf were very different but they still had the proper dignity that one would expect from an angelic being, good or evil.

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Again, I think they are producing these with the idea someone in the future will watch all six films in order, and so as a red herring to the treachery of Saruman, to make Saruman's resistance to defeating the Necromancer more plausible (because Saruman wants the Ring, and knows the Ring will find a way to present itself once Sauron's strength has returned), they present Radagast as a goofball.

.

This is virtually my first inclination, white council wasn't entirely in agreement with Saruman. I thought this was a plant for Saruman's future deception.

[mjbethancourt]

I think that the case for the lowbrow gags in 'An Unexpected Journey' being just a reflection of the more "whimsical and childish" tone of the book, falls apart when one considers that the 1977 children's cartoon was done with more dignity and respect for the writing.

The movie is not skewed to a grammar-school audience, they fixed that problem ... and replaced it with a crass, adolescent sense of humor that has its place elsewhere, but not in an adaptation of The Hobbit. We shouldn't have gags that are fit for 'Bored of the Rings', it makes the movie a parody of itself.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

I can't speak toward its authenticity as an adaptation (to me, that does not enter into a conversation about an alternate version - which must stand on its own)...but, for a character who lives alone aside from animals and appears completely self-sufficient in doing so, I don't particularly see why he'd care about the bird excrement (and I find the suggestion that someone who puts compassion for animals before social norms they don't actually even have to deal with the vast majority of the time as being "borderline mentally deficient" to be rather insulting). And I'm wondering why other people are obsessing about it. The modern cultural equivalent - in terms of appearance/isolation-related issues - might be some "basement dweller" who rarely goes outside that answers the door in an undershirt with Cheeto stains on it. Why would he care? To me, it seems he wouldn't. Does it make sense that such things are there? Yeah. So, once again - outside the adaptation aspect, which I'm aware is what it was mostly being commented upon as...why does this element matter to people so much? I'm asking as a legitimate question because I don't understand. Is it only within that framework (as seeming an inaccurate adaptation to many)?

I'm getting the impression that people think it's something there purely for comedic effect. Which I don't grasp because it appears to me as a character trait (thus, at least not "merely" an attempt to make fourteen-year-olds laugh) that he puts the well-being and home of a bird before his own personal hygiene.

We can be thankful that Jackson has got most of the characters "about right", e.g. the character Bilbo is for the most part portrayed correctly, and Martin Freeman is more than adequate to play the part, although some important scenes are not included. The Lord of the Rings movies had a similar mix, with most of the characters adequate, but some not so. For example, Gandalf and Wormtongue were pretty much right on the money, and Aragorn and Théoden were OK with some misgivings. I considered the minor characters not that big of a deal, so it wasn't a huge disappointment to see the film version of Fatty Bolger to have little to do with the book version. The major characters are another story, especially when the depiction of a major character makes one cringe. This was the case with Faramir in The Two Towers, and is also true of Radagast in The Hobbit. His appearance took me right out of the film. I had to keep myself from saying "WTF" aloud. For every 10-year-old that thought his appearance was funny, there had to have been several Tolkien fans that were repulsed. What's next - have him appear in the second film pushing a shopping cart full of junk and sh*t his pants? Jackson's problem may be that, given his incredible success and wealth, he has surrounded himself with too many people telling him he is a genius; he needs to have a few to put the brakes on his overindulgences and bring him back to reality.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by L-Rouge

This is virtually my first inclination, white council wasn't entirely in agreement with Saruman. I thought this was a plant for Saruman's future deception.

IIRC Gandalf says somewhere (in the books) that Saruman opposed having the White Council take action against Dol Guldur.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I have not heard that Disney ever owned the rights to The Hobbit, and have wondered why, since it always seemed (to me) that it would have been a great interest of his. I would love to have seen a Disney animated version of The Hobbit. I also have never understood Tolkien's dislike of Disney. In 1937, while writing The Hobbit and looking for illustrations, he wrote that he would:

"... veto anything from or influenced by the Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing)."

He later wrote that illustrations submitted by Horus Engels for a German translation of The Hobbit were:

"... too 'Disnified' for my tastes: Bilbo with a dribbling nose, and Gandalf as a figure of vulgar fun rather than the Odinic wanderer that I think of... "

Not too surprised by Tolkiens aversion to disney,but agree with you that an animated feature of the Hobbit by disney could have been great.Especially in those times where the artist within disney seemed to revel in artistic freedom.Well,more than seems possible in recent times (post 70's). One has only to look towards Bakshi's flawed attempt at LotR to see that it was possible,and a disney project would have vastly greater resources at disposal.

I still visit Bakshi's version of LotR from time to time

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

Not to mention that many children are well-aware of drugs and (whether they are or aren't) can easily find "drug humor" funny in the right context.

That's not the question. The question is if The Hobbit is the proper vehicle for that kind of humour. I think you would argue yes, and probably capably so. I would argue no.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

That's not the question. The question is if The Hobbit is the proper vehicle for that kind of humour. I think you would argue yes, and probably capably so. I would argue no.

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

"Proper vehicle" to me implies that there's some intent to distribute drug-related information to children rather than a purely entertainment-based intent (which, to me, is a bit like saying that there are characters killed in the movie because the filmmakers wish to promote killing rather than because of the needs of the dramatic stakes and the like). Besides, if you look at childrens' shows, a lot of the characters act like they're on something. And I'm sure that many children know what cigarettes are and that some people smoke them because they're addicted and it relaxes them or whatever - but, presumably, that such things are "bad." There's not much difference between that and what Radagast appears to do except Radagast is an utter eccentric that does it.

And besides, "making a fool" out of the person who reportedly overindulges in drugs doesn't seem like a particularly bad message concerning "drug use" or "drug humor" for children to hear. It basically fits in with the "drug-free" messages generally directed toward them.

What is the problem here?We all knew PJ version would be free-floating based on LotR.

[Yojimbo68]

I'm curious. What makes these "middle earth" stories so appealing to so many people? Is it the characters? The fantasy world? The creatures? The storytelling? I've read The Hobbit and have seen the theatrical cuts of the LOTR trilogy and really can't understand the popularity. Do some of you like it to be "part of the crowd"? Not trolling. Just curious. Why do you like these movies?

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

I'm curious. What makes these "middle earth" stories so appealing to so many people? Is it the characters? The fantasy world? The creatures? The storytelling? I've read The Hobbit and have seen the theatrical cuts of the LOTR trilogy and really can't understand the popularity. Do some of you like it to be "part of the crowd"? Not trolling. Just curious. Why do you like these movies?

I have medium level interest in the history of the literature. I was brought into the world via the movie adaptions 10 years ago. I was lost in the journey. My interest is also heightened by the fact it is made in NZ.

Guy I studied with 10 years ago worked on the movies. built the large platform Gandalf hangs off in Moria vs The Balrog. through him our class was allowed to visit Fangorn set @ wellington, really wanted to be working in the industry ;P.

[Underworld54]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

I'm curious. What makes these "middle earth" stories so appealing to so many people? Is it the characters? The fantasy world? The creatures? The storytelling? I've read The Hobbit and have seen the theatrical cuts of the LOTR trilogy and really can't understand the popularity. Do some of you like it to be "part of the crowd"? Not trolling. Just curious. Why do you like these movies?

It's just like films based on other worlds, it's like a fantasy. It's everything you mentioned that helps us just get away from everyday life for a few hours.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

I'm curious. What makes these "middle earth" stories so appealing to so many people? Is it the characters? The fantasy world? The creatures? The storytelling? I've read The Hobbit and have seen the theatrical cuts of the LOTR trilogy and really can't understand the popularity. Do some of you like it to be "part of the crowd"? Not trolling. Just curious. Why do you like these movies?

I'm just into it because it's the cool hip happening thing to do.

No, seriously I've been reading Tolkien's books for about the last 30 years (I'm 42) and LotR was the first thing I ever read that really transported me to another world. It was a life altering book for me and to some extent defines who I am.

There are three things that I would include in this type of influence. The original Star Wars movie, The Lord of the Rings books, and the Rush: Moving Pictures album. I started playing drums at 10 years old, but after hearing Tom Sawyer by Rush at 11 years old, I knew that I wanted to be a professional drummer. I never quite hit the big time, but I have performed professionally and semi-professionally over the years. Star Wars is also a big part of who I am. When I first saw it at 7 years old, I had never seen anything that spoke to me so strongly, and I still consider it one of my favorite films of all time. When I first read LotR at 12 years old, it was a bit overwhelming, but it really fascinated me and was the first book that really allowed me to forget that I was just reading a book and actually felt like I was in Middle-earth. It was a magical experience for me, and I still revisit it about once a year, along with a lot of Tolkiens other books.

Basically, it's just an escape from my everyday life into a wonderful fanasy world, but it is also just written so beautifully and poetically and has lots of great ideals, principles, and values that have had a profound influence on my personal philosiphies and way of life.

If you have only read The Hobbit and not The Lord of the Rings, I would highly suggest giving it a read. Although they are both in the same world, The Hobbit is a much more simple, yet highly enjoyable children's book. The Lord of the Rings goes much deeper into the different races, languages, cultures, etc. of Middle-earth.