any lord of the rings fans?

[chris_มวยไทย]

hi , any lord of te rings fans on the forum? and if you are whos your fave character?

 

[tshadowchaser]

I enjoyed reading the books many years ago and have enjoyed watching the movies.
No real fav character

 

[Flying Crane]

Of course!!

I always thought Faramir was great. Leading a ragged band of rangers in the wilderness, understaffed and fighting a guerrilla battle, hit and run, ambushes, fading away into the forest to regroup and hit again, harrassing the enemy and doing whatever damage he could. Underappreciated, even scorned by his crazy father, yet never wavering from his command. A big hitter, popular and loved by the people, but sort of flies under the radar.

 

[exile]

I enjoyed reading the books many years ago and have enjoyed watching the movies.
No real fav character

I've read them many times, but always wind up with a kind of melancholy feeling afterwards that sometimes lasts for days... wonder if this happens to anyone else....

 

[bushidomartialarts]

used to be aragorn.

after the movies, sam is my hero. seriously. there's no braver character in the story. of all the changes jackson made, his elevation of sam gamgee was the best.

 

[Bigshadow]

I enjoyed reading the books many years ago and have enjoyed watching the movies.
No real fav character

Same here, read them years ago, watched the movies and I don't really have a favorite.

 

[Bigshadow]

I've read them many times, but always wind up with a kind of melancholy feeling afterwards that sometimes lasts for days... wonder if this happens to anyone else....

Yes, same here. I had the same feeling after reading Mythago Wood (by Robert Holdstock).

 

[exile]

Yes, same here. I had the same feeling after reading Mythago Wood (by Robert Holdstock).

I haven't read the Holdstock book but will look for it. There's such an awful feeling of loss in LoTR, especially in the final parts. I used to think that it was just youthful sensitivity or something, but I found myself feeling exactly the same thing reading the book in my 30s and 40s.

 

[Flying Crane]

I've read them many times, but always wind up with a kind of melancholy feeling afterwards that sometimes lasts for days... wonder if this happens to anyone else....

yup. the characters almost become real. it's hard to say goodbye to them at the end.

 

[Flying Crane]

used to be aragorn.

after the movies, sam is my hero. seriously. there's no braver character in the story. of all the changes jackson made, his elevation of sam gamgee was the best.

Actually, of all the liberties that Jackson took, some of which I was OK with, others I questioned, I don't think he really changed this. Sam's role in the movies followed very closely to his role in the books. He was the one true, steadfast member of the group who never wavered from the cause, was never tempted to drift away, he even had the ring for a short time, even wore it, but then willingly gave it up. He was the rock upon which Frodo was able to depend thru thick and thin, and clearly never would have succeeded without Sam. I read an essay where it is suggested that Sam really is the hero of the story. He is so key to the success of the mission that he deserves almost more credit than anyone else. But he is so genuinely humble. He wants nothing more that to complete the unpleasant business no matter the cost, then go home and see Rose again, raise a family and have a quiet life in the Shire away from all the problems of the world. He doesn't want wealth or glory. Just his family and friends.

 

[exile]

yup. the characters almost become real. it's hard to say goodbye to them at the end.

I kept looking for them again in a lot of the stuff that came out under Christopher Tolkien's editorship/reconstruction after JRRT's death. But none of it had the same poignancy or level of engatement with the characters, with the wrinkles in their personalities. Disappointing, but I should've known better in advance, probably.

Actually, of all the liberties that Jackson took, some of which I was OK with, others I questioned, I don't think he really changed this. Sam's role in the movies followed very closely to his role in the books. He was the one true, steadfast member of the group who never wavered from the cause, was never tempted to drift away, he even had the ring for a short time, even wore it, but then willingly gave it up. He was the rock upon which Frodo was able to depend thru thick and thin, and clearly never would have succeeded without Sam. I read an essay where it is suggested that Sam really is the hero of the story. He is so key to the success of the mission that he deserves almost more credit than anyone else. But he is so genuinely humble. He wants nothing more that to complete the unpleasant business no matter the cost, then go home and see Rose again, raise a family and have a quiet life in the Shire away from all the problems of the world. He doesn't want wealth or glory. Just his family and friends.

The key thing is the point you mention---that he gave the Ring back to Frodo with barely a twinge. The Ring corrupts those who possess (or desire) it in proportion to their own weakness and need for power. The hobbits as a whole do way better than anyone else in resisting it (compare Frodo or Sam with Isildur, or Boromir), and Sam does best of all, except for Tom Bombadil---over whom the Ring has no power whatever, not even to make him invisible. By that criterion, Sam is about as incorruptible as it's possible for a mortal being to be...

 

[Bigshadow]

I haven't read the Holdstock book but will look for it. There's such an awful feeling of loss in LoTR, especially in the final parts. I used to think that it was just youthful sensitivity or something, but I found myself feeling exactly the same thing reading the book in my 30s and 40s.

I think alot of it has to do with how well the author writes. IMO, Tolkien, Terry Brooks, Tracy Hickman (The Dark Sword Trilogy), and even Holdstock, wrote in such a way that it was very absorbing and one could really relate to the characters and feel the emotion, danger, and excitement. When it is all over, we all have to come back to reality, like Michael was referring to.

Although this thread is about a favorite character out of LOTR, I do have a favorite character from Terry Brooks Shanara series. It is definitely Garret Jax. That was one bad *** warrior (only to die by creature that thrives on pain and whose bite and claw is poisonous)!

 

[Flying Crane]

Speaking of Tom Bombadil, I wonder how he would have fared, had he faced off in a one-on-one against Sauron...

I suppose he would have given Sauron a tough battle, but in the end, Sauron would have won. I think Sauron really had a good measure more of power and strength than the other immortals had, including Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman, and the other two wizards. It would have been an interesting showdown if all 5 wizards had stayed true to the cause and worked together until the end to bring down Sauron. If Bombadil had been willing to take an active role in the opposition, that could have meant a lot. But it just went against his nature.

 

[stickarts]

I first read the books sometime around 1977 and have read them many many times since! I admit that in High school a friend and I would pass notes back and forth in class written in Dwarvish and Elvish. I handed in an English paper once written in Elvish just to see the reaction of the teacher. I think she was very worried about me!!
I can't say I have a favorite character although both Gandalf and Aragorn stand out. The variety of characters make it great.
I had always hoped for some good LOTR movies would come, out and they were worth the wait!
Sure hope everything gets straightened out and "The Hobbit" will be made also.

 

[Bigshadow]

If Bombadil had been willing to take an active role in the opposition, that could have meant a lot. But it just went against his nature.

He was a rather free spirited individual, wasn't he? When Jackson was making the movies, I was hoping he would put the journey through the barrow downs in there. The whole section where they were rescued by Tom Bombadil from the downs would be great material for the special effects people.

 

[Flying Crane]

He was a rather free spirited individual, wasn't he? When Jackson was making the movies, I was hoping he would put the journey through the barrow downs in there. The whole section where they were rescued by Tom Bombadil from the downs would be great material for the special effects people.

Agreed. I was disappointed that Bombadil didn't make it into the films. A lot of good stuff there.

 

[Bigshadow]

Agreed. I was disappointed that Bombadil didn't make it into the films. A lot of good stuff there.

I understand alot of the hardcore fans were disappointed. I know I was. He was a character that at first I didn't know what think of him, but after awhile one can't help but like his character.

 

[exile]

I think alot of it has to do with how well the author writes. IMO, Tolkien, Terry Brooks, Tracy Hickman (The Dark Sword Trilogy), and even Holdstock, wrote in such a way that it was very absorbing and one could really relate to the characters and feel the emotion, danger, and excitement. When it is all over, we all have to come back to reality, like Michael was referring to.

It's true, the writer's ability to create a kind of emotional intensity is a very big part of the story's effectiveness. That's why Ursula Leguin's Earthsea trilogy (it may be a quartet, now) has so much more impact than a lot of the swords-and-socery genre (Andre Norton, for example, leaves me stone cold). There's just no substitute for good writing!

Although this thread is about a favorite character out of LOTR, I do have a favorite character from Terry Brooks Shanara series. It is definitely Garret Jax. That was one bad *** warrior (only to die by creature that thrives on pain and whose bite and claw is poisonous)!

I've got a couple of Shanara books somewhere in my house, but never got to read them... have always meant to, though, and will, someday.

Tolkien doesn't do this, but some writers, even good ones, just don't... `play fair', I want to call it. Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising is a great series, but I feel she cheats her characters, in the end, and we the readers along with it, by depriving her battle-weary children of their memories of the whole bitter epic they've lived through so heroically, except for Will himself, the immortal guardian destined to join Arthur and Merlin again at the end of time. That really was not fair!

Speaking of Tom Bombadil, I wonder how he would have fared, had he faced off in a one-on-one against Sauron...

I suppose he would have given Sauron a tough battle, but in the end, Sauron would have won. I think Sauron really had a good measure more of power and strength than the other immortals had, including Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman, and the other two wizards. It would have been an interesting showdown if all 5 wizards had stayed true to the cause and worked together until the end to bring down Sauron. If Bombadil had been willing to take an active role in the opposition, that could have meant a lot. But it just went against his nature.

I agree completely---he was an ancient force, older than the Wizards, or the Ents, probably older than everyone except the Valar. And also, yes, Sauron, though a Maiar like the other wizards, seems to have been more powerful than they. But would he have been more powerful than the combined might of all five? Guess we'll never know. But doesn't it seem as though Tolkien is constantly telling us that power and corruption are intimately associated?

 

[Ping898]

From the movies Gandalf really is my favorite. I love the wizard battle in the first movie and I think he did a really good job of playing all the sides, trying to bring everyone together for Aragon to take control and Frodo to have enough time to destroy the ring....

 

[Bigshadow]

I agree completely---he was an ancient force, older than the Wizards, or the Ents, probably older than everyone except the Valar. And also, yes, Sauron, though a Maiar like the other wizards, seems to have been more powerful than they. But would he have been more powerful than the combined might of all five? Guess we'll never know. But doesn't it seem as though Tolkien is constantly telling us that power and corruption are intimately associated?

Tom didn't really seem concerned about any of that. I don't remember exactly what he said, but I got the feeling that he didn't have any regard for Sauron and didn't worry at all about Sauron's power.

Yes, Tolkien did make the connection throughout the entire story, from sauron, smeagol/gollum, borimir, saruman, and grimer worm-tongue.

Speaking of Tolkien, has anyone heard the audio of Tolkein reading the hobbit? It was so cool. I remember listening to it in high school. It was on vinyl.