# How would you rewrite the lord of the rings?



## Zackery Arbela (Jan 31, 2011)

I'm walking in NYC and pass a sign for Wicked...which got me thinking...we pretty much rewrite everything in our culture. Gregory maguire took the wizard of oz and put a new spin on it and the rest is history. There isn't a major story in western culture that hasn't been rewritten at some point. How many times ha Pride & Prejudice been rewritten, for example?

Which brings up an interesting prospect...at some point in the future, the Lord of the Rings will finally enter the public domain, which means Some bright spark will take a stab at reworking the mythos, either by writing a sequel or retelling the story from the point of view of another character. How a writer of today go about it, do you think, retelling the great fantasy epic (the story from eowyn or arenas POV...an alternate ending where Sauron win.) Any ideas...and I don't mean the usual fanfic, slash or otherwise...


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

It's already been rewritten hundreds of times (just counting the ones that have actually been published), just with different names to protect the copyright.


----------



## Belle2Be (Aug 29, 2010)

NogDog said:


> It's already been rewritten hundreds of times (just counting the ones that have actually been published), just with different names to protect the copyright.


This. Eragon, for instance, seems like a direct ripoff in many parts. I've read a few others that were almost disturbingly similar.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Well, you know "The Lord of the Rings" is an adaptation of Richard Wagner's "Der Ring des Nibelungen."  Which was an amalgam of several myths and legends itself.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

DYB said:


> Well, you know "The Lord of the Rings" is an adaptation of Richard Wagner's "Der Ring des Nibelungen." Which was an amalgam of several myths and legends itself.


Not quite. Wagner and Tolkien may have used some of the same source materials, but Lord of the Rings is not an adaption of Wagner.


----------



## D. Nathan Hilliard (Jun 5, 2010)

Well, lets look at some of the archetypes in the story and see what we can do with them.

Frodo basically represented the parochial farm lad who went out into the big bad world, faced it's dangers and resisted it's temptations. That character made a lot more sense to the readers of Tolkien's day. Today he would need to be more urban, but still not jaded or world wise, so we might picture him as a suburban kid. That way he is still surrounded by greenery and we'll just replace the fields of crops with potted plants and flowerbeds.

Sauron and the Orcs. In Tolkiens mind these guys were the very representation of the industrial revolution and Mordor was little more than an exaggeration of the filthy factory towns of his time. Nowadays you would need to replace Sauron the Industry Baron with Sauron the Corporation. Orcs would be willing corporate drones.

Gandalf was the wise and Christlike figure who both knew the ways of the world and yet sacrificed himself to fight great evil and was transformed in the process. I'm thinking perhaps an old hippie hacker type who still has great skills. He hacks into the security system of the Sauron corporation to save Frodo and is "killed" but somehow transformed in the process. Perhaps he is reborn from a hippie into an EPA investigator.

The One Ring would be a contract or stock  portfolio of some kind that Frodo finds. Ownership of it would make him immensely powerful, but ultimately corrupt him.

It could set in a vast futuristic city like Blade Runner.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Perhaps "adaptation" was too strong a word.  But the point is there are many similarities between the two.  And Wagner came about a century earlier.  The notion that Tolkien didn't look at Wagner defies belief.  Tolkien's work is not an original creation.  It's a spin on stories told for centuries.  So other stories that might sound similar to "The Lord of the Rings" might, in fact, simply be looking beyond Tolkien.


----------



## Indy (Jun 7, 2010)

I can't imagine rewriting Lord of the Rings, and any fantasy bit that gets too close to being a clone turns me right off.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

If you take Wicked as an example, you'd rewrite it from another character's POV. Gollum springs to mind, for example. You'd have to rework the story a bit to get him involved earlier -- perhaps have him lurking and spying on Bilbo in the Shire and take it from there?

Maybe you could write it from Sam's perspective? Merry or Pippin? Or you could go wild and write it from Sauron's POV. 

If you're going to rewrite it, you'd better be at the top of your game, though. You'll need to be exceedingly clever to win readers over.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

NogDog said:


> It's already been rewritten hundreds of times (just counting the ones that have actually been published), just with different names to protect the copyright.


You say that as a joke, but it's really true. There have been many derivative books that look an awful lot like Lord of the Rings with names changed, and many other works that are heavily influenced by Tolkien. Tolkien basically recreated the entire landscape of the fantasy genre. Probably as big an influence over fantasy as Stoker had over vampire stories.

When the copyright on Lord of the Rings expires (who knows when that will be, copyright keeps getting extended whenever Disney wants it), I'm sure that a number of people will create works using the setting and the characters explicitly, but such works are usually here today and gone tomorrow.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

Belle2Be said:


> This. Eragon, for instance, seems like a direct ripoff in many parts. I've read a few others that were almost disturbingly similar.


Brooks' original Shannara trilogy being a prime offender as well.

There are two things that set The Lord of the Rings apart from most other fantasies - one is the bleak outlook created by Tolkein's experiences in WWI, and the other is what his training and skills as a linguist brought to his writing.

It would take a large amount of hubris to attempt rewriting LotR. It wouldn't be received well at all.


----------



## Zackery Arbela (Jan 31, 2011)

Dennis L. McKiernan's Mithgar series is as close to a blatant copy as you can get...he actually wanted to write a sequel to the Lord of the rings, and the story goes approached the Tolkien estate. Supposedly they were willing go along with it and he was planning the novel when they changed their minds. Not wanting all the work to go to waste, he changed it to be just original enough and made a career out of it....


----------



## Sarah Woodbury (Jan 30, 2011)

The point about many, many books being LOTR in different clothes is true.  It's a heroic adventure, with a twist , as the real heroes of the books are not the ones who wear swords (though we do, of course, love Aragorn).  I think many scholars would agree that Tolkein created the fantasy genre.  

That said, I think if anyone wrote from Sam's point of view, for example, or Arwen's, it would fall under the category of fan fiction?  Truth . . . the first short story I ever wrote was a patch to the movie version of The Two Towers because it seemed like a flaw in the plan at Helm's Deep to send the 'women and children into the hills' when the Uruk-hai had just taken over the Hornburg.  (is this too geeky?  true colors, I guess)


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

In effect, but it's already been done and done exceedingly well by Jacqueline Carey in her _Sundering_ duology. She wrote it from the point-of-view of Tanaros, the equivalent of a Nightrider. Of course, she used only the archetypes and not the characters from LotR, but it is in effect a re-write of it.

Quote from Wikipedia on the duology:

_"Carey has acknowledged that the book is based around Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, as well as the classical tragedy form, reversing the good versus evil scheme of Tolkien by telling the story as an "epic tragedy" from the perspective of the characters who are perceived by most of Urulat as "evil". Carey stated that "it departs from convention in one significant way, which is that it's sympathetic to the losing side, and over the course of the two volumes, the story emerges as one long, colossal tragedy." _

I highly recommend the Sundering which is made up of the novels _Banewrecker_ and _Godslayer_.

Edit: I particularly love the opening of Banewrecker and the description of Tanaros.

And Carey's re-write was very well received indeed because it is a total re-working of the theme from a much more modern point-of-view.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Who would have thought that writers would be inspired by things they had read?  

To answer the original question; if I had my way with TLOTR I would see to it that it was shortened down considerably by removing a lot of the pointless exposition and narrative. Someone mentioned in another thread that Frodo is tasked leave the shire with the ring. He then takes six months to do this, and here is a day by day account of his non-adventure. Not to mention that years elapse between actual happenings, but we get some of the detail of what they didn't do in that time!


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

DYB said:


> Well, you know "The Lord of the Rings" is an adaptation of Richard Wagner's "Der Ring des Nibelungen." Which was an amalgam of several myths and legends itself.


Tolkien was Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford University - he was steeped in Anglo-Saxon and Norse mythology from Beowulf to the Völsunga Saga, in which we find dwarf gold, dragons, treasure and, yes, a ring. Both Tolkien and Wagner and hosts of others have taken inspiration from Old Norse myths and end up with a magical ring story, but since LOTR and Wagner's Ring Cycle are by far the best known, new authors may be thought to have copied them - even if they never saw/read these works and took all their inspiration directly from the old myths. I expect Tolkien did listen to Wagner, but I'm sure he was predominantly influenced by his own studies.
For myself, I wouldn't re-write Tolkien so much as edit the existing work, which is brilliant in essence but long winded in places. In fact I think this job was done by Brian Sibley and Michael Bakewell, who adapted LOTR for the BBC in 1981 - for me the definitive version.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

It's near perfect the way it is.

The only thing I'd change is I wish he'd given the same detail to the battle scenes that he does everything else.  There's a lot of build up to them, and not many pages describing them which pales in comparison to more recent fantasy.

Other than that, it's perfect.  Now, going beyond LOTR, I wish he'd wrote them first and then gone back and wrote the Hobbit as prequel and not written it as a children's book as I don't enjoy it nearly as much as LOTR as the style is so different.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

DYB - I should have acknowledged that you commented that "other stories that might sound similar to "The Lord of the Rings" might, in fact, simply be looking beyond Tolkien." - Apologies if I sounded like I was arguing a point you had already made.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Bleekness said:


> As Tolkien had this fascination with Death (being in the trenches during WW1 will do that, I suppose) that really made the books long and dreary to read (I'm one of the folks that think the movies were just right) I would rewrite the whole story with the following, more contemporary, changes in mind.
> 
> Frodo and Sam would be gay (A la bareback mountain)
> 
> ...


Awesome! You'd better get writing then.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Daphne said:


> DYB - I should have acknowledged that you commented that "other stories that might sound similar to "The Lord of the Rings" might, in fact, simply be looking beyond Tolkien." - Apologies if I sounded like I was arguing a point you had already made.


Don't mention it!


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Other than that, it's perfect. Now, going beyond LOTR, I wish he'd wrote them first and then gone back and wrote the Hobbit as prequel and not written it as a children's book as I don't enjoy it nearly as much as LOTR as the style is so different.


I thought he wrote the Hobbit as a story for his son, and then wrote LOTR when his son was a little older, hence it was more mature?

For me the Hobbit is a great introduction to the LOTR.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Personally, I wouldn't go near The Lord of the Rings with a ten-foot pole. It's called a masterpiece for a reason. As much as I sometimes enjoy the bastardization of old tales like let's say, Leonardo Di Caprio's Romeo and Juliet movie, altering Tolkien's story too much would cause it to lose its flavor, if not the entire purpose for being written at all (the attempt to create an Anglo-Saxon myth). Peter Jackson took a lot of heat for the changes he made in his adaption of the book. Although I love the films, much of the criticism is well-deserved. I can't imagine someone rewriting the Iliad and taking the gods out of the story. What about the movie Troy, you say? I rest my case.


----------



## Zackery Arbela (Jan 31, 2011)

Supposedly, Tolkien did actually start writing a sequel to LOTR at one point, but gave up after about 30 pages. The idea was that it would set in the time of his son, when the people of Gondor turned to worshipping evil...something in there about Orc cults and the like....


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2011)

I think the greatest opportunity, and the one that would take the most skill to pull off, would be to make Sauron a real character with lines and action. Obviously the reclusive, recovering, watchful specter is intriguing, but the absence really felt strange to me when I first read it as a kid. It was like Sauruman was a stand-in replacement.


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

D. Nathan Hilliard said:


> It could set in a vast futuristic city like Blade Runner.


This would be one of only two feasible areas to re-create Tolkien's masterpiece. The other would be some kind of urban fantasy.

Everything else is off limits.


----------



## Erick Flaig (Oct 25, 2010)

Zackery Arbela said:


> Supposedly, Tolkien did actually start writing a sequel to LOTR at one point, but gave up after about 30 pages. The idea was that it would set in the time of his son, when the people of Gondor turned to worshipping evil...something in there about Orc cults and the like....


The title was "The New Shadow," set a little over a century later in the time of Eldarion, Aragorn's son. The thirty-odd pages are in Volume XII of Christopher Tolkien's _History of Middle-earth_ Series, "The Peoples of Middle-earth." Currently not on the Kindle.


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

If JRR used Wagner (used in some way), and others use his Lord of the Rings, what's the difference? Shakespeare himself didn't write any original stories, just used tales and histories that had been told before. It doesn't diminish him to say that -- he did it very well. Even biblical stories and rituals and observances aren't original to the Bible -- they were adapted from the cultures of its authors. 

I think there are few if any new stories, just old ones adapted to a new time, told well or poorly.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

mooshie78 said:


> It's near perfect the way it is.
> 
> The only thing I'd change is I wish he'd given the same detail to the battle scenes that he does everything else. There's a lot of build up to them, and not many pages describing them which pales in comparison to more recent fantasy.
> 
> Other than that, it's perfect. Now, going beyond LOTR, I wish he'd wrote them first and then gone back and wrote the Hobbit as prequel and not written it as a children's book as I don't enjoy it nearly as much as LOTR as the style is so different.


I know I'm not a lone in liking "The Hobbit" over LOTR, which I thought was boring. I would drift in and out of consciousness when I read it because I could barely stay awake.

I think the biggest mistake Tolkien made in the structure of his novel was not interweaving the various journeys. I, for one, completely lost all concept of time and how long things took. Isn't the whole journey about a week or so? It sure felt like years to me!


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

I always thought that The Hobbit was the better written/edited of the two books  - although it obviously doesn't have the sheer epic scope of Lord of the Rings. I feel sorry for Tolkien's wife, Edith -
Edith: "John, what are you doing up there?"
Tolkien: "Just writing Lord of the Rings, dear."
Edith: "But you've been writing it for twelve years and the kitchen tap still needs fixing..."


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Daphne said:


> I always thought that The Hobbit was the better written/edited of the two books - although it obviously doesn't have the sheer epic scope of Lord of the Rings. I feel sorry for Tolkien's wife, Edith -
> Edith: "John, what are you doing up there?"
> Tolkien: "Just writing Lord of the Rings, dear."
> Edith: "But you've been writing it for twelve years and the kitchen tap still needs fixing..."


Ha! 12 years is nothing. Richard Wagner took a 12 year break from writing his tetralogy "The Ring of the Nibelungs." The whole process took him 26 years!


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Wikipedia has an interesting breakdown on how Wagner's adaptation of the myths and legends might have influenced Tolkien, contrary to Tolkien's denials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_ring_des_nibelungen#Richard_Wagner_and_J._R._R._Tolkien


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

DYB said:


> I know I'm not a lone in liking "The Hobbit" over LOTR, which I thought was boring. I would drift in and out of consciousness when I read it because I could barely stay awake.
> 
> I think the biggest mistake Tolkien made in the structure of his novel was not interweaving the various journeys. I, for one, completely lost all concept of time and how long things took. Isn't the whole journey about a week or so? It sure felt like years to me!


Yeah, I know many that prefer it. I love LOTR, never got into The Hobbit much and probably won't bother reading it the next time I re-read Tolkien (just re-read The Silmarillion, The Children of Hurin--2nd time for those; The Hobbit--third time; and LOTR--5th time) this past fall.

The LOTR story covers several years--in the book there's a gap of 17 years or so from the time that Frodo gets the ring and Bilbo leaves. The actually journey lasted about 1 year or a little more.

I don't find any of it boring, but I love all the detail, history etc. That stuff really sucks me into the world of Middle Earth. But I know it bores others, and I can understand that.


----------



## Zackery Arbela (Jan 31, 2011)

Erick Flaig said:


> The title was "The New Shadow," set a little over a century later in the time of Eldarion, Aragorn's son. The thirty-odd pages are in Volume XII of Christopher Tolkien's _History of Middle-earth_ Series, "The Peoples of Middle-earth." Currently not on the Kindle.


Ah...I remember. Never got around to reading those...after the silmarillion it all seemed a bit much...


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

I'd love to see an alternate LOTR from Sauron's POV.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Asher MacDonald said:


> If you're going to rewrite it, you'd better be at the top of your game, though. You'll need to be exceedingly clever to win readers over.


It sounds like we need another John Gardner, who unfortunately died in motorcycle accident quite some time ago. However, before he passed away, he wrote the brilliant 

which I much prefer over _Beowulf_. Incidentally, I think the scene in _The Hobbit _ where Bilbo steals the cup from Smaug's lair was inspired by a side story in _Beowulf_ which depicts a similar act of petty thievery from an underground monster cave.
However, John Gardners are few and far between. Aside from a few other writers like Robin McKinley who have successfully novelized fairy tales like Deerskin, I generally don't care for re-tellings, sequels, or stories from the villain's POV unless they're written by the original author. Authors draw on ancient legends and archetypes all the time, as Tolkien did. However, I see that as part of the alchemical process of creation in a particular culture. It's not the same as taking characters and plot-lines directly from the source material as Gardner or Maguire or McKinley do. Authors tread a very fine line when they start playing in someone else's sandbox. For every success like _Grendel_, there are ten abysmal failures like _Scarlett_.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

If I was just going to rip it off and dress it up in new clothes, I would do it as a steampunk/western similar to The Dark Tower series (only without the world-hopping and recursive plotline). The evil army would more blatantly represent the forces of industry versus the pastoral heroes. Instead of magic, I would give the heroes somesort of bio-engineering or genetic gifts.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

Jon Olson said:


> ...Shakespeare himself didn't write any original stories, just used tales and histories that had been told before...
> I think there are few if any new stories, just old ones adapted to a new time, told well or poorly.


_This!_ Shakespeare (or whomever) borrowed stories. Then Disney steals the Scottish play, adds some pretty music and moves it to Africa with some lions for the main characters. But they got theirs when they butchered history with Pocahontas and then got their version ripped off by James Cameron for Avatar and _he_ wins all kinds of awards, gets recognition, and makes money that (for once) Disney didn't make from their cartoon.

Stories are told over and over, but it's when they're told in new ways that we start to pay attention.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Daniel Arenson said:


> I'd love to see an alternate LOTR from Sauron's POV.


Try the Sundering then.


----------



## Keith Blenman (May 31, 2009)

I'd somehow work in more Tom Bombadil. Not too much. He could be hanging with the elves or the ents. He could show up in Mordor and go unnoticed by the orcs. Ooh! Maybe a scene of him riding the eye of Sauron like a bull!


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Does anyone remember "Bored of the Rings"? It was a National Lampoon parody. I don't know if it's still available.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

R. Reed said:


> Does anyone remember "Bored of the Rings"? It was a National Lampoon parody. I don't know if it's still available.


Wagner got his too with the musical "Das Barbecu." (The title is inspired by the first opera in the tetralogy, "Das Rheingold.")


----------



## dltanner99 (Sep 9, 2010)

I'm a huge Tolkien fan, but at the end of the movie, when Gandalf comes for the Hobbits astride the great eagle Gwahir, it seems they could have ridden the giant birds to Mount Doom, in the first place. But hey, I wouldn't miss the adventure for anything in the world!


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

dltanner99 said:


> I'm a huge Tolkien fan, but at the end of the movie, when Gandalf comes for the Hobbits astride the great eagle Gwahir, it seems they could have ridden the giant birds to Mount Doom, in the first place. But hey, I wouldn't miss the adventure for anything in the world!


I assume Sauron would have seen that, and had the Nazgul attack the eagle on their flying mounts, the name of which I forget. Two Hobbits on the ground were a lot harder to see.


----------



## M.S. Verish (Feb 26, 2010)

> I'd love to see an alternate LOTR from Sauron's POV.


That might be interesting, but I think it would have to take place before Sauron became a lighthouse.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

I do have a question: Sauron's ring of power, with which he intends to controls all the races of Middle Earth, makes the wearer invisible. But why? Sauron doesn't seem like the kind of guy who wants to be invisible. In the first movie, he wears the ring and is not invisible. I have always wondered about this.


----------



## M.S. Verish (Feb 26, 2010)

> I do have a question: Sauron's ring of power, with which he intends to controls all the races of Middle Earth, makes the wearer invisible. But why? Sauron doesn't seem like the kind of guy who wants to be invisible. In the first movie, he wears the ring and is not invisible. I have always wondered about this.


We are in no way experts when in comes to LotR, but didn't it have something to do with the fact that Sauron forged it for himself? It's the ring of power, but perhaps it only makes others invisible? Hmmm... Time for research!


----------



## matt youngmark (Jan 11, 2011)

Once LOTR hits the public domain, look out. The question is: how WON'T people rewrite the Lord of the Rings? Frodo and Samwise solving crimes in a modern day London? All the elven folk return from the Gray Havens... AS VAMPIRES? Aragorn and Legolas and Zombies? This stuff practically writes itself!


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

I would just take out the first half of the first book.  That's the part I can never get past and supposedly, according to my friends who are fans, if you can make it past that point it's "really good."


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

There will be a cheaply made animé version, I guarantee it.


----------



## KerylR (Dec 28, 2010)

Tell it from the ring's POV and set it as a tragic romance between the Ring and Gollum.  Riff off of the Scarlet Letter a bit with the whole forbidden love idea and the same eternal resting place amid the lava.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

R. Reed said:


> There will be a cheaply made animé version, I guarantee it.


I'm pretty sure that has already come out. I recall back in my babysitting days the kids rented "the lord of the rings." I was like, aren't you guys a little young for a movie like that? Turned out to be this cheeseball cartoon version.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Alain Gomez said:


> I would just take out the first half of the first book. That's the part I can never get past and supposedly, according to my friends who are fans, if you can make it past that point it's "really good."


It does pick up a bit after that, but if you loathe that part I doubt you'd like the rest as the writing style etc. doesn't change and is still very heavy on detail, history etc. Just with more action mixed in than the first part of the first book.


----------



## AJB (Jul 9, 2010)

I'd have more female characters - of the ones in there now, there's only Éowyn who's got anything like an interesting story. I'd probably replace some of the male members of the Fellowship with females, too and perhaps make Saruman a woman. Or the Ents.

Amanda


----------



## Stephen T. Harper (Dec 20, 2010)

I apologize in advance if posting this is a faux paus, but the way the original question was phrased was too interesting not to respond. 

I hope this doesn't anger anyone, but below I've pasted a reader review of my book that is germane to this topic.  His review is very insightful and, I think, quite correct.  The book he's reviewing is not a Fantasy, btw, it's a modern paranormal thriller and any connection to LotR was unintentional on my part.  In writing about the Signet Ring of King Solomon, a "real" item of legend and history, which just happens to be a "magic ring," I did a lot of research into the subject of magic rings in general, and read many of the works that influenced Tolkien.  Gradually, as the story I was writing unfolded before me, I realized that you could in fact draw a straight line from Tolkien's "many forgotten ages" mythos, not only to my story, but any story involving myths and magic rings.  This of course was something that Tolkien probably had in mind.  

Obviously, I am not trying to compare myself to Tolkien and make no claim of connection other than what this reader mentions.  But it is interesting.

"King's X is a great thriller, which operates on a number of levels. First and foremost, the characters are interesting, complex, and well developed, and the pace of the action is fast, and the twists and turns are surprising and unpredictable. Underneath this big romantic action packed story, it is really like a modern, real-world twist on the J.R.R. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. It takes the previous ages of the earth notion of Lord of the Rings, cuts away all the fantasy stuff and very convincingly brings the ring into our world. To Los Angeles, in fact. There have been many famous "magic rings" in myths and legends of the world. Who's to say that King Solomon's legendary ring, supposedly given to him by God himself, didn't come from a lost time, or have power that seemed magic? Harper's story tracks the ownership of just such a magic ring through history, with vivid descriptions of what life was like in the near and distant past. If you're a student of history, or want to have fun learning a little bit of history, I highly recommend reading King's X."


----------



## Zackery Arbela (Jan 31, 2011)

The problem I have with a lot of fanfic written as sequels is the overwhelming presence of Mary Sue characters (never did learn where that term originated...) which is fine and dandy for ones private imaginings, but doesn't really work for an actual story. That was the problem with a lot of the Tolkien copies by way of dungeons and dragons....


----------



## Zackery Arbela (Jan 31, 2011)

AJB said:


> I'd have more female characters - of the ones in there now, there's only Éowyn who's got anything like an interesting story. I'd probably replace some of the male members of the Fellowship with females, too and perhaps make Saruman a woman. Or the Ents.
> 
> Amanda


That was one of the things they changed in the movies, giving Arwen more time...along with some actual dialogue. Some of the purist fanboys were a bit put out...personally I didn't see the big deal. Where else will you get to see Liv Tyler speaking in elvish?


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Zackery Arbela said:


> That was one of the things they changed in the movies, giving Arwen more time...along with some actual dialogue. Some of the purist fanboys were a bit put out...personally I didn't see the big deal. Where else will you get to see Liv Tyler speaking in elvish?


I think this was a great improvement by Jackson and his co-writers. I actually think almost all of their changes were improvements. Purist fanboys...well, whatever! Jackson and the production team bent over backwards to keep them happy.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Alain Gomez said:


> I'm pretty sure that has already come out. I recall back in my babysitting days the kids rented "the lord of the rings." I was like, aren't you guys a little young for a movie like that? Turned out to be this cheeseball cartoon version.


You must be referring to the Ralph Bakshi movie from the 1980's. There's no other animated version. There was an animated TV "The Hobbit," though. I wouldn't call the Bakshi movie cheeseball, though I haven't seen it for many years.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

R. Reed said:


> You must be referring to the Ralph Bakshi movie from the 1980's. There's no other animated version. There was an animated TV "The Hobbit," though. I wouldn't call the Bakshi movie cheeseball, though I haven't seen it for many years.


I watched the trailer. One in the same. Though at the time of watching I did not realize it came out in 1978. I thought since there was all the Lord of the Rings hype at the time, someone was just trying to make a fast buck.


----------



## Zackery Arbela (Jan 31, 2011)

DYB said:


> I think this was a great improvement by Jackson and his co-writers. I actually think almost all of their changes were improvements. Purist fanboys...well, whatever! Jackson and the production team bent over backwards to keep them happy.


They dud cut the Tom Bombadil scenes...was hoping they might be in the Directors cut DVD. Ah well...maybe a future writer could tell the story of Tom and Goldberry?


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Zackery Arbela said:


> They dud cut the Tom Bombadil scenes...was hoping they might be in the Directors cut DVD. Ah well...maybe a future writer could tell the story of Tom and Goldberry?


Yeahhh....I did not miss Tom Bombadil, I must confess. When I was reading the novel and finally got to the end of Bombadil I thought to myself: "What the hell was that?" 

The only thing I missed was the burning of the Shire, but I understood why Jackson left it out. If he were to include everything we'd need another couple of movies at least.


----------



## Mark Feggeler (Feb 7, 2011)

I would leave most of it as is, except add a talking squirrel named Zippy and a time-traveling cowboy.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

DYB said:


> Yeahhh....I did not miss Tom Bombadil, I must confess. When I was reading the novel and finally got to the end of Bombadil I thought to myself: "What the hell was that?"
> 
> The only thing I missed was the burning of the Shire, but I understood why Jackson left it out. If he were to include everything we'd need another couple of movies at least.


I actually loved the Tom Bombadil scenes, as well as much of the surrounding events (such as them getting stuck in that cave/tomb with the dead trying to kill them). But I also understand why it was left out, same with the scouring of the Shire.


----------



## altworld (Mar 11, 2010)

Just because you can do such a thing, does it mean you should?

The LOTR to me is a story about hope and friendship, right up to the end even when mighty armies were clashing it came down to the hope of Frodo being about to get to Mount Doom, and the power of Sam's devotion to Frodo so he could complete that task. That is the stories cores, hope and friendship.

It will of course get rewritten, even now that is happening and there are clones of LOTR out there, some are longer (far too long) and others are shorter, but they exist.
Arigato,
Nick Davis


----------



## matt youngmark (Jan 11, 2011)

R. Reed said:


> You must be referring to the Ralph Bakshi movie from the 1980's. There's no other animated version. There was an animated TV "The Hobbit," though. I wouldn't call the Bakshi movie cheeseball, though I haven't seen it for many years.


Actually, the company that made that hobbit TV thing did go on to make the Return of The King in a similar style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_the_King_(1980_film)

According to wikipedia, the guy who voiced Sauron was the same guy who played Scooby Doo. Ah, the '80s.


----------



## KerylR (Dec 28, 2010)

AJB said:


> I'd have more female characters - of the ones in there now, there's only Éowyn who's got anything like an interesting story. I'd probably replace some of the male members of the Fellowship with females, too and perhaps make Saruman a woman. Or the Ents.
> 
> Amanda


Even the original reviewers of the book (back in the 50's) mentioned there weren't enough female characters.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

I never knew about the Rankin/Bass "Return of the King." It might be interesting to see it, just for laughs.


----------



## dltanner99 (Sep 9, 2010)

I agree, regarding the Wagner influence on Tolkien. However, the archtypes and elements are almost identical between LOTR, and William Morris' "The Well at the World's End".


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> I actually loved the Tom Bombadil scenes, as well as much of the surrounding events (such as them getting stuck in that cave/tomb with the dead trying to kill them). But I also understand why it was left out, same with the scouring of the Shire.


Tom Bombadil is possibly my favorite character from Lord of the Rings. His scenes are mysterious, magical, and beautiful. Tolkien wrote about wizards, kings, and armies... but he also cared deeply about the vanishing English countryside, and the ancient power of nature. There's something almost Wiccan about his scenes, isn't there? Tom Bombadil, I think, is Middle Earth's Mother Nature.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

dltanner99 said:


> I'm a huge Tolkien fan, but at the end of the movie, when Gandalf comes for the Hobbits astride the great eagle Gwahir, it seems they could have ridden the giant birds to Mount Doom, in the first place. But hey, I wouldn't miss the adventure for anything in the world!


Peter Jackson once spoke of this. He explained that the Nazgul would have attacked the eagles. The eagles could only fly to Mordor after Sauron was already defeated.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

Daniel Arenson said:


> Peter Jackson once spoke of this. He explained that the Nazgul would have attacked the eagles. The eagles could only fly to Mordor after Sauron was already defeated.


But couldn't the dwarfs whip up some mithril armor for the eagles, and then Gandalf could put some magic on it, and maybe a laser on their heads and Nazgul-seeking missiles? I mean, rather than spend most a year walking around the world, a little ironmongering could have gone a long way...


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

All I asked for was some frickin' eagles with frickin' laser beams on their heads.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

I just saw this article:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/the_lord_of_the_rings/index.html?story=/books/laura_miller/2011/02/15/last_ringbearer


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I once had a dream of Lord of the Rings. I dreamed that I explained to Sauron that no one would like him if he went around being evil. That doesn't seem like a good candidate for a rewrite.   With the Scooby Doo voices from the animated Return of the King, I kept expecting them to pull the mask of the ringwraith, and reveal it was really the caretaker.


----------



## Mark Feggeler (Feb 7, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> I once had a dream of Lord of the Rings. I dreamed that I explained to Sauron that no one would like him if he went around being evil. That doesn't seem like a good candidate for a rewrite.  With the Scooby Doo voices from the animated Return of the King, I kept expecting them to pull the mask of the ringwraith, and reveal it was really the caretaker.


"And I'd have gotten away with it, if not for that dog and you meddling Hobbits!"


----------



## Julie Christensen (Oct 13, 2010)

I would shorten the tree and war scenes in the second book.  Otherwise, it's perfect, and even with the scenes in the second book, I would still, and will stilll, continue to re-read it.


----------



## Cathymw (May 27, 2010)

I'd replace the name J. R. R. Tolkien with the name Cathy Wiley and rake in the money.


----------



## MrPLD (Sep 23, 2010)

It is interesting how there is a perception that JRR created fantasy/elves/etc but as others have mentioned, really if you dig deeper you find he himself has influences from the past as do all writers and artists.  I suppose what makes JRR stick out a bit more is the fact that his works became a strong focal point for items of the genre due to his masterful job of creating a world and the depth of his research in doing so.  I believe that JRR's work is more of a notable milestone as opposed to a unique creation out of a vacuum.


----------



## MrPLD (Sep 23, 2010)

Cathymw said:


> I'd replace the name J. R. R. Tolkien with the name Cathy Wiley and rake in the money.


Now that's some smart thinking!


----------



## KRCox (Feb 18, 2011)

Lord of the Rings is an iconic story that can never be rewritten, just rehashed. The idea of trying to redo a work, a work that inspired every fantasy novel, with elves and wizards and war, afterward, is silly. Sometimes good things should just be enjoyed for the way they are, not by trying to outdo them, or out compete them.


----------

