Will LOTR become less popular over time?

[siddharth]

* * See above

[BerenVonRictoffen]

How was Jackson true to the story? Clearly big-budget production distracts you from the shield-surfing, dwarf-tossing and the Living Dead, while the steward of Gondor became the Human Torch and a pinata, as well as joining Aragorn in taking up cliff-diving, and Brego becomes Hidalgo.
But there are some who still think it could be done better.

[siddharth]

If big-budget production distracts you from the shield-surfing, dwarf-tossing and the Living Dead, while the steward of Gondor becames the Human Torch and a pinata, as well as joining Aragorn in taking up cliff-diving, and Brego becomes Hidalgo.

Only to be balanced by (and in fact surprassed by) some truly sublime moments aka Kahazad Dum, Amon Din, Theodred's funeral, Boromir's death, Aragorn's crowning, Aragorn's grave, "Concerning Hobbits", everything in the opening hour of FotR, Gollum's debate, Frodo and Sam in Mordor ....

That the battles looked good was only a bonus to this, Big-budget or not.

Bakshi has nothing to boast of on the same level.

[BerenVonRictoffen]

No, these points all missed the boat to Valinor. I've decided not to go into the reasons.

[siddharth]

Was generally speaking of people who actually enjoy cinema there, so that isn't a surprise.


// osgilliation

[BerenVonRictoffen]

Was generally speaking of people who actually enjoy cinema there, so that isn't a surprise.

And since we're talking about the books, then it's settled a better movie will avoid these errorsand lead to greater popularity.

[Shadowman82]

I doubt it , it's been popular since it was released and that was in the 50s so I see no reason why the books should become less popular in the future .

[BerenVonRictoffen]

I doubt it , it's been popular since it was released and that was in the 50s so I see no reason why the books should become less popular in the future .

Because of the Jackson film giving it a bad name about shield-surfing Elves, an ambiguously gay couple's wedding ring, and Dwarf-tossing, all under some Illuminati-symbol.

[Shadowman82]

I would say despite all that Jackson's films probably inspired a fair few people who have not read the books to do so .

[siddharth]

I doubt it , it's been popular since it was released and that was in the 50s so I see no reason why the books should become less popular in the future .

Because of the Jackson film giving it a bad name about shield-surfing Elves, an ambiguously gay couple's wedding ring, and Dwarf-tossing, all under some Illuminati-symbol.

Sorry, evidence speaks completely against you. See the figures I gave in the previous page for a sampling.

[TheGreenWizard]

Despite the digression of current conversation, I do certainly hope that this novel will not fade in popularity. I think the release of the three films did a lot to draw attention back to the book. I myself as a child began reading the book when my father began to speak of his all time favorite book being adapted to the big screen. While popularity my fade a bit post-Hollywood production, I believe tLotR will always remain a classic and relevant.

[PunkMaister]

Duh Sauron's eye is clearly the symbolical one eye of God that the illuminati, the Freemasons and may other organizations use and is even the U.S dollar too.
Hardly news at all.

[LucretiusII]

I don't really think it will become less popular, though undoubtedly there will be fluctuations of popularity, as there have been over the last 50 odd years.

That said, I think Middle-earth could become in the future even more popular than it is today, if there are remakes of the films (perhaps a generation or two away) or if the Estate changes its views and other films are made (though this is unlikely).

[ngaur]

I might be wise for the estate to hold on to its view cocerning these things. Certainly more Middle-Earth movies and TV-series and other spin-offs could make it more popular over time, but would also warp it beyond recognition. It becomes a question of wether Middle-Earth will gain popularity or popular opinion will consume Middle-Earth. Just look at how badly Peter Jackson has already twisted the story and characters. Yet fans of the movie already consider, in their ignorance, this to be a possible Middle-Earth.

Popularity will rise. But if Lord of the Rings will be recognizable remains to be seen.

[BerenVonRictoffen]

Duh Sauron's eye is clearly the symbolical one eye of God that the illuminati, the Freemasons and may other organizations use and is even the U.S dollar too.
Hardly news at all.

I think it's more an Orwellian symbol of "Big Brother" valuing of state intelligence over privacy, which Stalin practiced by encouraging people to spy on each other and report "suspicious behavior--" even in times of peace, naturally claiming "national security." This led to millions being arrested and executed or sent to gulags as "enemies of the state." (In fact, a recent Republican bill attempted the suspension of habeas corpus for suspected "terrorism supporters," while it's no secret that many others did the same in the West.)
Tolkien greatly feared the West falling into the same trap as the East, and refused the nationalist conceit of moral supremacy, while demonstrating symbolically that fear and power would corrupt anyone-- as with Frodo first refusing the Ring, and then falling to its power after using it on Gollum.

The Illuminati symbol, meanwhile, represents "the all-seeing Eye of Providence--" which they held to be separate from any person, rather than centralized intelligence among Freemasons (which would contradict the term "free" vs. agents of the state).

[TheGreenWizard]

I think Tolkien's fear of industry is more prevalent in the books than that of moral decline. Rampant destruction of wilderness was not popular amongst those who shared Tolkien's love of the Earth. The Professor loved England's rolling landscape, the country estates and endless gardens. He was fearful of what industry would bring to the world and the effect it would have on England's landscape.

All the antagonists of this story share traits similar to this fear Tolkien had. Most notably is Saruman's intention to bring Middle Earth into a new age, an age he specifically describes as industrious. The Shire is a perfect example of the ideal picture of England he had in his mind.

[Lysandros]

I think the books are likely to remain quite popular given that the movies, love or hate em, gave the works a tremendous boost. Literally millions of people read the books for the first time in the last 15 years or so and lots of them will recommend the books to their kids. That alone would sustain the sales for another generation. Then, no doubt, other media projects will return the franchise to prominence. I can see the Tolkien Estate eventually loosening up and green-lighting more interpretations of the books, including the lesser known ones.

Farmer Giles of Ham, for instance, would make for an amazing Pixar-style movie. A movie like that reaches hundreds of millions of people at a time when they are super-influence-able.

[BerenVonRictoffen]

I think the books are likely to remain quite popular given that the movies, love or hate em, gave the works a tremendous boost.

And I hate them, because that "boost" will be short-term by being based on the bizarre vs. the familiar, anti-hero vs. heroic, silly vs. serious, preachy vs. profound, etc-- thus leading to long-term drop in popularity. This isn't preserving, it's pimping; i.e. debasing something for sale to the lowest common demoninator, while the film's true beauty and morals are lost.
So when people think of Lord of the Rings, they'll think of it's a silly swords-and-sorcery "quest" story, rather than a classic novel.
But there are always dozens of renditions of various famous stories; Dickens alone has probably spawned hundreds; so this wasn't the first film on LotR, and it won't be the last.

[Diamond of Long Cleeve]

So when people think of Lord of the Rings, they'll think of it's a silly swords-and-sorcery "quest" story, rather than a classic novel.

The literary snobs already dismissed LotR as such, long before PJ made the films.

I know people who were pleasantly surprised to find themselves enjoying the films and oddly enough that made them regard the book in a kinder light. My reply to this was always the same: "The films are good, but the book is even better!"

[Lysandros]

that "boost" will be short-term by being based on the bizarre vs. the familiar, anti-hero vs. heroic, silly vs. serious, preachy vs. profound, etc-- thus leading to long-term drop in popularity. This isn't preserving, it's pimping; i.e. debasing something for sale to the lowest common demoninator,

While the merits of the movies are dubious (and I think you are overstating the flaws a bit), for sure, it is impossible to argue that they will make the books less popular. The book sales absolutely refute that. The reality is more people read the books since the movies came out than would have if they had never been made, by a long shot. The echo of that effect is going to be felt for decades regardless of critical opinions skewing downward due to the movies.

So when people think of Lord of the Rings, they'll think of it's a silly swords-and-sorcery "quest" story, rather than a classic novel.

Don't see how that would be a drawback and the general public had that opinion long before the movies came out anyway. But for the flicks, the so-called lowest common denominator would have never even attempted to read the books. Besides all that, you are overlooking the fact that the movies were by and large well received by the public so they don't understand their shortcomings until after they read the books.

So yeah, I am not agreeing with ya here.

[Xlranet]

I definitely do not think this, because i became a fan very recently.Also, around 100 years to the day when Tolkien started jotting down his ideas, I am probably right in saying that this website has probably the same amount of people on it, or even more,than when it first started to the present day!

[Elvish Hobbit]

I think only time will tell whether the books will be as popular in the future or not. But I think this isn't about something being "popular", for the popularity is a standard set by us that hardly determines the real thing. There are various books which have nothing in them to invest your time for but are popular like anything. The LotR books are the kind of literature that need exploration in each read. I guess the readers who have read these books for decades must have found something different in another reading that they didn't before. The depth of these books is kind of endless and the world of it is like a puzzle. So, no, as long as there are the readers who love to explore, learn and understand beyond what they're told, the popularity of the books will remain intact.

[Billobob]

I believe the books will turn into what other classics are beloved but no longer talked about all the time and just a fixture of society. But it will be sad when not as many people love middle earth anymore

[Jnyusa]

Yeah, LotR has achieved the status of a classic, which is different from being the next big thing.

But there's something in what Elvish Hobbit said about people reading this book over and over again ... I know lots of people who re-read LotR every year. I used to re-read it myself every year in November; for forty years I did that! Oddly, or not so oddly, I stopped doing it when I reached the age that Tolkien had been when it wrote it. It wasn't a conscious decision to stop reading it; just a sort of natural realization that all my discoveries were behind me. It does have an almost liturgical quality for lots of folks, which can't be said of most classics. I think that Tolkien did achieve his vision to a much greater extent than he knew, in that what he created is more than just a story. So LotR might occupy a unique niche in our culture and live on in ways different from other classics of literature.

[Morwenna]

[quote="Jnyusa*] It does have an almost liturgical quality for lots of folks, which can't be said of most classics. I think that Tolkien did achieve his vision to a much greater extent than he knew, in that what he created is more than just a story. So LotR might occupy a unique niche in our culture and live on in ways different from other classics of literature.[/quote]

That's a wonderful way of putting it! I feel the same way, though I never would have thought to state it that way; thank you.

Long ago I restricted my re-readings to once every two years; then for a long time I didn't re-read it at all, just fed off the memory. I've only re-read it about three times in the last 15 or so years. But I always want a copy to hand to at least revisit certain passages.

[Billobob]

unless LOTR is required reading in schools or if parents tell their children about the books, middle earth will fade away from the minds of us.

[heliona]

unless LOTR is required reading in schools or if parents tell their children about the books, middle earth will fade away from the minds of us.

No, it won't, because for starters, there are generations of people who read LotR when they were young, and have passed it down to their children, and so on. Also, for anyone interested in fantasy books, LotR is almost necessary reading. Middle-earth and beyond won't fade from our memory at all - it has been too influential on the fantasy genre. Also, there are academic books written about Tolkien and his writing - in my academic library, there are shelves of those books alongside his works, and they are quite popular for the English courses.

[Billobob]

Well good point.

[Elvish Hobbit]

I've come across various fantasy books that claim to be 'better' and more detailed than LOTR and people dissing at Tolkien. It's disheartening to say the least. Few weeks ago I came across a thread on a site which asked a question regarding LOTR's originality and popularity. I was, however, stunned to see majority of the replies over there being "LOTR is not special since it's been ripped off so many times." or "There are other better books out there like WoT, ASOIAF etc." or "Tolkien fans over-exaggerate his contribution in the modern literature." Further stating, the modern authors (like Mr. Jordan for WoT) have done work in much more depth etc. which makes them 'better' and that's what puts LOTR on the backseat when you talk about "epic fantasy." After reading the replies I could only wonder just because the modern books are higher in number makes them all deeper than Tolkien's? I might be overly harsh on the books and ignorant too since I haven't read them. Never felt like to. But I think, the reason I love LOTR and all the stories about Middle-earth is that they weren't being churned out of hunger of money but out of pure love for literature.

That said, I have read quite a lot in last 2 years (majorly classics; I try running away from the modern books most of the times). Both in poetry and stories, and Professor Tolkien is THE author I love.

Apart from that, I come from a place where books aren't read much, so I only have to look for fellow readers on the web. Unfortunate enough, that I barely see people having read Tolkien. In last 3 years I only have met 3 people who have read Tolkien and appreciate his works. A friend of mine started reading the books but got bored. Found Gollum interesting and annoying. Found Frodo annoying. The plot uninteresting. Oh, and we ended up fighting and not talking to each other for an entire week. xD It's obvious our generation values more of the YA novels because they can identify with them, and amid them, the books like LOTR get lost.

Sighs. I hope the world gets better before I die. :p

[siddharth]

I believe the books will turn into what other classics are beloved but no longer talked about all the time and just a fixture of society. But it will be sad when not as many people love middle earth anymore

I quite agree with your first statement. It will be, what the classics are today. Not as widely read as contemporary lit, but consciously or subconsciously intermingled within the arts and literature of the following times.

Game of Thrones seems to have overtaken the popularity with numerous arguments being put forth on how GRRM is superior to Tolkien. I presume it's a passing fad. The Tv show is quite good, but not something that will stand the test of time in my opinion. As for the books, I've only read one and it was quite average.