[Curt]

Have you read it or will you read it before seeing the film?

I voted no because I refuse to read or partcipate until I've seen the film next Monday.

This thread has no other point btw so please feel free to spam to your hearts content.

[Henke]

LOTR is three of the best movies ever made!!!!

[Garyos]

*MAYOR SPOILER*

Spoiler:

Sam likes girls after all.....

[Jake]

"Mayor spoiler?"

Erm...

*SHERIFF SPOILER*

Spoiler:

I thought Max was the one who didn't even like girls. ... Ohhhh...

[Kingzjester]

Tolkien was a pansy. When I first read the book I was mortified by the lack of women in the books... Perhaps I misread something, or have a faulty memory since the movie seems to have plenty of them...

[Zygomaticus]

I think the only women really mentioned are some peoples' wives, and the obvious ones: Galadriel and Arwen.

[Curt]

I post a pointless thread with a dumb poll and still people vote and comment. Where's all the spam? You guys are waaaay too serious.

Kode - Eowyn?????

[remixor]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

Tolkien was a pansy. When I first read the book I was mortified by the lack of women in the books... Perhaps I misread something, or have a faulty memory since the movie seems to have plenty of them...

I certainly wouldn't say "plenty." They had to invent quite a lot of scenes with females to come up with the meager amount that were present in the films.

[Henke]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

Tolkien was a pansy. When I first read the book I was mortified by the lack of women in the books... Perhaps I misread something, or have a faulty memory since the movie seems to have plenty of them...

You're absolutely right and it's the only flaw I can find about the books. I have read some of Robert Jordans books and they are not nearly as good as Tolkiens work, except for one thing. They have woman in them as well and the love stories are, for example, way better then the rubbish Tolkien wrote about that subject.

But nothing beats Star Wars Episode II in terms of worthless love stories. I didn't know if I were to laugh or cry (but since the movie was incredibly bad all around I decided to cry).

[Curt]

Originally Posted by Henke

You're absolutely right and it's the only flaw I can find about the books. I have read some of Robert Jordans books and they are not nearly as good as Tolkiens work, except for one thing. They have woman in them as well and the love stories are, for example, way better then the rubbish Tolkien wrote about that subject.

But Tolkien wasn't writing a love story, he was writing a war story. I see the small number of female roles in the books more as a characteristic of how Tolkien viewed war, probably predominantly based on medieval war and WWI - wars where most of the major roles were taken by men.

Watch Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge on the river Kwai, Where Eagles Dare or any other war based film (or book) and see how many female characters there are in those. On this basis it's fair to assume that Tolkien was actually rather generous in having THREE key female roles in what was essentially a war book.

[Henke]

Originally Posted by Curt

But Tolkien wasn't writing a love story, he was writing a war story. I see the small number of female roles in the books more as a characteristic of how Tolkien viewed war, probably predominantly based on medieval war and WWI - wars where most of the major roles were taken by men.

Watch Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge on the river Kwai, Where Eagles Dare or any other war based film (or book) and see how many female characters there are in those. On this basis it's fair to assume that Tolkien was actually rather generous in having THREE key female roles in what was essentially a war book.

Well if you only look at it as a war story or a mythology then you're right. But I really think the story is to long to be labeled as only one of those two. It gets a little more then that.

[Kingzjester]

Originally Posted by remixor

I certainly wouldn't say "plenty." They had to invent quite a lot of scenes with females to come up with the meager amount that were present in the films.

Plenty compared to what I was expecting.

[Henke]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

Plenty compared to what I was expecting.

Well there aren't technicly more female characters in the movies compared to the books.

[BacardiJim]

Ummmmm.....errrrrr........ Eowen of Rohan was, if anything a MORE significant character in the books than in the movies. MUCH more significant than Arwen, who had her role expanded in the movies. (I guess to offer a romance for female viewers?)

And, as much as I enjoyed RotK, I still think (to continue the Star Wars analogy) that TTT was the best of the three films. Of course, I'll have to wait until I see the "extended version" of RotK before I make a final decision about that.

[Henke]

Originally Posted by BacardiJim

Of course, I'll have to wait until I see the "extended version" of RotK before I make a final decision about that.

Until we have seen the extended version, we have only seen a really long trailer for the movie (3 and a half hour long to be exact).

[Kingzjester]

Originally Posted by BacardiJim

Ummmmm.....errrrrr........ Eowen of Rohan was, if anything a MORE significant character in the books than in the movies. MUCH more significant than Arwen, who had her role expanded in the movies. (I guess to offer a romance for female viewers?)

Out of the 1500 aggregate pages, the ladies get far less treatment than the laddies; they are pushed out of the focus with one outstanding Jean d'Arc moment. There could easily have been a woman in the company of nine. Boromir should've been a woman and then it would've been perfect! Women are to blame for everything anyway. An adamant Catholic like Tolkien should know that. Maybe she (i.e. Boromir) could've given a speech at his 'deathbed' about how humans want too much power, BUT human women are a double whammy - since they are also too weak to control themselves, and inadvertently prone to doing evil...

[doughy white]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

There could easily have been a woman in the company of nine. Boromir should've been a woman and then it would've been perfect! Women are to blame for everything anyway. An adamant Catholic like Tolkien should know that. Maybe she (i.e. Boromir) could've given a speech at his 'deathbed' about how humans want too much power, BUT human women are a double whammy - since they are also too weak to control themselves, and inadvertently prone to doing evil...

Hehe, this got my fantasy going...

Seriously though (sorry Curt), I don't know what all the fuss here is about. I never missed the presence of women in the story/film at all (maybe because I'm a woman myself ). ONE woman in the company of nine *shudders* would probably have been as bad as a woman on a pirate's ship (actually not the woman would have been bad there, but the men).
It's a mens' world that Tolkien describes, a simple world and a world in pre-medieval times. And at that time where the race of humans is concerned, women have their place within the family cooking and tending and the "female arts" like making tapestries, singing and making the home look beautiful rather than learning how to fight. Plus, Tolkien wrote LOTR in Oxford in the 1930's AND he was catholic at that. I'm pretty amazed he gave Eowyn an in the battle important part (and then it had to be amazone like) part in the book.

That's how I see it *shrugs*

[Zygomaticus]

I was recently watching a friend's copy of the Fellowship of the Ring extended version and there's this scene when the fellowship are leaving Lorien (?) Legolas says, "Mmmm...Lembass bread. One small bite is enough to fill the stomach of a full grown man," and he takes a tiny bite out of the piece.

Then Pippin and Merry look guiltily at each other and Merry asks Pippin, "How many did you eat?" Pippin puts on this awesome expression and says, "Four."

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH


I wish they hadn't cut that out.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Henke

I have read some of Robert Jordans books and they are not nearly as good as Tolkiens work,

Yes they are, they're a lot better.
Of course, without Tolkien, there would have been no Jordan, so...

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Curt

But Tolkien wasn't writing a love story, he was writing a war story. I see the small number of female roles in the books more as a characteristic of how Tolkien viewed war, probably predominantly based on medieval war and WWI - wars where most of the major roles were taken by men.

Watch Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge on the river Kwai, Where Eagles Dare or any other war based film (or book) and see how many female characters there are in those. On this basis it's fair to assume that Tolkien was actually rather generous in having THREE key female roles in what was essentially a war book.

The people in LOTR don't spend their time fighting. Some of them are even not fighters at all. The hobbits could have been all women, as far as logic is involved.
The lack of women in LOTR bothered me a lot the first time I read it, and I was rather young, so no obsession there, just wonderment. Now it just annoys me.