Can It Go Away, Please??

 First of all, I wish to state that this blog post (well, all, really) are my own personal opinion. I am not 'attacking' anybody's personal collections, just stating my disinterest in some of these following items.

There are some Tolkien items that I wish could be wiped from existence, or rather; never see or hear about again. They are as follows, as well was my reasoning. It's not unjustified dislike. 



Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings (Part 1 ONLY, that is) film

This film has many fans. Most of them, saw it close to its initial release, and was their first taste of Tolkien. That's all well and good, as we see things differently as children than we do as adults. (That's why I cannot watch the original Ninja Turtles cartoon NOW, and why I laughed the whole way through this movie; as I saw it when I was 17.) That being said: this is not a good movie. Take off the nostalgia goggles, it sucks.

Here are a few reasons why, taken from this article: http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm .

The Ring-inscription.
In Bag End, Gandalf asks Frodo if he sees any inscription on the Ring. Finding none, they throw it into the fire. After a moment. Gandalf pulls the Ring back out of the fire. Frodo comments with surprise that it is still quite cool. But they never bother to look for the Ring-inscription, which makes the whole business of throwing the Ring into the fire kind of pointless.

(S)Aruman.
They decided to rename "Saruman" to "Aruman" for the movie; evidently they were concerned that moviegoers would confuse the name "Saruman" with "Sauron". That's all well and good, I suppose... but they only call him "Aruman" half the time, and the rest of the time they go back to calling him "Saruman". So the guy has two names used interchangeably throughout the movie, which is even more confusing. Why bother doing this if you're not even going to be consistent about it?

Why Are We Going To Mount Doom?
"We cannot keep it, we cannot destroy it," Elrond says of the Ring. A moment later, he says: "We must send the Ring to the fire where it was made - to Mount Doom." Curiously, he doesn't say why it is necessary to do so. Those of us who have read the book know it's to destroy the Ring; but how is the rest of the audience supposed to know that? After all, he just finished saying that "we cannot destroy" the Ring, didn't he?...

Anduril.
Outside the gates of Moria, Aragorn draws his sword. It is no longer broken. The movie never bothers to explain this change, and so it comes off looking like a continuity error rather than the missing plot-element it actually is.

It's Pronounced "Keleborn", Not "Sell-a-born".
It's the first note in Appendix E, for God's sake. Didn't they research the pronunciation of names at all?
...But, of course, the filmmakers don't care about such details. They can't even decide whether the name of the Wizard at Isengard is Saruman or Aruman. Later on in the movie, we'll also learn that Gandalf and Aragorn don't even agree on the pronunciation of "Edoras".
Sadly, this kind of sloppiness and lack of attention to detail can be seen in all the other aspects of the film as well.

Treebeard.
It's hard to know what to say about Treebeard, since the movie ends before he really gets a chance to do anything. Since the Ents never get to attack Isengard, never see Gandalf, and never appear at Helm's Deep, their inclusion in the movie makes no sense. Treebeard just becomes another Tolkien's-Greatest-Hits element that gets gratuitously tossed in. Pity, really.
But here's another question: Why is it that Treebeard spits leaves whenever he talks?

he Bait-And-Switch.
Needless to say, when they first opened this movie it came forth with lots of pre-opening publicity and advertising. Many exciting facts about the movie were revealed in an effort to get people into the theatre.
Unfortunately, one of the exciting facts that was not revealed was that the movie was incomplete.
That's right: they publicised the movie as Tolkien's complete Lord of the Rings, giving no hint to anyone that it was, in fact, only Part One. It was even advertised that way. And they kept you on in that belief right up to the very moment when you had paid for the movie, sat through the whole thing, and were waiting to see how they were going to screw up the ending - my friends and I were actually looking forward to it in a perverse way, since a glance at our watches told us they'd have to tie up all the loose ends very quickly - when suddenly the narrator announces that Part One has just concluded and the credits begin to roll. The advertising for this movie was so brazenly deceptive I'm surprised there weren't any lawsuits.

On the other hand, I suppose I should be thankful that it stopped as soon as it did.

In fact, it might have been a better movie if they'd stopped Part One at, say, Weathertop. That, at least, could have been looked at as an act of mercy. :)

[end quotes]

I'd be completely fine if I don't ever see or hear about this abomination ever again. Worse yet, are those that think this is better than Peter Jackson's Rings films. I'd say the many faults of the animated attempt FAR outweigh the (few) faults of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films.




The Road Goes Ever On

I have no idea why this is so popular among collectors. What's the appeal? Is it because it's hard to find? So Tolkien liked Donald Swann.....OK, does that mean that since Tolkien smoked a pipe, all of his fans should??

I don't know about you, but I don't remember any pianos being in Middle-earth. Also, when I think of music from, or about, Middle-earth, piano music definitely isn't it. Now, if a church in Oxford performed Namarie, for instance, that would be fine.

However, we open a can of worms when we exam why some Tolkien rock songs (offerings by Led Zeppelin, Blind Guardian, etc) are fine, yet this doesn't sit well with me. It just.....doesn't.

In short: I'd rather this be set to orchestral music instead of piano music. It doesn't feel like it belongs in, or from, Middle-earth. 

 

The Lord of the Rings Millennium Edition

Great idea in theory, and I understand the appeal/interest in this set. However, bad execution.

The Lord of the Rings is one novel (not a series of them), consisting of six books, plus the appendices and index. Often times, you get it as one large book, or in three parts. This release, however, breaks them down, and gives each segment its own (physical) book. Even neater, is the fact that each has its own title. They are: The Ring Sets Out, The Ring Goes East (which is The Fellowship of the Ring), The Treason of Isengard, The Ring Goes East (which is The Two Towers), The War of the Ring and The End of the Third Age, then the appendices etc (which is The Return of the King.)

The problem is, the quality of printing and production. The hardback edition is quite frankly, quite shoddy in terms of quality. However, there are no production issues with paperback editions (from either Houghton Mifflin or HarperCollins). For the hardbacks, the problem is the quality of the print: the paper and font quality, as well as the binding.

So if this release interests you, track down the paperback edition instead. I believe HarperCollins re-issued their paperback one in 2011/2012 (forget which year), so that one may be more easily (and cheaply) obtained. A warning against spending more on this set than it's worth. 

Had this set been better produced, a similar five-part edition of The Silmarillion could've been neat, as well.




The Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings "Collector's" Editions

This one definitely annoys me. The Millennium Edition was more of a word of caution or to be be wary, but this set bugs me.

In a nutshell, all it has to offer are the nice covers and design aesthetics: the look on the outside (except for a goof: there are supposed to be seven stars with The White Tree, not nine). There, the attractiveness ends.

The fact that the publisher labels this as a collector's edition leads one to believe it's got some unique features or extra stuff in it, that other hardbacks don't. There's not. I suppose that's the part that really bugs me: the fact they've called it a collector's edition.

The Hobbit doesn't even feature colour artwork: it features the usual 8 black and white images only (not counting maps). The Lord of the Rings doesn't feature the red ink used in a few spots in The Fellowship of the Ring, or the Leaves From the Book of Mazarbul plate section. On top of that, the actual print quality isn't the greatest (font & paper quality, and binding, much like the Millennium Edition above.)

The fact that it's called a collector's edition would lead one to believe that it's supposed to be nicer than it really is. Worse yet, it's now out of print. As such, places like Amazon (marketplace) and eBay have boosted the price to ridiculous amounts. This is owing to: a) it being called "collector's edition" and b) it's no longer being produced.

Now, there's nothing wrong at all if you got this when it first came out for a reasonable price, as a gift, etc I just want to steer people away from paying a lot more than this set is actually worth. 

If you want a nice 'reading copy', I wholeheartedly recommend the illustrated set from 2020, and the 'classic' editions that come in a boxed set with Hammond & Scull's Reader's Companion (it doesn't include The Hobbit, though. The 2020 set does).



Tolkien Books by David Day

There are a few sources that point out why David Day is best avoided (it's honestly better to not read any of his books than it is to read them, seeking information) on places such as a Reddit, TolkienGateway, and the YouTube video, 'We Need to Talk About David Day' by Talking Tolkien. So I won't go into those exact reasons here.

So why do they sell so well? There's a few reasons.

1. They are under 'T' for 'Tolkien' in bookstores instead of under 'D' for 'Day.'

2. Like the 2013 "collector's" edition of The Hobbit & The Lord of the Rings, they're pretty. The interior art isn't bad either. The problem is with the words, and, depending on the book, the 'lung' maps.

3. Most of the time these are gifts. Christmas/Birthday rolls around, and you know a big Tolkien fan. You, not being as big a Tolkien fan (or at all) see these titles and think "ohhh that'd be nice!". That and point 1 often go hand-in-hand (if they were under 'D' for 'Day', I'd bet they wouldn't sell).

In short, if you're contemplating buying a David Day book - for yourself or for a friend - don't.

So there you have it! If the above items got the E.T. video game landfill treatment, and they never get spoken of again, I'd be one happy camper.