Star Wars and Lord of the Rings – Loose Connections
Posted under: So there’s this blog called Loose Connections. It doesn’t have many posts, but there are two that are just PHENOMINAL.
Lord of The Rings
I have not read the Lord of the Rings, I’ve only seen the movie (this is the point where several of you make hex symbols in my direction).
That being said, I have heard a great many people say that the lack of the Tom Bombadil character in the movies did not diminish them.
After reading Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil, I can honestly say I am BLOWN AWAY. Knowing just how much detail was crammed into the Silmarillion, I can only say that it seems incredibly possible that the author of this theory hit the nail on the head.
May I one day write something so sneakily awesome.
Star Wars
The second awesome theory on the blog references R2-D2 from Star Wars, hinting at a much tighter connection between the older (better, *cough*) trilogy and the newer (lamer, *coughcough*) one.
A New Sith, or Revenge of the Hope follows the same logic leaps to describe a network of intelligence that sheds new light on the actions of both Artoo and Chewbacca. It’s enough to make me want to watch the whole series again (fast-forwarding through most of the first episodes should make it take a lot less time).
That is great stuff, esp. the Star Wars one. I read the Trilogy (LOTR) so long ago, I don’t remember many of the details. But Tom Bombadil never stuck out for me, so I certainly didn’t miss him in PJ’s films.
And as for canon (Star Wars again), say what one will about Ep. 1-3, the six films are canon, to me, regardless of what other books have been written (none of which I’ve yet read).
I keep hearing conflicting information about whether the books are good, and haven’t had the ooph to try and suss out which authors are the good ones.
Like any book, the Lord of the Rings is neither empirically good nor bad. If you like it, it’s good, and if you don’t, it’s bad. Don’t ever wait for the world to tell you which it is. If you read it, and hate it, then at least you’ll know and even then it won’t be time wasted, given the place it holds in history.
(The astute reader will see I talked about the book in the singular. It’s a single book and definitely not a trilogy.)
:)
Charlie Hills´s last post ..Who Needs a Map?
Actually, we were talking about the Star Wars books there, not LOTR. ^_^
I definitely see LOTR as a single story rather than a trilogy, though.
Ah, okay. He started out with “I read the Trilogy (LOTR) so long ago, I don’t remember many of the details. But Tom Bombadil never stuck out for me, so I certainly didn’t miss him in PJ’s films.” and you said earlier “I have not read the Lord of the Rings” so my mind just kept going that direction.
Especially since “the books” is never the term that comes to mind when someone says “Star Wars”.
Charlie Hills´s last post ..Who Needs a Map?
I hated Tom B. and I was glad to see he was left out of the movie. LOVED the article, it makes sense.
I was the perfect age for the original Star Wars movies and we lived and breathed them. It’s the only thing we played all day, all summer long. for years. I really, really wanted to like the new movies, but they were bad. The last one was OK, but could have been so much better. I absolutely loved this article, it gave me so much to think about. I wish I was so clever!
My major issues with the “newer” star wars movies all involved storytelling more than anything else. Some things just didn’t make any sense to me!
And I agree, I totally wish I were that clever!
Loved the Star Wars article… It was wonderful. It also made me look at them in a totally new way. Now I actually want to read some of the books from in between the movies and see if this theory fits with those too…
(Usually I just read the ones about the next generation).
Casi´s last post ..Books are a Girl’s Best Friend
What’s your favorite Star Wars book? *curious*
My intention was to share the Star Wars theory at dinner and get feedback to share. But instead, the dinner converstation was a long, drawn-out argument about the opposite of nothing.
Before bed last night, Jacob said he needed me to sign some paperwork for school. But I am ever smarter than the offspring Bob and I have produced, and I read the document to be signed. It was a declaration of what the opposite of nothing is, a definition of nothing and a sworn testament to Jacob being right, of sorts.
This morning the document, unsigned, is hanging on the refrigerator. It is the symbolic flag of the winner, I am told.
You know what? I am not gonna share these ideas with my family. First, I have a more pressing battle to win. And secondly…..just too lazy to start another discussion. I am gonna turn the TV on for dinner tonight.
A country song about ocean front property in Arizona comes to mind.
Don’t make me put on TMZ tonight!
I don’t know if it’s sad or awesome that I had to look that up…
Awesome, for sure. I have a friend whose sister-in-law works on the program. I had to look it up as well.
I got a graphic AND mathematical terminology as proof of what the opposite of nothing is this afternoon. It is flawed logic, to be sure, but I did discover a dump in my logic, which I hope to resolve before others see the problem.
Also, Tom Bombadil is a character that predates the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien came up with the character even before writing the Hobbit. It’s not unusual to feel he’s not really part of the story (and therefore easily removed from most adaptations) because he isn’t. Tolkien just wanted to find a spot for this beloved character and that’s the “part” he got to play: Oldest and Fatherless.
I think my favorite quote about him is from Tolkien himself, “And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).”
There’s so much mystery and speculation about him simply because there’s supposed to be. :)
Charlie Hills´s last post ..Who Needs a Map?
That’s a very cool tidbit of knowledge!