I still keep them, they are one of my greatest treasures and I think that better editions have never been published than those (perhaps the edition of the shelf was better, but I don't have that one because in my country it was never published).

When I have a while I could see if I can find it for you.

I don't expect anyone to undertake a painstaking search, but if anybody just happens to want to look through the supplements, it's great.

XerachCruz wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:28 am I still keep them, they are one of my greatest treasures and I think that better editions have never been published than those (perhaps the edition of the shelf was better, but I don't have that one because in my country it was never published).

When I have a while I could see if I can find it for you.

Going off on a little tangent here....I like the LOTR (Ext. Ed.) DVDs because I like the way the cases look like books.
I don't know what kind of art is on the cases of the BDs, but I don't think they have the "book look" .
But I mainly keep them because I still don't care for the hi-res look of BDs where you can see every pore.
And sometimes the eyes look super bright, which I also find jarring if not a little creepy.
I still have a 40" Sony Bravia 720p flat screen (cue the Luddite chorus ) and so I'm not fully getting the improved image.
Yet I can see the difference between a DVD and a BD. So, (channeling Bilbo): No, thank you! We don't want any BDs!

Olorin wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 11:26 am I don't expect anyone to undertake a painstaking search, but if anybody just happens to want to look through the supplements, it's great.

I have searched the image galleries of appendices 1, 3 and 5 and I have not found that image. Maybe it shows up during one of the videos out of all the extras for a bit, I don't know.

With the search I have verified that the extra discs continue to work, I have not tried them for years.

If the bonus discs of the BD edition are actually DVDs, I guess the bonus discs will be the same.

Deimos wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 10:11 pm

XerachCruz wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:28 am I still keep them, they are one of my greatest treasures and I think that better editions have never been published than those (perhaps the edition of the shelf was better, but I don't have that one because in my country it was never published).

When I have a while I could see if I can find it for you.

Going off on a little tangent here....I like the LOTR (Ext. Ed.) DVDs because I like the way the cases look like books.
I don't know what kind of art is on the cases of the BDs, but I don't think they have the "book look" .
But I mainly keep them because I still don't care for the hi-res look of BDs where you can see every pore.
And sometimes the eyes look super bright, which I also find jarring if not a little creepy.
I still have a 40" Sony Bravia 720p flat screen (cue the Luddite chorus ) and so I'm not fully getting the improved image.
Yet I can see the difference between a DVD and a BD. So, (channeling Bilbo): No, thank you! We don't want any BDs!

Yes, for me they have the best presentation like a book in digipack. I think that the BD editions are not like that but normal plastic boxes with thick cardboard slipcover. I have the extended editions of the Hobbit on BD+3D and they come like this, plastic box and slipcover.

The LOTR trilogy also only had the movies on DVD until recently when I upgraded to the UHD editions when they were recently released, skipping the BD. They look amazing in 4K, better than ever. Not only the increase in resolution, but I think that with the new color grading it has improved the DVD a bit for my taste. Also, I've seen screenshots of the BD edition and the color grading on those editions is horrible, I put some screenshots to compare the color:



I do like to watch movies with the highest possible image quality, that strange effect you mention only happens to me in movies where the frames per second increase, which makes them look a lot like television, a home shoot or as if I had someone alive in front of me, something strange. But the 24 fps keeps it like cinema for me. Luckily in these editions they are at 24fps, even the Hobbit ones that were shot at many more fps (I don't remember exactly how many).

Deimos wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 10:11 pm

XerachCruz wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:28 am I still keep them, they are one of my greatest treasures and I think that better editions have never been published than those (perhaps the edition of the shelf was better, but I don't have that one because in my country it was never published).

When I have a while I could see if I can find it for you.

Going off on a little tangent here....I like the LOTR (Ext. Ed.) DVDs because I like the way the cases look like books.
I don't know what kind of art is on the cases of the BDs, but I don't think they have the "book look" .
But I mainly keep them because I still don't care for the hi-res look of BDs where you can see every pore.
And sometimes the eyes look super bright, which I also find jarring if not a little creepy.
I still have a 40" Sony Bravia 720p flat screen (cue the Luddite chorus ) and so I'm not fully getting the improved image.
Yet I can see the difference between a DVD and a BD. So, (channeling Bilbo): No, thank you! We don't want any BDs!

I loved the look of the DVD set, just like books and very classy. I kept it even though I bought the BluRays, though it's tucked away in a closet (my shelves and racks are already too full). The BluRay box looks very nice, at least the version I have:
As for your distaste for BD and big pores, I will refrain from calling you the Queen of the Luddites and instead say that yeah, you can really see a lot of details, like whiskers beneath the skin on beardless Elves and Hobbits, who's wearing makeup, etc. I could see where that could draw some people out of the experience.

@XerachCruz: Going by what I see (of your examples) on MY screen...BD is underwhelming...a definite 'pass' for me.
The UHD does look good but for me it's not so different from the the DVD example..res is better (duh!) but the colors are not so different.
Also, I watch a lot, and I mean a lot, of classic movies (think Casablanca, or the Alfred Hitchcock movies), many of which are in black-and-white.
(And if anyone dares to mention the versions that have been "colorized" I will pretend that you didn't bring it up.
"No, thank you! We don't want any colorized classic movies!" )

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I'm accustomed to watching lo-res movies that have lots of artifacts.
(Many of them have been remastered from deteriorating original films; the remastering is a last ditch attempt to save them.)
So I'm good with movies like LOTR in DVD format.

@Olorin... you may address me as "the Queen of the Luddites" . And it may surprise you to learn that I I have many like minded subjects out there.
And just so you can get a bigger laugh: I own a "dumb phone" .. A Samsung T199.
It lives in my purse, turned off; only to be used for car trouble.
I pre-purchase minutes for it.

For the past 5 years (I only got it when I retired in Sept of 2016--before that I owned nothing in the way of a cell phone) I have purchased 30 minutes per month ($5 per month) and I disabled the texting function ( the price per month would have gone up); I can neither send nor receive texts.
The phone died last month.

No, don't hold your breath hoping that occurrence would precipitate my entering the 21st C....nope.
I purchased an identical replacement ($32 on ebay NIB), transferred the SIM card, and that one now lives in my purse, turned off, awaiting a car trouble emergency.
And for a laugh-a-minute encore: I have a land-line.

Yes, the UHD has a more similar color to the DVD but with more natural and rich colors, the real improvement is really a lot, it just cannot be seen in the captures because it is due to the HDR, the high range of color and brightness that the UHD have, and that can only be seen through a TV with HDR directly from the UHD. The colors are much richer and more realistic, and when you see a light on the screen, such as a torch or the sun, they shine above the white that a normal screen can give, so it seems that they are actually emitting light.

Sunset or night scenes, where everything is dark and you have points of light, look spectacular.

HDR is the really worthwhile upgrade to UHD movies, not so much the uptick in resolution, which isn't as noticeable compared to a BD ...unless you have a gigantic TV.

They are also doing incredible remasters of black and white movies to UHD, I already buy a couple. They make new scans and recover the original grain that had been digitally erased in old BD editions. These editions of classic UHD movies are finally made with movie purists in mind.

Here I put an example capture of Psycho... an image as if you saw it in the cinema the day of its premiere.



Sorry for the offtopic.

And I also have a landline, but I bought a phone that can be silenced because they only calling commercials to sell me things.

XerachCruz wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 1:35 am HDR is the really worthwhile upgrade to UHD movies, not so much the uptick in resolution, which isn't as noticeable compared to a BD ...unless you have a gigantic TV.

That all depends on who did the upgrade and what the source was. I have seen plenty of movies upgraded to 4k from a 2k master that do not look better than the previous Blu Ray release, even with HDR. In some cases, they look worse. Most of the studios, except Disney, are getting better at it though.

Sony, Universal, and Paramount have had some great 4k upgrades of older titles in the past few years. Sony is probably the best, but I wish they would stop doing those combo boxed sets and just release all their films individually. Warner Brothers was great, but quality has been slipping recently. Lionsgate's releases are just average. Disney is probably the worst at it.

XerachCruz wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 1:35 am They are also doing incredible remasters of black and white movies to UHD, I already buy a couple. They make new scans and recover the original grain that had been digitally erased in old BD editions. These editions of classic UHD movies are finally made with movie purists in mind.

Here I put an example capture of Psycho... an image as if you saw it in the cinema the day of its premiere.

Universal did a fantastic job with the 4K DI of Psycho. It blew me away when I watched it last month. I seriously doubt any original 35mm print looked that good. Universal has an excellent restoration team that has been doing some incredible releases lately.

Same with WB and the LOTR 4Ks. It's a night and day difference to the Blu Rays. I knew they looked great after browsing through the disks the day I got them, but then I had the opportunity to see a direct comparison of the 4k to the Blu Ray using two projectors side-by-side. The difference, and improvement, was night and day, especially FOTR.

If I were to upgrade then yes, I would go for the UHD discs.
Also, I didn't know about the "super re-mastering" to UHD of the classics (B&W or color).
Thanks for letting me know about that.

Just an aside (another one)... The opening scene of Psycho where Janet Leigh is looking out of the hotel window of the [then] Jefferson Hotel... she is looking at Camelback Mountain, just NNE of downtown Phoenix....where I live. (Well, pretty close to where I live.)
I'm in the metro area about 15 miles east of that hotel, which is now called Barrister Place. It was built in 1915.

Olorin wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:30 pm
I loved the look of the DVD set, just like books and very classy. I kept it even though I bought the BluRays, though it's tucked away in a closet (my shelves and racks are already too full). The BluRay box looks very nice, at least the version I have:

i keep my DVD EE set on a shelf in my game room along with various other LOTR related items, the BDs are in the living room with the other BDs.

That set is just too pretty for me to hide

I still have my DVDs as well, and BC said it... the set is just simply the best-looking one they've released in 20 years.

I have the BD set which I'll probably give to someone, and now that big 4K set with all six movies which had no features to speak of, but that I bought 100% for the 4K quality, and man, do they ever not disappoint.

As for that image of Sauron, I don't recall ever seeing that, though I confess I only watched the documentaries once. Maybe I'm due to go back and rewatch them.

Nasnandos wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:08 am That all depends on who did the upgrade and what the source was. I have seen plenty of movies upgraded to 4k from a 2k master that do not look better than the previous Blu Ray release, even with HDR. In some cases, they look worse. Most of the studios, except Disney, are getting better at it though.

Yes, I have some movies in UHD that don't improve the BD, like the first ones in the Bourne saga that look the same or even worse. But they are a minority, almost all are of the first films shot in digital, when the cameras did not give more resolution and/or post-production was done in 2K. Those do not gain anything in resolution with the move to UHD. But the earlier movies shot on film or later shot with more modern digital cameras (4K or more), the gain is remarkable... the Hobbit movies in UHD have a quality amazing image, one of the best UHDs I've seen. They take advantage of the fact that they were shot in 5K, if I'm not mistaken.

Nasnandos wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 4:08 am Sony, Universal, and Paramount have had some great 4k upgrades of older titles in the past few years. Sony is probably the best, but I wish they would stop doing those combo boxed sets and just release all their films individually. Warner Brothers was great, but quality has been slipping recently. Lionsgate's releases are just average. Disney is probably the worst at it.

If with the Sony packs you refer to the Columbia Classics, they have already begun to publish individually the movies from the first pack, almost two years later but in the end they also come out separately.

In my country the pack is not sold and I have to wait for the individual ones inevitably. I recently bought Dr Stangelove and I'm waiting for the rest of the ones that interest me from the pack to be released.

Deimos wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 6:50 am If I were to upgrade then yes, I would go for the UHD discs.
Also, I didn't know about the "super re-mastering" to UHD of the classics (B&W or color).
Thanks for letting me know about that.

I had my collection with almost all the movies on DVD too, I only had about a dozen BDs compared to 20 times more DVDs and I didn't plan to update my collection, until I changed the TV for an OLED because the one I had broke and I tried how the movies looked in UHD with HDR. ...and there was no going back.

The worst thing about the update is that in addition to the TV you have to buy a new player compatible with UHD discs (or a console).

BladeCollector wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:11 am i keep my DVD EE set on a shelf in my game room along with various other LOTR related items, the BDs are in the living room with the other BDs.

That set is just too pretty for me to hide

Valkrist wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 10:23 am I still have my DVDs as well, and BC said it... the set is just simply the best-looking one they've released in 20 years.

I have the BD set which I'll probably give to someone, and now that big 4K set with all six movies which had no features to speak of, but that I bought 100% for the 4K quality, and man, do they ever not disappoint.

Yes, it deserves to be exhibited, I have it together with the UHD in the level dedicated to the middle earth of my movie library.

At UHD I bought the first editions that came out on steelbook, I did not wait for an collector's pack with all because I didn't want to risk to it not being released in my country, as happened with the shelf pack (Middle-earth Limited Collector's Edition), that was never sold in Spain. I've never seen this pack in person, but from what I've seen in photos, I think it's the only one that looks even prettier than the EE on DVD.

In the end, the Middle-earth UHD pack did release here too, but I haven't regretted buying the steelbooks because this new pack isn't as impressive as the limited shelf pack... If the UHD package with everything had been like this, I would have very much regretted not having waited.

The BluRay Middle-earth Limited Collector's Edition

XerachCruz wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 12:05 pm If with the Sony packs you refer to the Columbia Classics, they have already begun to publish individually the movies from the first pack, almost two years later but in the end they also come out separately.

That's the problem. Two years later, not all of them, and no official announcement that they will. Still no stand alone 4k release of Lawrence of Arabia. No guarantee the stuff in volume two will get individual releases either.

Nasnandos wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 7:01 am That's the problem. Two years later, not all of them, and no official announcement that they will. Still no stand alone 4k release of Lawrence of Arabia. No guarantee the stuff in volume two will get individual releases either.

Yes, they take too long to release them separately. I don't understand that strategy of selling them in packs, it will be that they make more money that way.

I suppose that Sony did not announce them with more time because they do not want to harm the sale of the packs and until they are sold out they will not release them separately... for Taxi Driver we will have to wait another two years more for sure.

Lawrence of Arabia maybe come out this year for the 60th anniversary, but I don't know, I think they haven't announced anything yet. I'm waiting to buy it too.

ooooooo... Lawrence of Arabia.... I haven't watched that in years.
Quite willing at the moment to dig out the DVD version to watch.
Just an aside ( a hijack of a hijack )... That was, I think, Peter O'Toole's breakout role.

Nasnandos wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 7:01 am That's the problem. Two years later, not all of them, and no official announcement that they will. Still no stand alone 4k release of Lawrence of Arabia. No guarantee the stuff in volume two will get individual releases either.

They have finally announced it for June 7 in USA. In my country they haven't announced it yet but I suppose that if they release it here, it will also come out this year for the 60th anniversary.

https://highdefdiscnews.com/2022/02/28/ ... e-in-june/

Deimos wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:27 pm ooooooo... Lawrence of Arabia.... I haven't watched that in years.
Quite willing at the moment to dig out the DVD version to watch.
Just an aside ( a hijack of a hijack )... That was, I think, Peter O'Toole's breakout role.

I have been told that the UHD remastered of Lawrence of Arabia is spectacular. I'm looking forward to buying it to see it.

Again, sorry for the off-topic.

XerachCruz wrote: Tue Mar 01, 2022 3:11 am They have finally announced it for June 7 in USA. In my country they haven't announced it yet but I suppose that if they release it here, it will also come out this year for the 60th anniversary.

I saw the announcement. It about time!

XerachCruz wrote: Tue Mar 01, 2022 3:11 am I have been told that the UHD remastered of Lawrence of Arabia is spectacular. I'm looking forward to buying it to see it.

I was able to see this in true 70mm back in the 1980s, so I know how awesome the real film looks. The 4k Even the 2012 Blu Ray was spectacular. Even though it was downscaled to 2k, they started with an 8k scan of the original 70mm film. It's a night and day difference between films that were scanned at 2k or 4k and then mastered in 4k. They used that same 8k scan for this 4k master, so it should be the closest thing we have to an actual theater experience, but with better sound.

As great as the LOTR 4ks look, they will never rival the look and definition of this because the 35mm film was only scanned in 4k, and all the effects scenes were originally created in 2k, so the image data will never be greater than that.

What was this thread about again

If anybody wants to own their own copy of an original Tolkien manuscript and money is no object, your ship may be coming in:

https://www.theonering.net/torwp/2022/0 ... the-hoard/

i think i might have to pass on this right now... money is a bit tight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi8q1Eopk2U

Happened across this on YouTube. I had no idea that he had ever been interviewed on camera.

Deimos wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:47 am HAPPY BIRTHDAY Bilbo and Frodo!

(Aaand here we are again....my gosh time flies (tempus fugit)
I'm posting this while it is still 21 Sep in Arizona becaaaaause... it is 22 Sep in Oxford England... where it all began.

Deimos wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:07 pm

Deimos wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:47 am HAPPY BIRTHDAY Bilbo and Frodo!

(Aaand here we are again....my gosh time flies (tempus fugit)
I'm posting this while it is still 21 Sep in Arizona becaaaaause... it is 22 Sep in Oxford England... where it all began.

yes, time flies... a year has passed again and I haven't even noticed.

Happy Hobbit Day, everyone!

Yes, Happy Birthday to Bilbo and Frodo, and thank you again to the Professor for the decades of enjoyment he has given us!

So, here's something interesting. I still haven't preordered The Fall of Numenor, still not having decided whether to get the standard or slipcased edition. I just now tried to see if I could find out a bit more about the slipcased edition and discovered something else Tolkien-related and very interesting....

For anyone who doesn't know, The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth is a tremendous reference book. If you still like having a hardcover book and not having to look things up on your phone, then this book is the way to go. If you need a more authoritative recommendation, CJRT said this: "Mr Robert Foster’s Complete Guide to Middle-earth supplies, as I have found through frequent use, an admirable work of reference." If CJRT used it frequently, let alone praised it, you know it's good.

The copy I have of it was published in 1978 and thus was up to date through The Silmarillion. They did an updated version in 2001 to coincide with the FOTR movie. I was looking through the "see inside" images on Amazon to see whether the 2001 version was updated any more than to list the subsequent books on the "books by JRRT page," and couldn't tell. So I googled it but then immediately discovered a brand new 2022 edition:

https://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/ne ... t_id=38243

This comes in both standard and slipcover editions and is illustrated by Ted Nasmith, one of the better Tolkien illustrators (that image of the Argonath is a stunner). The standard edition is already out now and the deluxe is coming in a few weeks. Amazon US doesn't have the deluxe listed yet but it's on Amazon UK at just under £77 (about $85 US). In any event, there is even less information about how up to date this is than for the 2001 edition. Harper Collins, its publisher, doesn't even have it on their website? How can you publish a book and not have it on your website, for crying out loud? Scratch that, it's on their UK site: https://harpercollins.co.uk/products/th ... 8557450318

It should be noted several customers on Amazon UK said theirs arrived pretty beat up, so whatever I get, I should get from Amazon US, so it least it doesn't have to cross an ocean.

Well, and now I find this, which suggests it has never actually been updated past the publication of The Silmarillion: https://winteriscoming.net/2022/09/01/b ... dle-earth/

So, that's disappointing. I'll readily concede that it would have been a task comparable to CJRT's work in publishing all the later books, to update this guide to cross-reference all of that. At the end of the day, I will probably still end up ordering some form of this book, as my old copy is probably about dust from having been printed on the typical high acid content paper. The new version just looks too gorgeous not to get.

In any event, I still haven't drawn any conclusions about which version of The Fall of Numenor to get. Someone needs to swoop in here, research all of this for me, and post your findings. In the meantime, I have to feed the cat, water the porch plants, do the laundry, and clean house.

So, here's a look at some of the illustrations from The Fall of Numenor:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/ala ... f-numenor/

I've got a hunch that the only color illustration is the one on the dust jacket of the standard edition and that will not be replicated in the deluxe version, which tends to steer me toward the standard edition. But here's HC UK's page for the deluxe, which doesn't really reveal much more than what it looks like and the price: https://harpercollins.co.uk/products/th ... 7353209934

Good info on the new ed. of "The complete Guide...." . I have the same [original] edition that you have, but mine hasn't disintegrated.
Yet, I will most likely buy the latest ed. (UK edition), but not until it finds its way to the second hand book sellers. '

Well mine hasn't actually disintegrated and actually the pages aren't even that yellow. I must have been thinking of a different book.

Olorin wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:25 pm Well mine hasn't actually disintegrated and actually the pages aren't even that yellow. I must have been thinking of a different book.

Give it time..."Ashes to ashes, dust to dust."
Or stated more scientifically (and with apologies to Rudolf Clausius): : "Entropy always increases."

I received my copy today. I opted for the standard edition. Slipcovers take up too much precious width in the bookcase! Anyway, for some reason I thought the book would be physically larger, but it's only a tad (<1/2") taller than my old copy. It does feel a fair bit heavier, but I guess I'm not going to carry both into the kitchen to weigh. The pages are smooth and the right edge of the leaves is smooth, not the uneven cut like the old one.

I also happened to look inside the cover of my old copy and saw the printed price of $10. Oh, how times have changed! I also saw that I wrote my name in it and put the date I got it, 16 December 1978. Lastly, I also put one of my gorgeous Ex Libris stickers with a galaxy on it inside the book. Now I am very torn about getting rid of the old one. I had told myself that I'd simply donate it to the library, but now that I see it has so much history baked into it, I don't know if I can. I'm a sentimental mess when it comes to things like this.

Other than a 2022 copyright inside the cover of the new one for the artwork, I can't see at a glance any difference from the old one (other than having art in it). I read somewhere there were some minor tweaks to the text, I think about 20 years ago. There is a lengthy (multiple pages) section called "notes on the illustrations."

I decided not to buy the new edition, primarily because I read that there really wasn't anything new about it.

Sooooooo...your very cool Ex Libris bookplate...
Does it look like this?
These are mine (sans name) ... I still have 2 boxes left (50 plates per box)
A little trivia ... first known printed bookplate dates to 1480, found on a manuscript in a Carthusian monastery.
2) Drawing is of the Andromeda Galaxy. The artist even included one of the two satellite galaxies (lower right.)

Yes, that is indeed my Ex Libris sticker. I should not be surprised that you also had them, with us being roughly of an age and book lovers from way back. Casting myself sharply back along the corridors of memory, I would say that I most likely bought mine at either Waldenbooks or B. Dalton in St. Clair Square in Fairview Heights, the big mall they built in the early 70s. When I was a kid, we went to that mall every weekend; I think it was the highlight of my mom's week. Those two bookstores were always the highlight of the trip for me, well, the bookstores plus lunch. My mom liked the department store restaurants. Right now I'm trying to remember if we ever ate at Famous' restaurant that had their celebrated French onion soup. You could smell that stuff all over the north end of the mall! These days, Famous is no more, having been bought by the now-struggling Macy's years ago. I don't know if they still have a restaurant or the onion soup. The last time I was in that mall was probably 20 years ago, and that was just a quick dash in and out to buy some gift certificates. Anyway, I could happily kill an hour in each of those stores, browsing books and being intrigued by all those mysterious worlds waiting within the covers of what were then cheap paperbacks. As I sit at my computer typing this, I'm gazing at my bookcases and wondering how many of those books came into my possession at that particular nexus of spacetime, Fairview Heights of my youth. A great many of the paperbacks, I'm sure! One particular hardcover, The Songs of Distant Earth by Arthur C. Clarke, definitely came from there; I have a distinct recollection of buying it. (There was a time when I could remember where I had bought each and every LP or CD I had...that time ended probably around the time the collection grew into the thousands.) I also used to enjoy an independent bookseller in Webster Groves on Big Bend called, I think, Chapter One. Unfortunately our love affair had only just begun when it closed its doors. The real soul-crusher was when the large and cool independent bookstore in the city where I've now lived the last nearly 40 years closed a number of years back. The loss of it and the campus record store within a few years of each other were a wrenching paradigm shift for me.

But I digress. Yes, that's the sticker. I don't know that I ever had more than one box of them. Presumably I finished that box, although at some point I graduated from putting a sticker in the books to using a custom embossing tool, a kind of pliers-like device that had two plates between which to sandwich a page and squeeze a raised seal onto the paper. It said "Library of [my name]" around the rim and had my monogram in the center. The stickers and the seal were artifacts of an era when I felt I had to "brand" things that came into my possession, I suppose in case someone borrowed them, so that they'd remember who the thing belonged to. Actually, my dad gave me a label-maker for my 7th birthday, and that probably started the practice. (Who gives a 7-year-old a label-maker? But I was a precocious 7-year-old and loved it.) At some point I quit putting my name in/on things, probably when I started to realize that I would occasionally be getting rid of some of these items and not wanting my name to be floating around out in the wild. I still have that embossing seal; a quick search of my library just now located in the little writing desk behind me. The (presumably empty) Ex Libris sticker box is undoubtedly long gone. I hadn't thought of those stickers in decades until I opened my old Middle-earth guide yesterday and saw the one within.

Yeah, I didn't really need to new version of the guide, either. The corrections to it are undoubtedly minor and the chances of my actually encountering, let alone recognizing, those changes is quite slim. But I wanted it, and in no small part due to all the illustrations in it. The second I saw it online, with that stunning depiction of the Argonath, my fate was sealed.

I'll reply to the bookplate and St Louis specific stuff in a PM in a few days ....
So, for now... looking at the slipcase edition, what is the picture on the case, ummm...depicting?
IS it Sam and Frodo? If so, what is the scene from?... It does not look familiar to me at all.
Also, the Argonath pic....just curious...who do you think is in the boat? Has to be either Aragorn and Frodo or Legolas and Gimli .
I think it's Legolas and Gimli.

Has anyone seen this? https://www.theonering.net/torwp/2022/1 ... ia-estate/
Looks like it's raining money on Tolkien Estate

Levidas wrote: Tue Nov 08, 2022 12:21 pm Has anyone seen this? https://www.theonering.net/torwp/2022/1 ... ia-estate/
Looks like it's raining money on Tolkien Estate

Good for them, but the sad irony is that I think that is exactly what JRR and Christopher never wanted and fought so hard to prevent.

I’m a bit concerned by that also but at the end of the day, whatever betide, we have no one to blame other than Tolkien himself for selling off the rights in perpetuity.

Deimos wrote: Tue Nov 08, 2022 9:34 am I'll reply to the bookplate and St Louis specific stuff in a PM in a few days ....
So, for now... looking at the slipcase edition, what is the picture on the case, ummm...depicting?
IS it Sam and Frodo? If so, what is the scene from?... It does not look familiar to me at all.
Also, the Argonath pic....just curious...who do you think is in the boat? Has to be either Aragorn and Frodo or Legolas and Gimli .
I think it's Legolas and Gimli.

I’ve not looked at either pic that closely yet, nor found the one that’s the deluxe edition cover within the bounds of the book. I think, though, that it is Sam and Frodo in Ithilien. I’ll try to look at the Argonath picture later.

Olorin wrote: Tue Nov 08, 2022 3:12 pm

Deimos wrote: Tue Nov 08, 2022 9:34 am I'll reply to the bookplate and St Louis specific stuff in a PM in a few days ....
So, for now... looking at the slipcase edition, what is the picture on the case, ummm...depicting?
IS it Sam and Frodo? If so, what is the scene from?... It does not look familiar to me at all.
Also, the Argonath pic....just curious...who do you think is in the boat? Has to be either Aragorn and Frodo or Legolas and Gimli .
I think it's Legolas and Gimli.

I’ve not looked at either pic that closely yet, nor found the one that’s the deluxe edition cover within the bounds of the book. I think, though, that it is Sam and Frodo in Ithilien. I’ll try to look at the Argonath picture later.

I kind of thought that was what the artist was aiming for, but if so, he shot incredibly wide of the mark.
There are no craggy mountains in Ithilian west of the Southward Road (that more or less parallels the Ephel Duath) and the Ephel Duath itself has no forested heights and certainly no waterfalls.
You have to wonder if some (a lot really) "LOTR artists" even read the books.

Oh, I just thought about it...the boat has to be the one with Legolas and Gimli.
I forgot that Sam was with Aragorn and Frodo, that is, only one boat had two people in it.
And the person in front doesn't look very big, either... Gimli in front (who didn't care for boats any more than Sam did) and Legalas behind.

Deimos wrote: Tue Nov 08, 2022 4:26 pm

Olorin wrote: Tue Nov 08, 2022 3:12 pm

Deimos wrote: Tue Nov 08, 2022 9:34 am I'll reply to the bookplate and St Louis specific stuff in a PM in a few days ....
So, for now... looking at the slipcase edition, what is the picture on the case, ummm...depicting?
IS it Sam and Frodo? If so, what is the scene from?... It does not look familiar to me at all.
Also, the Argonath pic....just curious...who do you think is in the boat? Has to be either Aragorn and Frodo or Legolas and Gimli .
I think it's Legolas and Gimli.

I’ve not looked at either pic that closely yet, nor found the one that’s the deluxe edition cover within the bounds of the book. I think, though, that it is Sam and Frodo in Ithilien. I’ll try to look at the Argonath picture later.

I kind of thought that was what the artist was aiming for, but if so, he shot incredibly wide of the mark.
There are no craggy mountains in Ithilian west of the Southward Road (that more or less parallels the Ephel Duath) and the Ephel Duath itself has no forested heights and certainly no waterfalls.
You have to wonder if some (a lot really) "LOTR artists" even read the books.

Oh, I just thought about it...the boat has to be the one with Legolas and Gimli.
I forgot that Sam was with Aragorn and Frodo, that is, only one boat had two people in it.
And the person in front doesn't look very big, either... Gimli in front (who didn't care for boats any more than Sam did) and Legalas behind.

The boat does indeed have two people, which must be Legolas and Gimli. The other picture is called First Sight of Ithilen. I assume the craggy mountains are the Ephel Duath. I don’t see any trees on them. The Atlas of Middle earth describes Ithilien as having many streams. Some of these would undoubtedly rise on the outer slopes of the Ephel Duath, or at least on their foothills. The main thing that struck me about the image was how rugged the land was, but that’s probably just a reaction to my having lived in relatively flat areas my whole life.

Olorin wrote: Wed Nov 09, 2022 9:41 am

Deimos wrote: Tue Nov 08, 2022 4:26 pm

Olorin wrote: Tue Nov 08, 2022 3:12 pm

I’ve not looked at either pic that closely yet, nor found the one that’s the deluxe edition cover within the bounds of the book. I think, though, that it is Sam and Frodo in Ithilien. I’ll try to look at the Argonath picture later.

I kind of thought that was what the artist was aiming for, but if so, he shot incredibly wide of the mark.
There are no craggy mountains in Ithilian west of the Southward Road (that more or less parallels the Ephel Duath) and the Ephel Duath itself has no forested heights and certainly no waterfalls.
You have to wonder if some (a lot really) "LOTR artists" even read the books.

Oh, I just thought about it...the boat has to be the one with Legolas and Gimli.
I forgot that Sam was with Aragorn and Frodo, that is, only one boat had two people in it.
And the person in front doesn't look very big, either... Gimli in front (who didn't care for boats any more than Sam did) and Legalas behind.

The boat does indeed have two people, which must be Legolas and Gimli. The other picture is called First Sight of Ithilen. I assume the craggy mountains are the Ephel Duath. I don’t see any trees on them. The Atlas of Middle earth describes Ithilien as having many streams. Some of these would undoubtedly rise on the outer slopes of the Ephel Duath, or at least on their foothills. The main thing that struck me about the image was how rugged the land was, but that’s probably just a reaction to my having lived in relatively flat areas my whole life.

OK...no forested heights (I was recalling what I saw from memory)... but I'll stand by the "No waterfall" , a trickle here and there but the Ephal Duath was pretty barren and parched.
Yes, the Ephel Duath was rugged, but not nearly as steep or shear as the picture shows. Fan art.... *sigh*

Remember how PJ depicted it? Absolutely vertical. I thought the Nasmith painting was a tad more realistic .

Olorin wrote: Wed Nov 09, 2022 7:49 pm Remember how PJ depicted it? Absolutely vertical. I thought the Nasmith painting was a tad more realistic .

Can you describe what scene (or scenes ) that was?
I was going by Karen Fonstad's topo style drawings that show elevation and relative slope.
Also, the EAST Side of the Ephel Duath is steep and craggy. It slopes sharply down into that narrow valley (the opposite side of which is the Morgai) through which Sam and Frodo were walking (trudging?) northward.
The west side of the Morgai , much like the West side of the Ephel Duath was not so steep that it couldn't be climbed; yes, with difficulty but definitely not craggy and sheer.
Then the East side of the Morgai (like the east side of the Ephel Duath) was much steeper and sheer. Where Sam and Frodo were (atop the the Morgai crest) was a straight drop of 1500 ft , and Sam "could see no way down".
So what I'm getting at is that [apparently] the West sides of any mountains or even low hills-- at least on the western border of Mordor (gee, that nearly rhymes )-- were sloped and (with effort) climbable, whereas the east sides were steep and craggy or even sheer.

Yes. It was immediately after witnessing the departure of the Morgul Host from Minas Morgul.

Oh yes, the Morgul Vale....without even looking at the movie I can see it.
And yes, it was very steep... the first stairway was almost like a ladder; the Hobbits has to use their hands as well as feet to climb it.. The second stair was less so.
But the Morgul Vale runs ( more or less) east and west, so that really steep part of the Ephel Duath was South facing.
And going from [faulty? ] memory it was probably just as steep and sheer (Tolkien more than once mentions straight drops on their right of hundreds of feet down to the "ribbon of road" that leads to the pass).

Yeah I could never have been the Ringbearer. I don’t do well with heights. I’d have had to walk around to the east side of Mordor where there are no mountains and come in that way.

Olorin wrote: Tue Nov 08, 2022 5:02 am Casting myself sharply back along the corridors of memory, I would say that I most likely bought mine at either Waldenbooks or B. Dalton in St. Clair Square in Fairview Heights, the big mall they built in the early 70s.

Apologies for the edit.. Fairview Heights isn't terribly far from where I live and I have cousins who grew up in Fairview.

I remember, at one time, someone lived down the street from them and had a White car (I want to say it was a Honda CRX) with plates that basically said "Shadowfax" (Might have been SHDWFX or something along those lines.)
This was back before the PJ films came out so I knew what the plates meant but my cousins did not.

https://www.theonering.net/torwp/2022/1 ... atic-form/

Not a fan of the operatic style, so I won’t be getting these, but it would be interesting to hear a clip.

Somehow we seem not to have talked about the fact that Warner just renewed its movie rights to LOTR and plans to make more movies in the future. They have clarified that they have no intent to remake LOTR proper, proclaiming Jackson's movies as classics not to be set aside. Presumably they will mine the appendices for material, much as they are doing with the War of the Rohirrim anime that's coming out next year. Brian Cox is voicing Helm for that, by the way. He's a wonderful character actor that has been in many things, including of recent note HBO's Succession series. He was my pick to play Thorin in a Hobbit movie, but Jackson never consulted with me and instead went the young hunk route with Richard Armitage.

Anyway, buckle up, as more ventures into someone else's vision of Middle-earth lie ahead.

Olorin wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 12:24 pm
someone else's vision of Middle-earth lie ahead.

Yes, someone else's... just not Tolkien's.

Following the abysmal quality and writing of Rings of Power, I hope I can be forgiven if I view these news with anything but enthusiasm.

Ah well.

At least Embracer, the current rights holder for the film license, knows from what happened with ROP what NOT to do.

That does not mean they won't make exactly the same type of mistakes. The only hope I see for this is that they are working with WB and talking with Jackson and Co, which means they want to make something that keeps consistency with the movies, and appeals to fans of the movies. Their initial press release last year said they want to make "additional movies based on iconic characters such as Gandalf, Aragorn, Gollum, Galadriel, Eowyn and other characters from the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien.” There are enough Third Age stories that could be told that tie directly or indirectly to the WB films to make 4 or 5 films easily.

Embracer also has the rights to get the license for the The Silmarillion and The Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-Earth if they want it. Those rights are on the table now. It's a tricky 'matching rights' thing. They could secure a license, but then someone else can come in and offer more money than they did and get rights to the exact same same license, as I understand it.