I for one enjoy Tolkien's prose, however, I can see how Tolkien isn't for everyone. But Ed Greenwood? Not only are his books completely derivative, reading his work is a chore at best! Weis & Hickman are slightly better but the world of fantasy would have never missed their work, had they chosen a different line of…

You mean you've never wanted to read any Superman story besides the officially sanctioned ones from DC? You've never looked at Wonder Woman and thought, "Wow, there are some interesting places you could explore with this character and her philosophy if editors weren't so chickenshit about messing with formula"? You…

You know what it is?

I find Tolkien's prose to be beautiful. There are times where he sends chills down the spine with just the words. I confidently put the quality of his prose alongside the best of any writer in history. Period. Bar none. Shakespeare, Donne, Frost, Hemingway, Dickenson, Austen, Balzac, Bronte, Hardy, Dostoyevsky,…

A) I disagree. ST was okay, and ST:ID might have been bad but it's nowhere near Attack of the Clones. And Star Trek: Insurrection is still the worst ST movie

Nah - I cut my teeth on Tolkien but I also read just about everything Moorcock wrote from Elric to Hawkmoon to Erekose to Cornelius to Corum. Moorcock was inferior to Tolkien in every way as a writer. That's not saying his books were "bad". I enjoyed them. But they were clearly inferior to Tolkien both as a world…

Agreed. I enjoyed some of Moorcock's work, but he was opinionated in what he did and didn't like. But having an opinion doesn't make you right, and Moorcock is/was a blithering fool when it comes to his opinions on Tolkien's writing. And let's be honest, Moorcock's writing is a pale shadow against the burning light…

So much of this interpretation of LotR is not what was intended at all. I would hate LotR if I saw it the way you did. Very cynical and without context.

Agreed, Tolkien didn't write a fantasy he wanted to write a modern day myth or legend. And his critique that "Tolkiens creation as little more than a conservative vision of the status quo, an adventure that brings its hero "there and back again," rather than into a world where experience means you cant go home again"…

Oh yeah. Moorcock is definitely wrong about Tolkien. But even in error, it motivated him to create some great stories. So it's an unqualified win for those of us who aren't Moorcock or Tolkien. :)

Sorry, but Lord of the Rings is a beautiful piece of modern mythology that speaks volumes about human nature. Creating a grim-dark inversion of Tolkiens work doesn't disprove that. His statement reeks of the overbearing cynicism present in the 1970's.

My mother and her kin insisted for YEARS that our family had come through at Ellis Island, and that our name had been changed from one thing to another, but no one knew the original one because both adults in the party died when their children were young. There was this whole dramatic story behind it!

It is, very clearly, what is left of Gondolin, city of the Elf King Turgon, built in the First Age.

Excepting Lactose Intolerance, I have IBS and wouldn't be able to live without dairy products because of all the protein, fat, and nutrients I get from them they are one of the few food groups that don't make me bloat up like a dead horse.

No contest.

...and I forgot to post the credit for Fizzgig, from The Dark Crystal, who is a spoiled, demanding and horrible little creature much like every cat I've ever had.

Gizmo

This image is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. They literally have a camera man in-shot, but because they're going to crop off the sides during post production they don't really care. They made no effort to have stuff out of the view of the camera 100% of the time, if it was going to be removed as part…

I dunno. I think Interstellar definitely belongs in the top 10.

This one for the trash talk in "Doomsday":