'Lord of the Rings' was a set of books in which the world had been conceived before the characters were placed within that context.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
'The Lord of the Rings,' published in the mid-1950s, was intended as a prehistory to our own world. It was perceived by Tolkien to be a small but significant episode in a vast alternate mythology constructed entirely out of his own imagination.
They were the books to read, 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings.' A rite of passage going through life.
'Lord of the Rings' was about saving the world, big time, big duties.
In the same way 'Lord of the Rings' was an interpretation of the book, 'The Hobbit' is being treated the same way. It will be faithfully represented with a fresh interpretation.
I'd never read 'Lord of the Rings' until I was asked to play Gandalf, so I didn't really know it was a frightfully famous book.
If you take 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings' as books, one is written for children, and one is an adult's book.
Everyone was very deeply involved in the world of 'The Lord of the Rings'. From the wardrobe department to lighting, all were fascinated with the story. This is something that does not happen usually.
The backgrounds in Lord of the Rings are all explained.
After 'The Fellowship of the Ring,' the films that followed it, instead of having their own unique aesthetic, they all wanted to be 'Lord of the Rings' as opposed to learning from 'Lord of the Rings.'
I'd never heard of the 'Lord of the Rings', actually. So I went to the bookstore and there it was, three shelves of books about Tolkien and Middle-earth, and I was like, 'Holy cow, what else am I missing out on?'