12
578
That's what I'm thinking - curious what the new Unfinished Tales will be like. Also, these remind me of the 'National Geographic' covers that the UK Ice and Fire paperbacks got, of landscapes and cities.
Amazon has uploaded cover art! Only item missing artwork is The Hobbit + The Lord of the Rings boxed set.
Thanks for posting - they all look nice enough. Have a clean look that some of the publications lacked in the Jackson years.
Not entirely true (well there may have been more bad than good ones) though the 2002 covers are pretty nice. Those editions came out 'during' PJ's trilogy. (these editions: https://i.redd.it/pmxjr26v0c911.jpg)
insurrbution wrote:
Not entirely true (well there may have been more bad than good ones) though the 2002 covers are pretty nice. Those editions came out 'during' PJ's trilogy. (these editions: https://i.redd.it/pmxjr26v0c911.jpg)
That's why I said "some"! (Edit: I like those covers, though I do think the faux-bevelled text does look dated on those now and has more than a hint of PJ)
Perhaps - because of when they came out, and what the images used for the covers, and the font, it's highly likely that HarperCollins & Houghton Mifflin were looking to attract filmgoers who haven't read Tolkien to pick those up.
Also worthy of note: it looks like (as of now, could still be too early) that the hardbacks are 'standard' sized and not 'oversized' like the 2002 editions are.Looks similar to the 3-volume illustrated hardbacks from '92, which also bore those same covers (I wish they'd used Lee's Smaug, but the one of Bilbo is still nice)
Also worthy of note: it looks like (as of now, could still be too early) that the hardbacks are 'standard' sized and not 'oversized' like the 2002 editions are.Looks similar to the 3-volume illustrated hardbacks from '92, which also bore those same covers (I wish they'd used Lee's Smaug, but the one of Bilbo is still nice)
insurrbution wrote:
Perhaps - because of when they came out, and what the images used for the covers, and the font, it's highly likely that HarperCollins & Houghton Mifflin were looking to attract filmgoers who haven't read Tolkien to pick those up.
Also worthy of note: it looks like (as of now, could still be too early) that the hardbacks are 'standard' sized and not 'oversized' like the 2002 editions are.Looks similar to the 3-volume illustrated hardbacks from '92, which also bore those same covers (I wish they'd used Lee's Smaug, but the one of Bilbo is still nice)
I'm very sure they were trying to attract the filmgoers (as you would expect) - I have no doubt that the font choice was not an accidental similarity. The difference in book size is important, I think - I just don't find myself picking up the oversize copies to read, ever. The 92s are much nicer than the 02s in this regard, but good old octavo would be better again, IMHO (and I'd possibly buy this set if ended up that size).
Only thing I wish to address with the size factor: it'd be nice if they also (re) did The Silmarillion illustrated by Ted Nasmith so it'd match in size. And, I have it, but getting The Complete Guide to Middle-earth, illustrated by Ted Nasmith, back in print again would be good.
One thing that I look from older/first editions for The Lord of the Rings and Unfinished Tales, is on the page opposite the title page, it lists the 'parts' - much like The Silmarillion still does.
One thing that I look from older/first editions for The Lord of the Rings and Unfinished Tales, is on the page opposite the title page, it lists the 'parts' - much like The Silmarillion still does.