Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Forums _ Books _ LOTR

Posted by: SammyTheHeadbutt Aug 31 2008, 03:09 PM

Whatever people say i will always love Lord of the Rings,
its a classic and amazing trilogy :)
am i seriously the only one nerdy enough to think that? haha :)

Posted by: nikx618 Aug 31 2008, 03:11 PM

Imo, i thought it was the most BORING movie i have ever seen. Idk about the book. I would probably find it boring too, but idk, on account that i haven't read it. hehe.

Posted by: only-tuesdays Aug 31 2008, 05:36 PM

You're not the only one. I love LOTR too. thumbsup.gif

Posted by: technicolour Aug 31 2008, 06:02 PM

Okay, so, I read Fellowship of the Ring & about 1/2 of The Two Towers but just gave up. The songs the hobbits sang, oh man, they would go on for PAGES. I just couldn't do it.

The movies were AMAZING. I mean, sure they left a lot out, but for what they were, they did an amazing book-to-film adaptation.

Posted by: MolecularStudios Aug 31 2008, 06:13 PM

I found them boring. I liked harry potter better

Posted by: absinthe Aug 31 2008, 11:08 PM

I`ve only ever seen the movies, which are the shit. I`ve always wanted to read the books but never got around to them. sad.gif

Posted by: Saikou Aug 31 2008, 11:42 PM

The Hobbit wub.gif

Posted by: FreshYetDead Sep 1 2008, 03:00 PM

EXPLICIT LANGUAGE


Posted by: only-tuesdays Sep 1 2008, 03:29 PM

lol That was great.

The books are better than the movies though. There's more depth to them.

Posted by: SammyTheHeadbutt Sep 2 2008, 04:37 PM

haha i love Clerks 2 :)

Posted by: huskar Sep 3 2008, 11:52 AM

Lotr is one of the generic fantasy book that one has to read . It is a piece of high literature . Anyone who actually thinks it is stupid are retarded , no offense :P .

Posted by: shadowfax Apr 13 2010, 10:08 PM

Love them! I first saw the movies (and saw them much, much later than when they came out stubborn.gif ), then borrowed all three books from the library. I loved them so much that I bought the books but damn, books are so expensive. All 3 were about $20 each before taxes, and this is in Canadian dollars. I have yet to find a relatively cheap copy of The Hobbit with a nice cover illustration. Although there are many boring and slightly confusing parts in the LOTR books, I think the awesomeness of the entire story more than makes up for it. The appendices are also very interesting to read.

Posted by: futura Apr 22 2010, 05:16 PM

The books are amazing. They did a wonderful job with the film trilogy imo. I often wonder how the film trilogy would have been had they not removed Tom Bombandil from the original story though.

Posted by: shadowfax Aug 9 2010, 08:35 PM

I wonder if time constraints were the only reason Tom Bombadil wasn't included in FotR. The scouring of the Shire would have been anti-climatic in RotK but they could have added in Tom and his River-daughter.

Posted by: futura Aug 10 2010, 06:25 PM

QUOTE(shadowfax @ Aug 9 2010, 06:35 PM) *
I wonder if time constraints were the only reason Tom Bombadil wasn't included in FotR. The scouring of the Shire would have been anti-climatic in RotK but they could have added in Tom and his River-daughter.
You know, now that I think about it, maybe putting Tom in would have given the movie a whole different feel to it. The time constraint was probably the main cause as to why he wasn't in it, but I think without him, it's a bit more straightforward and to the point.

Posted by: shadowfax Aug 11 2010, 08:53 PM

Yea, that's true. His inclusion would've completely changed the tone of that part of the film. Getting from the Shire to Bree would've seemed too boring, I guess. Oh well.

Posted by: Matsumoto Aug 11 2010, 08:57 PM

I haven't read the books and the only reason I've seen the movies is because my boyfriend made me watch them with him, although I couldn't stay awake and I don't remember anything really.

Posted by: futura Aug 15 2010, 10:13 PM

QUOTE
Peter Jackson originally contemplated having the character of Tom Bombadil, a character that was in the book but never made it to the movie, incorporated into a cameo scene in which the Hobbits are walking through the forest and see a man with a feathered cap dart through the trees, then they hear Tom singing and begin running through the forest, but ran out of time to film it.

LOL, after reading the FoTR trivia, I'm not surprised Jackson ran out of time to put Tom in it at all. Craaaaazyy.

Posted by: ArjunaCapulong Aug 15 2010, 10:36 PM

You're not a nerd, you just appreciate good literature


or idk, maybe you're a nerd too

Posted by: superstitious Sep 6 2010, 02:25 PM

QUOTE(futura @ Apr 22 2010, 05:16 PM) *
The books are amazing. They did a wonderful job with the film trilogy imo. I often wonder how the film trilogy would have been had they not removed Tom Bombandil from the original story though.

I was bummed that there was no Tom in the movies, though I was pissed as hell that there was no Houses of the Healing sequence (that lasted longer than 60 seconds or so, that is). There was entirely too much Arwin in the film. I think Liv Tyler is absolutely lovely, but she should have shown up a few times, and briefly. Then again, I've always been a major fan of Eowyn and Faramir.