Lord of The Rings

Royality · 9 Sep 2007 at 22:03

Oh 'wow', I have to say. Lord of the rings is a really good trilogy, just watching 'The Two Towers' and I have to admire the level of awesomeness present. For a trilogy based on a book it really does do a good job of emulating the atmosphere and context the book has. Amazing.

Grandmaster Fap! · 9 Sep 2007 at 22:08

Great trilogy but it's testament to the depth of the books at the amount they left out of the films.

Ascendancy · 9 Sep 2007 at 22:17

I didn't like the way the decided to swap stuff between the films.

loopstah · 9 Sep 2007 at 22:45

If your watching it on ITV and haven't seen it before I would recommend buying the extended DVD versions.

Mekrel · 9 Sep 2007 at 23:09

I can't stand people who moan about the differences between the book and the film.

The films are brilliantly directed with fantastic CGI and atmosphere with great acting and you're really submerged into the atmosphere of middle earth and the struggle that incurs.

It's good that it isn't the book in film, because it doesn't replace the book. If you want to know the whole story of the Lord of the Rings then you need to read the book.

So I don't think you can take anything away from the Film.

Mephisto · 10 Sep 2007 at 00:09

Boring films, way too samey. Move to some place, have a big battle, move to another place, have a big battle. Zzzz.

Sic · 10 Sep 2007 at 00:18

watch Clerks 2 - then you don't need to watch the trilogy. and by "the trilogy" I don't mean "'The' Trilogy"

Raymond Lin · 10 Sep 2007 at 02:13

it'll be rubbish if it's the same as the book, do you really want about 90 mins of the first film of them singing poems and walking through the woods and fields, that's before they met aaragon.

G-MAN2004 · 10 Sep 2007 at 02:32

I watched it the other night as well and it reminded me how great the films really are. Brilliant stuff.

Smithy · 10 Sep 2007 at 02:38

Raymond Lin said:
it'll be rubbish if it's the same as the book, do you really want about 90 mins of the first film of them singing poems and walking through the woods and fields, that's before they met aaragon.

I'm struggling here; Is this a dig at the book or a praise for Peter Jackson making the film in the way he did?

Raymond Lin · 10 Sep 2007 at 03:04

both, the book is ok but also so much filler. i means do you want to watch them chant poems back and forth for half the movie? thats what the first book is. about 200 pages of it.

Smithy · 10 Sep 2007 at 03:13

I read a different Lord Of The Rings to you.

Meridian · 10 Sep 2007 at 08:52

Smithy said:
I read a different Lord Of The Rings to you.

He read the same as me: LotR started the awful trend in fantasy books of massively padding the writing with unnecessary detail, which is only there to show how clever the writer is. You could cut the trilogy down to single book without loosing a single plot detail.

Having tried to re-read the books soon after I saw the first film (I've read them twice before) I'd say that if anything, the films are slightly better.

M

Hedge · 10 Sep 2007 at 08:53

Yeah i watched the second one last night, they are very good films

Silent-Lucidity · 10 Sep 2007 at 09:11

Meridian said:
He read the same as me: LotR started the awful trend in fantasy books of massively padding the writing with unnecessary retail, which is only there to show how clever the writer is. You could cut the trilogy down to single book without loosing a single plot detail.

Having tried to re-read the books soon after I saw the first film (I've read them twice before) I'd say that if anything, the films are slightly better.

M

Oh dear.

Gilly · 10 Sep 2007 at 09:37

Smithy said:
I read a different Lord Of The Rings to you.

I'm with you. Yes, the first book, maybe the first half of the second is slower than the last two, but thats because there's killin's and death and battles and gore and glory in the last couple.

A book doesn't need to have that to be good.

Silent-Lucidity said:
Oh dear.

:nods:

Johnnytoxic · 10 Sep 2007 at 10:03

The films were so boring. Extended Versions too !!!! pure TORTURE.

They should play these films on repeat to extract information from terrorists.

Silent-Lucidity · 10 Sep 2007 at 10:13

I think I will refrain from viewing this thread anymore, i'm too passionate about LOTR and some people's views just make me :mad:

.

J.T · 10 Sep 2007 at 10:18

Silent-Lucidity said:
I think I will refrain from viewing this thread anymore, i'm too passionate about LOTR and some people's views just make me .

I'm with you, I love both the books and the films, can't help wondering if some of the comments in here are sad jokes or something :mad:

Meridian · 10 Sep 2007 at 10:23

Silent-Lucidity said:
I think I will refrain from viewing this thread anymore, i'm too passionate about LOTR and some people's views just make me .

Live with it. Or learn to tell good books from bad (although on that front you are in a majority, judging by some of the books that get listed as "good" whenever someone asks for recommendations. I know most of the people on these forums are young though, and this knowledge mostly comes with experience.

I take nothing from Tolkien for largely inventing the genre - or at least giving it the modern form. But along with the good stuff he invented, he brought the beginnings of some really bad stuff - which has also been slavishly copied when the book has been cloned by third-rate hacks (stand up, Robert Jordan). And he was certainly no stylist - he was a scholar. I can only echo C S lewis's famous comment when Tolkein was doing a reading to friends: "Oh God, not another ****ing elf!"

M