NZ
posts on 12/17/2006 7:01:33 PM
I say none. They are both horrible. They stink. I hate them.
|
sinisa
posts on 12/17/2006 6:58:10 PM
it is not it it is not it is not it is not it is not it is not it is not it is not it is not it is not it is not it is not it is not.
|
The commentator Evenstar
posts on 1/30/2006 11:53:28 PM
The books and the movies are two different stories of a same event. It is like going on a trip,one way is the long way with all the sights. The other is a shortcut and half the sights
taken out. I perfer the books, Jackson changed too much,took out too much and added too much.
|
The commentator keith
posts on 11/6/2005 3:28:56 PM
the movie was real good but it left out great characters like tom bombadil, goldberry and glorgindel
|
The laughing stock Anonymous
posts on 11/5/2005 5:09:43 PM
I would hesitate to compare LOTR the movie and LOTR the book. The movie is a fine adaptation of the epic with the emphasis on what crowds of moviegoers wanted to see.
I don't think Professor Tolkien anticipated or wrote for millions of potential moviegoers. Peter Jackson was doing just that with his adaptation.
|
The commentator Erik Geiger
posts on 11/3/2005 7:46:06 PM
I'm glad to see so many of you agree with me. I admit there shouldn't even have been a question in the first place. It did however give rise to some great comments. Because of your responses, i think i'll check this website daily. It's cool to see how many people are still into this fantastic world so late after its completion. I can't wait until the two studios who own the rights to the hobbit settle their differences. It'll be nice to see king Jackson take the reigns once again and knock out the prelude! remember his comments after the last oscars? we're all in for a treat. i think i'll audition to be an extra in this one.
|
The commentator Burrahobbit
posts on 11/3/2005 5:43:06 PM
yeah, in the Two Towers and Rotk movies the evilness of the ring is a little over shadowed with battle sequences.
|
Lady
posts on 11/3/2005 11:22:12 AM
i read the lord of the rings, the hobbit, and the silmarillion. i don't feel like wading through his unfinished work. and i tend not to call osse and the rest gods. if anything i equate them with angels, and call iluvatar (or eru) the god. also, i ought to tell you that of the three movies, i liked the fellowship of the ring best. granted, the return of the king made me cry for the last 20 minutes, but watching them now, it's the first one that brings home the darkness and the evil. looking at the ring lying on the table is a lot more terrifying than shelob... at least to me.
|
The commentator ASAGO
posts on 11/3/2005 10:28:44 AM
Well if you take into consideration of all that has led up to the rings of power there making, Melko, Osse, ect. (the gods of middle Earth) and how it all started with the making if elves the awakining of the dwarves ans so on, if you take all the history of middle earth the Books are far better, the movie doesnt even get a hunderdth of what Tolken created. On the other hand I have only seen Fellowship, and am currently waiting to snatch a good download of two towers, then I already have return of the king but will not watch until i see two towers. I really enjoyed the movie (fellowship)and i know the rest will be as good or better. I would sugest to anyone to read all of tolkens books about middle earth there are about 10 or 12 I have them all its a hard read but well worth the effort.
|
Lady
posts on 11/2/2005 7:08:04 PM
*applause* you hit the nail on the head, erik, to use the proverbial colloquialism. (sorry, it's so rare i use one of those, that when i do, i tend to call attention to it). hazel eyes, i noticed that both here and on the JKR board you said "back then." just WHEN do you think that the lord of the rings was written?? it's hardly one of those droning classics you read in lit. also... i am a fantasy nerd. the funny thing is that everyone seems proud to admit it. (i read in some book that fantasy is a unique genre in that it is almost like a club. fantasy-lovers band together and most read ONLY fantasy--or mostly. i don't remember exactly what it said, but i was like, YES! TRUTH!)
|
The commentator Erik Geiger
posts on 11/2/2005 6:56:51 PM
I can't think of many cases in which a screen adaptation is better than the book that made it popssible. The lord of the rings trilogy is as good as they get...however it falls infinately short. I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion...but you should ask yourself what made you love the book in the first place. There were obviously the slow parts where Tolkien was seemingly over-descriptive, but those seemingly mundane elements created the backdrop for the movie we all cherish. Characters like tom bombadil and oldman willow were an essential part of what tolkien was setting out to do. He created a world bigger than the storyline. He gave us the ability to close the book and ponder Tom Bombadil and his omnicience and omnipotence. The wonder you get from characters like that are amazing. One of the best scenes in the movie was left out and only avaliable in the deleted scenes. The Mouth of Sauron. The movie was top notch...the greatest films in my point of view, but they can't hold a candle to the Books. I remember actually feeling cold while reading the chapter "the ring goes south". Jackson couldn't make you feel the chill of caradhras, nor the exhaustion of tracking down the orcs to find merry and pippin. I don't want to even get started on the palantir...the darn thing had it's own chapter. Finally I want to say cheers for the way the movie was made. But A true fan of the story would pick the book any day. I've been reading it every year since I was nine, and watching the lazerdisc since before I could read. I'm going with the Book!
|
Hazel Eyes
posts on 11/2/2005 6:49:53 PM
Okay, first off. No one else will ever write a book like that... EVER!! They seem boring or slow to some of you guys, but back then there were not many books like that. THe movie was awesome i agree. But even a Hollywood movie can;t top a book. I've read them and i thought that after you got past the first part of FOTR, it was great. There are some slow parts, but yeah. Sorry didn't intenf to write this much. :/
|
Adam
posts on 11/2/2005 5:56:46 PM
Yeah, I also consider m'self somewhat of a fantasy book nerd.
|
The commentator Irene Jones
posts on 11/2/2005 4:48:57 PM
I have never read the complete LOTR trilogy. I only got as far as the middle of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. Now, I loved the movies - especially the first one. But there were some plot holes that did not make sense to me. And I only managed to get answers to these plotholes from a Tolkien fan who had read all three novels.
|
Donald Trump ha $ ha $ ha $
posts on 9/21/2005 4:30:18 PM
I am the greatest that has ever touched this lovely keyboard! Watch my SHOW! wednsday nights!
|
Dudette
posts on 9/21/2005 4:13:09 PM
yes i m kinda a reading all kinds of book nerd.
|
The commentator Burrahobbit
posts on 9/21/2005 3:54:15 PM
I am proudly a fantasy NERD. who else is?
|
Lyta Underhill
posts on 9/20/2005 5:59:14 PM
It is a lazy afternoon, perfect time to reiterate that the books surpass the films in all realms, except perhaps that which is served by the eyes in a direct sensory capacity! But I suppose it depends on what you hold personally to be the most important factor in a piece of entertainment! :D
|
Dipa
posts on 9/19/2005 6:27:55 PM
the lotr books are to fat to read. And some people think i am a nerd but i just like reading.peace. luv. and chinese food.
|
Donald trump ha ha ha
posts on 9/19/2005 6:06:16 PM
the lotr movies are NERDY! I am not a NERD, so I don't read 'em!
|
Click here to post a message
|
