[Closed] Lord of the rings trilogy.............??

Great films but would be better to watch in the correct order! 😆

book was great not seen films but are you riding wed night thats what i wanna know and where 🙂

yes, and i will let you know..

I enjoy the films though they took such liberties with the plot!

sound cheers fella

never seen them, never read the books.

do i really have a hole in my cultural education or is it just goblins having a scrap? (cos that's what it looked like a minute ago when i flicked past channel4)

or is it just goblins having a scrap?

I think it's an involving story (if very long). I've read it at least 5 times over the years.

I thought it was Orc's having a scrap.

Tolkein seems to use goblin/orc interchangeably...

Besides I thought the original LoTR film was better.

Great films.

Watched a number or times, even got the extended DVD box set, Great escapism for me to escape in to the world of the rings.

you see, I have no idea what your're talking about...am I missing out? I like big long books and quite like sci-fi/fantasy stuff (but prefer straight fiction).
The maths geeks at school all read the trilogy so it put me off and I've never got round to the films...should I go for the books first or the films if I bite the bullet?

bedwetter friendly & pretentious,effects heavy godawful tosh which is almost entirely unwatchable in my opinion, the books were mind numbingly crap as well. mind you I do seem to be in the minority, so I could be wrong,

er........... does that answer your question?

Books are better though start off with the Hobbit.

they might be good, but they are no Legally Blonde.

I think it's an involving story

Ever read 1st & 2nd Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen Donaldson?

I remember having a day hungover when I didn't get out of bed and watched all 3 on the run - it was class. VERY wierd dreams that night though

Hated the books, loved the films.

now there's a film ^^^ . with you there my man! 🙂 seems to be a lack of blond 'fit' in the orc-y thing...

and now there is a tree talking...i'm coming down on the 'it ain't my cup of tea' side i'm afraid.back to sky sports news 😉

[img] [/img]

drug inspired??????

Ever read 1st & 2nd Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen Donaldson?

yes, but the rape scene seemed gratitous (and evil) 🙂

book superb
Films superb but they do take liberties.
Yes you have a cultural hole/bad taste (good film BTW by director) IMHO.

EDIT:

drug inspired??????

yes me to but did not know you did though Ton 😉

Me personnaly I just don't Get Lord of the Rings, Its not through dislike or anything like that. I would like to read the books and watch the films but for some reason they just don't hold my attention, I think IMO they are a bit heavy reading/watching.

Mind you Know where your coming from did similar with The Original Star Wars DVDs

Great films made for good sized TV's

The CGI was a bit ropey in places on the cinema screens.

but the rape scene seemed gratitous (and evil)

I've read both 1st & 2nd books of the Last Chronicles. I was hoping the third might be out now but looks like 2010. Can't wait to see how Linden Avery and Stave of the Haruchai get on 😀

LOTR film may have taken liberties but without CGI making the orc hordes look real any film would have failed. I first read it in the early 70s like a lot of others, particularly rock climbers. First ascents in the Lakes are littered with names from the books.

read the books, including 'Hobbit' first... loved it

Watched all three films...loved it

Thought about it on a second viewing recently and spotted a massive flaw (based on the assumption we all accept this world exists in the first place) .....but....in the first film wasn't Gandalf rescued by a ferkin massive eagle from the top of a massive tower? why could his new best mate the eagle not have then flown him and the troublesome ring straight to the top of mount doom and dropped the fekker straight in there. Instead he goes and forms this little camp gang, "from now on we shall be known as the Fellowship of the Ring"?? says who? We want to be the "Black Hand Gang" etc etc.

Discuss.

PS I can ruin Shawshank as well!

Oh and irks me that they use the same actor for Gimli and the voice of Treebeard 🙁

go on then, tell me about shawshank...:-)

[i]why could his new best mate the eagle not have then flown him and the troublesome ring straight to the top of mount doom and dropped the fekker straight in there[/i]

I thought that too! Legolas on the back of that eagle wouldn't even have to be than close, he could attach the ring to an arrow and do it from half a mile away.

Do you reckon I thought about this a bit too much?

why could his new best mate the eagle not have then flown him and the troublesome ring straight to the top of mount doom

it's called "artistic license" 🙂 But it's possible Gandalf feared the power of the ring in the same way Galadriel turned it down when Frodo offered it to her...

Great movie 8)
Lots of action,lots of humour.
And they legitimise smoking drugs 😀

And they legitimise smoking drugs

I consider Tolkein's smoking propaganda to be understandably quaint

[i]Tolkein seems to use goblin/orc interchangeably... [/i]

I must have missed something, I thought he was very specific about the distinction between Goblins and Orcs.

, I thought he was very specific about the distinction between Goblins and Orcs.

ah, well I [b]did[/b] miss it! What [b]is[/b] the difference ?

The films are pretty good, I thought. I was never a fan of the books, massively overwritten, purple prose everywhere... Good concepts though.

The films did take some liberties but I'll forgive all that for NO TOM BOMBADILO. Inspired decision that, what a c**t he was. Though it would have been nice to have the scouring of the shire in it.

Still keeps plenty of tour guids busy her in NZ.
this is the place where so and so said this to so and so and by this tree here is where the giant orc was tickled to death by that small elfy bloke etc etc.

Films are some of my favorites. Books are even better. Must admit to having read most of the material (silmarilion etc) multiple times.

Did anyone see the Fellowship of the Ring at the Royal Albert Hall earlier this year? Now that was a performance! Live orchestra playing the score in front of the film on a huge screen. Done really really well.

Two Towers in being done next year, can't wait. Get tickets, if there are any!

Great movies - extended cuts are much better. But even Jackson admits there is far to much action.

I read the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant when I was 17 - great series of books

Also try the Warlock series by Christopher Stasheff

and Magician by Raymon E Feist

I also like Terry Pratchett' Discworld and Terry Brooks' Shanharra series

Must admit to having read most of the material (silmarilion etc) multiple times

really ? I found that turgid. I want a proper story.

goblins are just orcs, there are different breeds of orcs (those coming from Moria etc) as there are different types of elf (orcs were originally elves that had nasty things done to them).

I could go on, and on.....

the stephen donaldson books were good but lacked the depth of history that tolkien had (if you are into that sort of thing).

it really is quite scary how much of a detailed universe and history he created, from creation onwards with countless intertwining histories of all the different races, their languages etc.

finally some disturbingly geeky suggestions on why the eagles/legolas didnt fire and forget.....

1) it would have made a shit story
2) Gandolf was a higher being, as were Sauron, Saruman, the Balrogs etc. Thw War Of the Rings was supposedly a long planned game of chess between Gandolf and Sauron, in which Gandolf could not directly use the ring, or allow it to be used by anyone/thing powerful enough to properly use it. So Elves, Eagles (which were very high animals close to the Valar (godlike beings)) were out.
3) It did kind of make poetic sense that the little hobbits overlooked by everyone, had the inner strength to remain uncorrupted.....

It did kind of make poetic sense that the little hobbits overlooked by everyone, had the inner strength to remain uncorrupted.....

not exactly - Frodo did actually succumb to the ring at the last moment only for the day to be inadvertently saved by none other than Gollum!

Love the films of course it's full of flaws what film isn't they are great entertainment.

The book is epic. A work of such breath taking detail and fantasy.

Films are a great representation also.

Notable minority of female characters.

Interesting that the most memorable was a man-eating monster that lived at the end of a long, dark sticky tunnel... I think Tolkien had issues there, don't you?

The greatest film ever made was "Eraserhead".

[img] [/img]

liv made up for it in the film.......

Arwen, Eowyn and Galadriel are all strong characters

If you liked those films, just wait till 'The Hobbit' ones come out - being split into 2 parts, so hopefully they'll be pretty close to the book. Plus Guillermo Del Toro's directing, Peter Jackson producing...
The grip of 'Pans Labyrinth' + budget of 'LOTR'.. as long as Del Toro doesn't take his Hollywood head out (Hellboy 2 anyone?) they ought to be fantastic.

just wait till 'The Hobbit' ones come out - being split into 2 parts

interesting in that LOTR 1..3 stacks up nearly 3" thick in the combined volume yet The Hobbit is only 1/2"...

How lord of the rings should have ended.

[url=

[i]The grip of 'Pans Labyrinth' [/i]

Grip like grease if you ask me,I forced my way through it.

i liked pans labrynth too.......creepy

great films, the 3rd one dragged on a bit though. but im terrible in the cinema if a film is over 2 hours long...

+1 for Pan's Labyrinth although my Missus hated it. Think that the juxtaposition of the fantasy world with the Spanish Civil war is too much for some. Did she really imagine it all...........

Point of order: it's one book in three volumes, not a trilogy.

IGMC

I am waiting for the Blu Ray release, whenever that will be 😉

1) I rode my bike around in Rivendell (illegaly) a few months back - lovely singletrack in there
2) They've started on the Hobbit down the road, i can see them...

^^ BTW contains swearing

hmmm, in the hobbit he makes the distinction that goblins carry weapons different to those carried by orcs.

in the hobbit he makes the distinction that goblins carry weapons different to those carried by orcs.

so it's like MTBers and roadies ??

Fantastic books

Amazing films

If you want to get really geeky about it, read the Silmarillion which is the history of the previous age of middle earth.

It is VERY hard going and i've read the lord of the rings loads of times!

Surely the reason that they didn't just send the ring with Legolas riding on one of the giant Eagles of Manwë is that the eagles were only able to approach Mordor after Sauron was destroyed.

If they'd gone in before the Eye of Sauron would have seen them and he'd have launched Ye Magical Surface-To-Air arrow bombe.

Incidentally there is a ridiculous amount of information about the LotR universe on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saruman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandalf

On the whole eagle thing, from what I remember from the books was that the eagles had been hunted/persecuted by men and possibly elves and as such weren't exactly predisposed to helping with something that wasn't there problem. An example of this was the comments made by the eagle that resuced Gandalf from Saruman's tower.

I'm sure it is covered in the council of Elrond along with chucking it in the sea and giving it to Tom Bombadil.

Loved the books as a kid - read LoTR once a year for about seven years running. Numerous English teachers were then forced to deal with lengthy, pseudo-Tolkien creative writing epics (I hope you are reading this, Tangent).

Really enjoyed the first film (building up to the [url=

done[/url] fight scene at the end - though, again, the film takes liberties with the original plot & sequence). Wasn't so bothered about the following two.

BTW, might just be me, but I always hear the Urak-Hai shout [i]"find the [b]half-link[/b]..."[/i]. Snapped yer chain, mate? 😀

At the start there is no alliance between eagles and the other races. A big theme is 'we can win if we all work together' with alliances being re-made between men/other men/elf/dwarf/ghosts/eagle/ent as the story converges in the last book.

The film missed out one of my favourite bits where they return to the Shire and shit all over Sauramon. But I guess it would have been 8 hours long with that in and having him impaled on a spike was much easier.

Nice deleted scene:

Loved these films at the cinema but couldn't help thinking it was 9 hours of fighting interspersed with not an awful lot. Do the books have more plot and depth?

And they legitimise smoking drugs

Because you need to be stoned to enjoy them?

Forget the extended version, they could have made more money doing a condensed version.

No mention yet of World War Two or atom bomb allegory, or of the anti-modern anti-industrial arts and crafts proto-hippy outlook?

"Do the books have more plot and depth?"

Only if you consider interminable descriptions of imaginary folk with ludicrous made up names walking about and propounding absurd dialogue to be plot and or depth. I consider it padding and suspect he may have been paid by the word. 🙂

Loved these films at the cinema but couldn't help thinking it was 9 hours of fighting interspersed with not an awful lot.

"Do the books have more plot and depth?"

They have so much depth you could drown in them.

Every single character has a huge back story. Tolkien invents several complete new languages. The entire history of the Middle Earth is covered, with lineage of all the races, going right back to the creation story of [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eä ]Eä[/url] (the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-earth ]Middle Earth[/url] universe) by [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eru_Il%C3%BAvatar ]Eru Ilúvatar[/url], the supreme being.

Basically it is an absurdly detailed universe. That's why geeks love it.

and suspect he may have been paid by the word

he was indeed a professor of language 🙂

imaginary folk with ludicrous made up names

look who's talking :o)

by Eru Ilúvatar, the supreme being.

ie son of Skeletor...

imaginary folk with ludicrous made up names

I think pretty much every name means something in the books, as simon says, he was a professor of language specialising in philology.

I read LOTR last year after last reading it at 11 (I'm now 35). TBH, I really enjoyed the technical use of language - Sumptious would be the word I'd choose. It was a real treat second time round.

He was, as has been said a professor of language and the relationship with his publisher was famously difficult due to him being an awkward perfectionist who took huge amounts of time getting it exactly the way he wanted it.

Point of order: it's one book in three volumes, not a trilogy.

thought it was 6 books, published in 3 volumes? (certainly remember Return of the King having 2 distinct parts.)