Any Lord of the Ring Fans?

[Dark Whacker]

I'm big Lord of the Ring fan and can't wait for the next movie installment coming out Dec. 18.

That being said I have a few questions about the first movie ,"The Fellowship of The Ring", which only true fans, of the kind that have read the books, can answer.


So any Lord of the Ring fans here?

[Trolling Pain]

Fan of the movies. I'm too lazy to actually read the books. But I love the story and I ask my friend things about it. Might read the books when I get older and when I can't move my limbs any longer. Anyway, I just saw the second trailer in the cinema, pretty cool music in it as well.

[Illinoising]

I read it about 25 years ago...I probably don;t remember the detail you're looking for though...

[CaptainWacky]

I recently read the trilogy for the first time. Loved it. I might be able to answer your questions.

Haven't seen Fellowship, but I'll probably see The Two Towers when it comes out. Currently reading The Hobbit...which I really should have read first.

[THUNDERHAMMER]

Read the first 200 pages. Utter crap.

[Captain Decker]

I'm part-way through "The Hobbit", and it's pretty good. I'll probably read the trilogy when I'm done.

Now, so far as LOTR:FOTR goes, the movie was good. MUCH better, for instance, than the WOEFUL Attack of the Clones. However, I STILL fell asleep near the end, despite jabbing myself in the ribs with my remote several times to ward off the drowsiness. Gandalf was awesome (the fight scenes with him and the bad dude wizard were ass-kicking cool). Cate Blanchett, Decker thinks, is one of the hottest older chicks around, and the Lovely Liv Tyler is too cute to believe, so the babe content was high.

The effects were surprisingly good-to-excellent, and the actors all gave acceptable performances. However, there doesn't seem to be much here for the person who hasn't read the book. Usually, that's a good thing. I prefer adaptations to be just that--not "re-imaginings". I would have liked it better if I HAD read the books, I guess I should say.

My BIG complaint about the film is that it plays WAYYYYY too much to the scenery. As THE PLANT has said: "It looks like a frickin' 3-hour add for the frelling New Zealand Tourism Commission!"

Decker has to agree.

With regard to "The Two Towers", Decker LOVES the trailer, especially the music, and has high hopes for this one!

We'll see...

CD, D.R.S.

[missmanners]

This was required reading when I was in High School. I guess I should read them again. I thought the film was a little too long. I should have watched it ion 2 or 3 parts. Because I started to get too distracted with "other things".

;)
mm

[Nivea Moon]

I just recently read the complete set....

While I really liked the movie and have to agree with much of what Captain Decker said....the movie was more true to the spirt of the book than actually reworking the exact storyline. For example, Frodo in the book was actually around 50 years old and had the ring for at least 20 years. During the time he had the ring Gandalf peaced together what it really was...

For me liking the book and the movie were two entirely different things. While I did like the movie...I had to struggle through the book as I found it a bit boring.

[Tenar]

I finally got around to reading the trilogy and The Hobbit last year. I haven't read The Silmarillion or any of the lost tales, or whatever. I have a few on my bookshelf but I don't think that counts. I'm no fanatic so I probably wouldn't be able to answer any tough questions. I expected to like the books a lot more than I actually did. I'm sure it's blasphemy to say this but IMHO a little more characterization wouldn't have hurt.
I absolutely loved the movie though and I'm dying to see TTT. I feel like I need to read the books again as well.

[Dark Whacker]

The question I have to "Lord of the Rings" fans is, what is your opinion that Tom Bombadil was not added in the movie installment of "The Fellowship of The Ring"?

Personally I'm kind of undecided in how I feel about the whole situation, on one side I think Peter Jackson thought that including Tom Bombadil would have made the movie look to childish and it would have taken away from the whole serious tone the movie depicted, but I just recently found out that the Ents will be a part of The Two Towers. So that obviously means that Peter Jackson is confident in himself to attempt to pull off making the Ents part of the movie, yet why not Tom Bombadil?

I'll admit that when time came to see "The Fellowship of the Ring" I was crossing my fingers for the part where the Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin encounter Tom Bombadil, ofcourse once they were ordering ale at The Prancing Pony my dreams of seeing Tom Bombadil on the Big Screen were crushed.

To those of you who have been too lazy to read the books here is a very blunt description of Tom Bombadil's power.

The ring has no effect on him.

[Nivea Moon]

The question I have to "Lord of the Rings" fans is, what is your opinion that Tom Bombadil was not added in the movie installment of "The Fellowship of The Ring"?


The movie did cut out alot of the Hobbits adventures getting to the Inn... but it did allowed them to enlarge other parts such as Evening Star the elfin princess and made the movie 3hours instead of five....but I don't think the movie lost anything because of this....it allowed the characterisation and action of the book to occur in spirt without many of the side plots that occur in the books. Without Peter Jackson doing this the movie may have become very messy and complicated.

However, I do feel he should probably include the ENTS as they were used to help destroy the power of the bad dud wizard...but again I don't feel that should be used as a major part of the storyline.

In the end comparing the book and the movie are like comparing apples and oranges and should probably be judged in their own right.


My BIG complaint about the film is that it plays WAYYYYY too much to the scenery. As THE PLANT has said: "It looks like a frickin' 3-hour add for the frelling New Zealand Tourism Commission!"


I have to admit I didn't mind the scenery....but most Australia and NZ movies I watch are heavy on this aspect....I think it opens up the movie and makes it seem larger than life whereas; English movies tend to focus on characterisation in a small location which makes the movie look small and grey...

[CaptainWacky]

To be honest, Red, I thought the three Tom Bombadil chapters were the worst part of the book! He wasn't essential to the plot at all and just slowed the whole thing down. Maybe I'll appreciate him more the next time I read the book, however. I wasn't suprised to learn that he was left out of the movie.

Can't wait to see how Treebeard looks in TTT!

[Tenar]

Originally posted by "CaptainWacky"

To be honest, Red, I thought the three Tom Bombadil chapters were the worst part of the book!
Heck, I thought he was the worst thing in all three books. Not a Tom Bombadil fan here! My sister managed to keep reading only by skipping Mr. Bombadil entirely. Maybe you either love him or hate him?
I (obviously) didn't mind his absence from the movie and I think it was a good choice to leave him out. He didn't seem to have much point.

[Dark Whacker]

:x I'm not surprised in the responses regarding my hero Tom Bombadil. For some reason, most people I've encountered totally dislike this character. :x

Why? I ask. How can you not love a character so much more powerful than Sauron. A character that defies all logic and is content living in his own area of the woods untouched by evil or the eye of Mordor.

Why!?! :x

[Dark Whacker]

For those of you not in the know, here's a better description of Tom Bombadil for you:

source: http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/lord_of_the_rings_feature.htm

One of the more chilling episodes in Jackson's movie is the crossing of the Brandywine on the Bucklebury Ferry. In the novel, Frodo and his Hobbit friends then pass through the Old Forest on the borders of Buckland, well before arriving at Bree. After a short series of misadventures, the group is rescued and hosted by Tom Bombadil, a curious mannish creature who not only dwells in the Forest, but seems to be its master. His bride is Goldberry, "daughter of the River," and their whole existence seems tied up with the Forest and its environs. While visiting with Bombadil -- who seems well informed about the various comings and goings related to Frodo's quest -- Frodo is surprised to learn that the Ring has no power at all over old Tom; further, Bombadil seems to be wholly disinterested in the thing. After the Hobbits continue on the journey, Bombadil is again required to rescue them, this time from Barrow-wights (evil spirits of dead Men, dwelling in old burial mounds) before they finally get on the road to Bree.

Later, in Rivendell, Elrond says of Bombadil, "Iarwain Ben-adar we called him, oldest and fatherless. But many another name he has since been given by other folk: Forn by the Dwarves, Orald by the Northern Men, and other names beside. He is a strange creature..." Gandalf shares, "The Ring has no power over him. He is his own master. But he cannot alter the Ring himself, nor break its power over others... And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind."

[Nivea Moon]

I have to admit I didn't like or dislike the Tom Bombadil character as I found the whole Lord of the Rings books hard to fall into. I read the books from more of an observers persective which makes it hard to like any particular character greatly - which is a shame as it would be nice to have the love affair with the books that some people have.

[HeroicFool]

It's been a looong time...

I loved the books.

The hobbit was required reading in a class I took in Jr high school. Before the rest of the class had finished the hobbit I'd read the entire series. Unfortunately I have not read them since and have forgotten most of the plot and especially the little things like TomBombadil. From what Red's said about him here though I'd tend to agree with him... He sounds like a fascinating character.

I really should read the series again.

BTW the movie was so incredible that I was blown away and I went in a total pessimist.

[Ancalagon]

Ancalagon

The mightiest of Morgoth's winged dragons, loosed from Angband against the host of the Valar at the end of the War of Wrath. Even that mighty army was driven back by the onset of Ancalagon and his vassals, but Eärendil came through the sky in Vingilot to do battle with the dragon armada, and he was aided by Thorondor and the Eagles. They fought for twenty-four hours, until Eärendil at last slew Ancalagon, who fell on the mountains of Thangorodrim and destroyed them in his ruin.


Yes i'm a little bit of a fan. Although i do have some beef with the movie. Nothing major, but just somethings i think were good for the story. The first and most obvious is the absence of Tom Bombadil. Tom himself is one of the most controversial characters in the book (he doesn't even seem to come from the middle earth universe) so i can see why they wanted to cut him out, but by doing so, they also have to take out the barrow wright scene. The Barrow wrights are important b/c they help give middle earth the depth that tolkien is so famous for. The songs, artifacts, ruins, legends and tales told in middle earth help give this history and depth to the place. Also the barrow wrights are important b/c that is where the hobbits get their swords. These swords aren't just any swords, but blades of Westernesse. In the Return of the King, it is said that no blades but those forged in Westernesse could have pierced the 'flest' of the Nazgul, but those forged in Westernesse. A pretty important piece of information.

Next issue, the stories i mention earlier. Thoughout the books different elves and humans are always telling stories or singing songs about the old days. The great majority of these songs and stories are missing.

Another thing i had problems with was the handling of Galadriel and the Elves of Lothlorien. I don't think either were treated with the sense of overpowering wonder that the book convey's. Also the movie doesn't make enough of the giving of gifts when the Party leaves Lorien. These gifts are very important. Although i did notice that cloaks were clasped with the silver leaves, after they leave lorien, so it does take into account the gifts given.[/img]

[Ancalagon]

Let me just say that i did enjoy the movie. Went and saw it three times. The first time was the worst viewing, b/c i was critiqueing it the whole time instead of just watching it. After that it was much better.

[permabanned]

The biggest problem is how it affects the flow of the story. Tommy Boy is totally immune to the rings effect, and is one of the first characters the hobby's meet. To build up the ring as its own character and show how powerful and seductive it can be you can't have the first asshole you meet just toss it in the air and say 'whatever, dude.'

Plus you'd have to go into the whole Maia thing, and all the backstory that brings, and quite frankly you just don't have time for all of that. I like the way they changed the story. It makes it darker, and the ring taking over Boromir makes a lot more sense and is more powerful instead of 'huh, the hippy in the forest didn't chap his ass over the thing.'

[Mystik]

Originally posted by "Red Whacker"

The question I have to "Lord of the Rings" fans is, what is your opinion that Tom Bombadil was not added in the movie installment of "The Fellowship of The Ring"?

To those of you who have been too lazy to read the books here is a very blunt description of Tom Bombadil's power.

The ring has no effect on him.

Personally, I didn't care. He was an interesting character in the book. But the movie was just fine without him. IMO, it would have lost some of the tension. And if the movie had to stay the same legnth, I wouldn't cut anything already in the movie out of it.

As to the Ents, I'm very attached to them. I just hope he does them right. Lol, I used to call my boyfriend an Ent...but that's a long story. :)

[Dark Whacker]

Originally posted by "Mystik"


I used to call my boyfriend an Ent...but that's a long story. :)

:shock:

[Robert "Monkey" Loggia]

Originally posted by "permabanned"

The biggest problem is how it affects the flow of the story. Tommy Boy is totally immune to the rings effect, and is one of the first characters the hobby's meet. To build up the ring as its own character and show how powerful and seductive it can be you can't have the first asshole you meet just toss it in the air and say 'whatever, dude.'

Plus you'd have to go into the whole Maia thing, and all the backstory that brings, and quite frankly you just don't have time for all of that. I like the way they changed the story. It makes it darker, and the ring taking over Boromir makes a lot more sense and is more powerful instead of 'huh, the hippy in the forest didn't chap his ass over the thing.'

You fuck goats in your spare time, don't you?

[PhantomOfTheNet]

Originally posted by "Red Whacker"



To those of you who have been too lazy to read the books here is a very blunt description of Tom Bombadil's power.

The ring has no effect on him.

I don't mind that Bombadil was left out of the story. Leaving him in would have slowed down the movie too much.

But I know why the Ring didn't affect him. He's one of the Valar...one of Sauron's former masters.

[three eyes open]

^
Very possible!

I have to agree that leaving out Tom Bombadil was a wise decision, really. It was a great part of the book, but I doubt they could have done it right in the movie, which was already quite lengthy. Ultimately, Tom Bombabdil didn't contribute that much to the overall plot.

BTW the movie was so incredible that I was blown away and I went in a total pessimist.

My husband and I were exactly the same, HF. We went in saying "there's just no way they can do this right" and then we sat there with our mouths hanging open. I know it was a long movie, but it held us spellbound the entire time. We walked out of the theater babbling about how great it was and walking funny because our butts were still numb, lol. I can't wait for the Two Towers!

BB,
3eyes

[Red Whacker]

Ultimately, Tom Bombabdil didn't contribute that much to the overall plot.



I'm sorry but you're just dead wrong.

[Tyrant]

Cunt.

[Big Dick McGee]

Wow, three eyes open is dead, and Heroic Fool is now dating Shatna's mistress. Times change in 5 years, huh?

[DarthSikle]

who's Shatna?

[Archibald Nixon]

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/argynIX/bush-onering-717999.jpg