Lotr

S

Sar

Guest
There was an interview done with the original publisher, and he admitted to splitting the book up into 3. It was on one of the LotR related DVDs released last year.
 
T

theriven

Guest
it was written as one book, broken into 6 by tolkien as he thaught that as a whole it would be to long ,was released as a trillogy.
 
B

bodhi

Guest
Originally posted by theriven


look it up cunt boy.
prove me wrong or shut the fuck up
Click to expand...

Don't need to. You've managed to prove yourself wrong.





Have a nice day.
 
T

theriven

Guest
Jesus your just like me missis
Ya have to have the last word.

Well go for it girl!
 
D

dysfunction

Guest
Who really cares how the book was broken up and in how many parts it was supposed to be in....it doesnt influence the story any!

Splitting it up just makes it easier to hold the book imo.
(also add a "tbh" here as well I suppose)







PS: It has been released in 1, 3 and 6 parts....
 
T

theriven

Guest
Originally posted by dysfunction

PS: It has been released in 1, 3 and 6 parts....
Click to expand...

And is better in book form :p
trust me if you read the books then see the films, you will not see them as great film's, just films of books that havent been done well.

Although much as it pains me to say it, The Running Man by stephen king was proberbly the best film book transition without keeping the actual story
jesus god im sorry but i cant think of any better :(
 
D

dysfunction

Guest
I read the books over 10 years ago.

The LOTR films will never be as good as the books but I still think the films are excellent.

I wish they had made the hobbit as well...but we cant have everything...

Making a film from a book is never as good because the imgaination is far superior than what can be placed on film and also books go into far more detail to enhance the story and characters...
 
O

old.Kez

Guest
Oh come on, deep down we all know Tolkien was a dreadful writer.
 
T

theriven

Guest
Originally posted by dysfunction
I read the books over 10 years ago.

The LOTR films will never be as good as the books but I still think the films are excellent.

I wish they had made the hobbit as well...but we cant have everything...

Making a film from a book is never as good because the imgaination is far superior than what can be placed on film and also books go into far more detail to enhance the story and characters...
Click to expand...

But wouldnt you like to see a film of the book that was at least 75% there?
You can read all the other stuff by authers like david eddings/Raymond E, Feist or whoever, but still the daddy is tolkien. Wouldnt it be good to see a film that actualy follows the book?

OK one of the main points is still aragon and borimer have the wrong peole playing them, swop the two around and id prolly rate it higher.
But thats just personal opinoin again and counts for fuck all.
 
T

theriven

Guest
Originally posted by old.Kez
Oh come on, deep down we all know Tolkien was a dreadful writer.
Click to expand...

jakie collins anyone?
jeoffry archer?

there is a big gulf between books that are made "best seller" by WH smiths or whatever and books that people read.
The amount of peole that will read a book because its advertised on the tube is fecking silly.
I would like to think that most people will read something because they like the author/genre. or because they picked up saink in a charity shop and found it to be a good read. People reading for fashion fucking sucks.
 
N

nath

Guest
Stop saying 'saink' it's fucking queer.

You should not be proud of the fact that that's how you pronounce something.. it's shit. and gay.
 
T

theriven

Guest
Fuck me but i didnt know it would bother you that much!
Ill pm you when i give a shit.

Keep checking cos ya never know when i will ;)
 
N

nath

Guest
A) how d'you figure?

B) you're so fucking transparent :/
 
E

ECA

Guest
The books are quite simply shit.

If they were sent to a publisher today, they would be rejected, or a rewrite would be asked for.

The amount of descriptive narrative just takes the piss.

Honestly, strip it down to a paragraph of description maximum. You DONT NEED 10 pages to describe the falling of a leaf.
 
D

doh_boy

Guest
Originally posted by theriven
They were writen as a prologue to the hobbit but turned more into a prequel for the sillmarilion.
I think if you look that up ill be correct.
Click to expand...

As I was led to believe:

Silmarilion -> Hobbit -> LOTR

As for who split the books up I found a decent tolkein site which says The lord of the rings was completed in 1948 and the first two books were published in 1954. Which seems to suggest that it was the publishers idea. Since Tolkien was no push over(not many people dared to edit the books due to his reaction to doing so) I figure that it was the publishers idea but Tolkien agreed to it.

/edit As for how good a writer. I think the story is far better than his writting and therefore the books are great books for that reason. I'm not a huge fan of his writting style but I still enjoy it and considering my favourite writer is james joyce(and we know how much fun his books are) that is important.
 
D

dysfunction

Guest
Originally posted by nath
Stop saying 'saink' it's fucking queer.

You should not be proud of the fact that that's how you pronounce something.. it's shit. and gay.
Click to expand...


I was wondering what that word was! (after your post I know what it means now)

My brain is on automatic garbage filtering so I can now ignore it...
 
T

Testin da Cable

Guest
Originally posted by dysfunction



My brain is on automatic garbage filtering so I can now ignore it...
Click to expand...


brilliant :)
 
D

danger

Guest
Originally posted by dysfunction



I was wondering what that word was! (after your post I know what it means now)

My brain is on automatic garbage filtering so I can now ignore it...
Click to expand...

I re-read it 8 times then took a guess :p
 
B

bodhi

Guest
Originally posted by dysfunction



I was wondering what that word was! (after your post I know what it means now)

My brain is on automatic garbage filtering so I can now ignore it...
Click to expand...

dysfunction in comedy moment shocker!


(Well, it wasn't that funny. It did raise a smile tho. Or was that wind?)
 
O

old.tRoG

Guest
Apart from Mr.Tolkein just HAVING to describe every bush they walk past, the books are rather good.

As with all films which are based on books, The Two Towers missed out quite a few things, which I was, of course looking out for :)

It's those little things that annoyed me, but that was unavoidable.

To sum it up...

T3H 2 T0W3RZ R0X0RZ!

... dewd.
 
S

shadow`

Guest
I wonder if the words "Based on the novels by J RR Tolkien" mean anything to anyone.
 
T

Testin da Cable

Guest
bah, it's a fanboi's prerogative to bitch shadow :p
 
M

mank!

Guest
I enjoyed it. Undecided if it was better than the first, I'd say they were both pretty much on the same level.

Somewhat annoying to follow at some points, but that might be because we got to the cinema late and ended up sitting right at the front, watching something on a huge screen so close up is difficult.

Highlights were Gollum's dissociative disorder (thank you Danger), the little bits of humour in the movie; the bits with Gimli in particular and the Ent's destroying Isengaard.
 
S

Sir Frizz

Guest
The Ents made the film for me :) One thing though; when Gandalf at the start battles the big bastard demon and fall to depths of the earth, how the fuck do they end up fighting atop a mountain top?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top Bottom