Here Today... Gone To Hell!

jus wonderin is any1 here a fan of the lord of the rings books or films? im a hug efan of the books(tho they wer  bit borin at times).

Yes I am an absolute fanatic of both the books and the film. Although the books are better.

I do like Lord Of The Ring I remember seeing LOTR: ROTK It was absouletly shattered coming of the cinema nothing wrong with long movie but if you wanna watch this films at home you need a lot of time on your hands.

Especially if your going to watch the extended cuts Dave_Rose.


I love the books and  movies ,I think Peter did as close of a job to getting the material right as humanly possible

duh! wich spoon h8s LOTR! I'D simply kil myslef if therz a no LOTR fan

I love Lord of the Rings.  I've read the books several times and I can't even count how many times I've watched the movies.  Both the books and the movies are worth the time it takes to read/watch them.

the best part was they filmed evrything, edited it all but put all deletd scenz in specul feat.

Well they didnt quite film everything, the Tom Bombadil(sp?) omission was big but would have eaten up alot of time and dragged the movie to a complete halt. Also the whole ending with the enslavement of the Shire was eliminated. I understand why these were done, but would have been nice to see in the extended additions.

The books can be far too tiresome, and re - the Tom Bombadil part, I'm glad it was cut out. It was completely unnecessary and pointless even in the book.

there is a reason for Tom being in the Fellowship...he is a man of morality, one who does not desire power, one who does not desire anything but knowledge of the world, some say he is the God in the trilogy or even the equivalent of Mother Nature...whatever he represents, im sure that tolkien had good reason to put him in the book...it hould have been in the extended version of the film imo

Yes I got that. But it doesn't mean he was purposeful. After all he did nothing but sing all day.
The part where Merry and co got trapped in the trees, and they slept in his house can be eliminated without any harm to the storyline.

he is the absolute opposite of sauron...without tom bombadil, certain elements are missing from the book...he gives balance because there is noone else in LOTR who is the complete opposite of sauron...sauron desires complete power over everything, bombadil desires nothing other than to be part of the world and thats why he is unaffected by the rings power

not sure why you would leave him out...the book is the book and he will always remain a part of it no matter how unimportant you think he is...read what tolkien says about bombadil...he says he had to be there in the book...so therefore he should be in the film...imo

peter jackson said the reason he wasnt in the film was cus they wantd to focas jus on the path of frodo an the ring as much as they cud an altho he didnt have netin against tom he didnt think he was necessary(sp?) to frodo's journey. have any of yous read bored of the rings? tom is a hippie in it an gives frodo an co. pot,it makes that part of the book very funny! :hihi:

have any of yous watched all of the features on all three extended dvds?

I don't underestimate his standing, but his purpose. He stood for much, yes, but did nothing, so he would have been completely irrelevant in the film. As would have been Glorfindel, though he was functional. When people are going to see the film I don't think they'll be giving a shit that he's the complete opposite of Sauron.

Absolutely love both the books and the movies. The Salmirillion is great also but is one tough read.

so youre saying that if people went to see this film with tom in it then these people wouldnt have the capacity of intelligence to understand what he stood for? ...these are probably the same people who would make films like sahara a hit because they think its cool...and if they didnt give a shit then the inclusion of tom wouldnt have made much difference, especially in the extended editions which are far more intended for die hard fans

and yea glorfindel should have been in it too...

What he said. ^

You're going to have to be pretty die hard to watch over four hours of LOTR.

Anybody without the capability to work out his purpose and/or what he stands for would, I doubt, be sitting through a four hour movie.

Nope. I'm just saying they wouldn't want to sit down for an extra 45 minutes watching a character that ultimately plays no part in the movement of the film. The film wasn't made for Tolkien snobs, it was made to reach a wider audience, including non-Tolkien geeks, and it did exactly that.

I happen to think Arwen taking Frodo across the river as opposed to some stupid horse, was a much better idea than including Glorfindel in the movie for five seconds.

Like I said the reason for omitting Tom from the theatrical release was understandable but would have been nice to see in the extended DVD's. Peter Jackson did a good job, IMO, in making additions and subtractions. The addition of the "You bow to no-one" scene became my favorite scene in the movie. Of course his best move was firing Stuart Townsend a week into filming and hiring Viggo Mortensen for the role of Aragorn.

Viggo Mortensen was a good Aragorn.

Though I would have loved for Daniel Day-Lewis to have taken the role.

Wow, thats a great thought. Daniel Day Lewis is awesome in everything he has performed in. He was absolutely robbed in the Oscars for "Gangs of New York". He made a mediocre movie extremely enjoyable, for me at least, as Bill The Butcher.

Still, Viggo seemed to just nail the role to me, but I only read the books once before the movies so I am hardly an authority on the matter. :peace:

even though LOTR is one of the most read books of the 20th century?...the inclusion of tom would have made no difference to the audience...im not expecting people to be saying, "hey im not going to see LOTR cos tom bombadil is in it"

then reason the films reached a wider audience is because 95% of the films were true to the book...

you may think that glorfindel at the ford of bruinen was ummm cool...but it actually lost the fact that frodo's power stood up against the nine...it would have been far better to show this than the obvious attempt at increasing the size of arwens character in the movie...

im not dissing the movies, theya re probably the among the best 3 movies ever made...jackson is a genius...but they could have been better

wat was every bodys fav line frm each of the movies mine are

ROTK:u will suffer me
an i can never decide frm the other two

Original screenplay? : "I see in your eyes, the same fear, that would take the heart of me..." - Aragorn

Ooh, makes me shiver whenever I watch him give that little speach.

That little speech does the same to me.   

Just fuckin great the way Viggo delivered it .

Aragorn should have been a few inches taller and with blonde hair and blue eyes. From the books, Aragorn clearly represents the race of kings, the Nords. Dwarves are Slavic, hobbits I think would be Alpine, Elves Mediterranean, etc. So much of the books are symbolic of Europe's cultures, all united against a common foe. By the way, notice that orcs used curved blades, just like Middle Easterners did during the Crusades. They're harder to defend against.

In today's PC climate, you would never hear about this. These days, the books are just another fairy tale.  ::)

That was the most uneducated attempt at an educated response that I've witnessed in at least a month.

And no, I'm not backing up my claim. The best I can do is refer you to Q (IQ) as he seems to be knowledgeable in this particular area. It remains to be seen though, whether or not he has any more patience for your knockabout diction and its nonsensical roots than I do. My guess would be, no. But you never know...

Anyway, sorry for the ad hominem verbosity. I'm just a hater when it comes to posers... :yes:

Nothing personal...ah...intended anyway... :-\

A no..... Even Tolkien himself shot down stupid theories like that.

sounds like a mish mash of guesses...elves are blonde, tall and fair skinned, from that description people would think swedish not mediterranean...

Do Slavs have long beards and are they 3-4 feet tall, live in massively architectured caves, use axes etc...not much correlation is there?

Do Alpines smoke weed, work little, are 3 feet tall, have large and hairy feet and never leave their home because they are forever happy?

so they used curved blades...they didnt have much choice, curved or straight?  if they used straight blades then you would have said romans or whatever...

European cultures united together against a common foe? wow thats a tremendous lack of history about Europe you possess, before the 20th century you would be hard pushed to find 2 or 3 countries acting together and most often it would be for selfish reasons rather than for the common good...

your logic, like boromir, is filled with holes...feel free to elaborate on your reasons why you think they match

personally i think Tolkien just took what he thought were the right elements for each race and looked for complementing features...

im not an expert, ive only read the books twice!!!

I don't want this becoming a 4 page flame war like the gun control one. I'm just saying that there is much, much more to Lord of the Rings that meets the eye. You guys ought to hear what I have to say about Conan the Barbarian, but that's another story. ;)

As for history, the very act of giving rings to gain allegiance dates back to pre-Christian Northern Europe. When the books were written, the background clearly has Europe in mind. And yes, there has to be a lot of guesswork in interpreting this story, it's just how it is.

It's worth noting that Tony Iommi doesn't like the term "heavy metal", and he denies that any Black Sabbath songs were truly Satanic, that they just used them to scare people. Of course, Iommi doesn't want to offend anyone because he has records to sell. Tolkien had books to sell. Sometimes, even the author of a work can refuse to be objective, as ridiculous as it sounds.

The main point of the book is how good unites against evil and wins. It's an idealistic portrayal of how history should be for mankind. Yes, the Crusaders were probably more interested in loot than a united defence of the Holy Land, but that wasn't how it had to be. Of course, the Scourge of the Shire chapter shows that even in the fantasy background, not everyone was united. The ideal, however, is still there.

EDIT: Here is a source for some of my theory. http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/pgr/pgr-2.-11.html


Aragorn is a brave, chivalrous king and soldier, and definitely an adventurer. Alpines, the "peasant race", don't like adventure, and could be called hobbits or dwarves. I put dwarves as Slavic because, like Slavs, dwarves need lots of body fat in the cold North. Alpines don't necessarily live in cold climates, so hobbits would fit in there. They both have a stouter built than Nords or Meds. The Mediterraneans are less physical (but make up for it with longbows in the book!), but they're good at art and culture, like the elves.

im interested about what you say about the rings...any sources for that?

I am aware that much of what he wrote was probably based on medieval europe especially weaponry and fighting close combat but much of it was not...the story of Frodo can be directly related to Tolkien's first hand experience as a soldier in World War 1...he wanted a small person to become the hero and receive the credit and not the general...he was certainly knowledgable in myths and fables all across Europe



Not sure what you mean...you are saying that tolkien wasnt objective? in what way?...

I doubt that Tolkien was truly interested in the amount of sales in his book...the book took 11 years to complete and from his words he says it was meant as a study of language as you see numerous mentions of it within the novel and far more in the appendices, alphabets, words, structures...he was a humble englishman who lived in the countryside and started it during world war 2 i believe...so i doubt that sales was on his mind especially in the early stages of his book...

"good against evil"  im not sure that directly relates to medieval times...again its probably more related to WW1 than anything else since it relates more to his personal experiences...the allies all joined up against the germans, the dark cloud crossing the land could also relate to the wars in the trenches with sauron being the German High Command

btw i thought the dwarves lived in the caves not far from Rivendell, quite a long way south of hobbiton and there were very few cold winters in hobbiton

It may be but, even in spite of the movies, still not everyone has read it. In fact, people who've seen the movies and then attempted the book will give up because it's so much easier to just go with the films.
It is a very difficult book to read, don't forget that. These days if people want to read about wizards they read Harry Potter.

Arwen's character had to be increased because she couldn't not be in the film, nor could she be in the film for five minutes in all, given how important she was in motivating Aragorn, who, regardless of Frodo, is the main character of the book.

The fact that Frodo withstood the pull of the ring and the poison from the witch king's blade is stated a lot throughout the film. Gandalf said several times that "You have some strength in you" and there were several other references.

Also, the fact that the journey to Rivendell while Frodo was injured took two weeks or so, was merely shortened, and technically it wasn't removed altogether.

I really can't do this question justice because I love every word in all three movies.

Fellowship; probably "Do you know how the Orcs first came into being? They were Elves once, taken by the dark powers, tortured and mutilated... etc. Whom do you serve?" "Saruman!"

and; "There is only one Lord of the Rings and he does not share power." also when Strider tells the Hobbits about the ringwraiths in the room at the Inn.

Two towers; "If the wall is breached Helm's deep will fall..." and the following conversation including the speech to the Orc army.
Also; "The world is changing, who now has the power to stand against the armies of Isengard..."

Return; "What about the wizard?" "I will break him." and the conversation between Theoden and Eowyn after she slays the nazgul.

i agree its not the easiest book to read but neither is it difficult...ive read harry potter, even 6-7 year olds could read those, all credit to rowling though, she has managed to get many kids reading again...quite a feat with so many other interests are available...LOTR is in a different class though

you mention how arwen was important enough for her character to be increased but then you think that a few references and the blade is enough to satisfy that Frodo wasnt drawn to the ring...this was a far more important part of the book than the romance and i think that should have had more time in the movie...and you must remember the romance between aragorn and arwen is greatly increased from what was said in the book...a clear attempt to make the film more appealing to women

im sure some people were confused about the horses coming down with the river...arwen didnt have that power so it didnt make sense...it was gandalf and elrond that summoned the horses...

so many quotes to choose from, here are a few that i like

"I bring word from Lord Elrond of Rivendell. An Alliance once existed between Elves and Men. Long ago we fought and died together. We come to honor that allegiance."

"The stars are veiled. Something stirs in the East. A sleepless malice. The eye of the enemy is moving. He is here."

"For sixty years, the Ring lay quiet in Bilbo's keeping, prolonging his life, delaying old age. But no longer, Frodo. Evil is stirring in Mordor. The Ring has awoken. It's heard its Master's call."

http://www.octavia.net/anglosaxon/TheWarBand.htm

Here's a little bit about ring giving and other stuff about Anglo-Saxon warriors. When Tolkien had the rings in mind, he was thinking of them in the Northern European warrior's context. Rings, being valuable, are powerful, but they are also a binding of submission and loyalty to one's master.

This raises an interesting question. Why do men have to wear wedding bands at all? ;)

Yeah that rlues.
LOTR is by far my faveourite movie- number 3.
The cast are amazing. I love Viggo Mortensen. He's so sexy as Aragorn. that speech kicks-ass. :love:

Especially the " a day may come when the courage of men fails....."
and "but it is not this day, this day we fight. To all u hold dear, on this good earth, i bid u stand, Men of the West."
parts.I am probably a BIG LOTR freak. I'll be watching it tonight! ;D
                       

i Know wat u mean he is beautiful!but not in real life!an orlando bloom is lovely as well!do u have the extended dvds,ther funny as hell! :hihi:

i like the signatures at the bottom of ur posts cus lets face facts slash is god! wer abouts in ireland are u from?

I sorted out your quote (you need [quote*] at the beggining and [/quote*] at the end of what you want to quote, without the *). Now keep personal conversations out of this thread or I'll slap you about.

Only a little bit, mind.

Okay, so I won't slap you, but I'll certainly have stern words........