Lord Of the Rings anyone?

[Cubb]

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).

[Jamie]

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.

[Dave_Rose]

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.

[Timothy]

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

[Sakib]

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

[Sterlingdog]

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.

[Sakib]

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

[Kujo]

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.

[Narcissa]

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.

[Axls Locomotive]

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

[Narcissa]

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...

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.

[Axls Locomotive]

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

[Cubb]

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!

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

[Narcissa]

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

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.

[Gunner80]

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

[Axls Locomotive]

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.

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...

[Jim]

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.

[Narcissa]

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.

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?

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.

[Kujo]

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.

[Timothy]

Viggo Mortensen was a good Aragorn.

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