puppet pusher said:
Just remember its in the extra documentary part of the DVDs, not the actual extended version of the movie.
A question about LOTR
- Thread starter KitFisto
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Just remember its in the extra documentary part of the DVDs, not the actual extended version of the movie.
KitFisto
Super Freak
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Messages
- 12,396
- Reaction score
- 22
Well, I picked up the paperback 4 pack yesterday ( The Hobbit and The LOTR ). I read the first 3 chapters of the Hobbit last night and am enjoying it so far. It's really fun to dive back into middle earth in a story I am not all that familiar with!
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,793
- Reaction score
- 0
KitFisto said:
I guess I'll need to wait a few months before I can get you to read the SW novels then. Oh well, at least you'll enjoy your next 4 books. I can't wait for you to get to the end of ROTK (my favorite chapter in all of the books)
KitFisto
Super Freak
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Messages
- 12,396
- Reaction score
- 22
Darth Loki said:
I guess I'll need to wait a few months before I can get you to read the SW novels then. Oh well, at least you'll enjoy your next 4 books. I can't wait for you to get to the end of ROTK (my favorite chapter in all of the books)
Is it a lot different than the ending to the movie? I won't get there for a while.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,793
- Reaction score
- 0
KitFisto said:
Let's just say most people think the last few chapters of the book are MUCH better than the movie. The movie has certain parts that I like better, but without saying too much, the book is better.
revilal
Freaked Out
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 199
- Reaction score
- 0
Definetely read the appendix too.
First 3 times I read the books, i never bothered, but upon my 4th reading i stumbled upon it, and it really is great. Mentions how Gandalf and Aragorn met, what Sam and co got up to after etc
ps. I preferred the books ending at Mordor too...
First 3 times I read the books, i never bothered, but upon my 4th reading i stumbled upon it, and it really is great. Mentions how Gandalf and Aragorn met, what Sam and co got up to after etc
ps. I preferred the books ending at Mordor too...
Vince said:
Its been in the appendix at the end of ROTK for every edition since the first, I believe.
FrodoEyes
Super Freak
And also how Aragorn, under a different name (and Gandalf i think?) used to be in Minas Tirith years before the war of the ring, and how Aragorn also rode with the Rohirrim around the same time...
Darth Caedus
Formerly Congerking
FrodoEyes said:
The name he used was Thorongil. Under that name he served both Thengel of Rohan (Theoden's father) and Ecthelion II (Denethor's father) of Gondor.
KitFisto said:
Well first off, the second half of RoTK isn't even in the movie. I thought RoTK was a great book and only half of it was used. Oh well, I need to go reread those three, the hobbit, the silmarillion, book of lost tales 1 & 2, children and hurin. Looks like I'm in for a busy summer :chew :chew
Meh, the chapter you guys are all talking about, I thought was un-needed. I like the way PJ ended it much better. 
Darth Caedus
Formerly Congerking
pixletwin said:Meh, the chapter you guys are all talking about, I thought was un-needed. I like the way PJ ended it much better.
Darth Caedus
Formerly Congerking
jlcmsu said:
Funny you mention that. My brother tried reading the fellowship and he said the Old Forest dragged on...and on...and on...which I tend to agree with. Glad PJ took that part out.
Captain Faramir
Super Freak
Actually, Lord of the Rings is the only fantasy story that I really love BECAUSE of those moments. Tolkein uses symbolism and archetypes in a way that no author has since been able to replicate, merging both faerie stories and epic quest stories--he's simply the master of form, language, and context. That's my only real gripe with the films--it lacks the depth of time and movement of the books. In a film, yeah it would be too much, but the novel depends on those long endings and the forest scenes in order to draw the contrasts between the action. It compares the growing quality of natural time to the quick pacing of man-made events, and draws a web of parallels between them which causes the novel to feel complete and whole. Without them, there's no sense of history, and it merely becomes story. Adding the slow movement of nature gives a foundation of reality to events that would otherwise be too fantastic to accept. Drawing out the journey in long stages prevents the reader from feeling rushed, and assures us that this quest is truly taking time--real time in a believable world, not the pretend time of some playland. J. R. R. Tolkein was a literary genius in that sense, amongst others. I love those parts of the story!
Actually the pacing is one thing I really disliked about FOTR.
30 years between the time Frodo gets the ring and when he leaves the Shire!!!???!!!
There isn't the sense of urgency the film had. Thank you PJ for correcting something I always thought needed correction.
Gandalf: "Here ya go Frodo. This ring is the ring of doom. Why don't you hold on to it for a decade or so. When you feel like the time is right, go and leave the Shire. You may want to pretend to move somewhere else... In any case, think about it. No rush."
30 years between the time Frodo gets the ring and when he leaves the Shire!!!???!!!
There isn't the sense of urgency the film had. Thank you PJ for correcting something I always thought needed correction.
Gandalf: "Here ya go Frodo. This ring is the ring of doom. Why don't you hold on to it for a decade or so. When you feel like the time is right, go and leave the Shire. You may want to pretend to move somewhere else... In any case, think about it. No rush."
RoboDad
Super Freak
I think this is the problem I have with what I will call "movie-focused" fans, more than anything else. There is a subtle implication in some of the comments here that Peter Jackson is somehow a better storyteller than Professor Tolkien. That anyone could even entertain such an absurd notion is completely beyond my comprehension.
The movies are very good, but they always have been, and always will be, pale reflections of the magnificent storytelling found in the books.
The movies are very good, but they always have been, and always will be, pale reflections of the magnificent storytelling found in the books.
RoboDad said:
Man I have been into LOTR since 1978. You can "professor" this and "movie-focus" that, but in the end it is still a matter of opinion. I do think PJ paced FOTR better then professor Tolkien.
Really, Frodo "doop-dee dooing" his way around the Shire for decades while he holds onto the ring is lame, IMO. I thought it was lame LOOOOOOONG before the movies came out and I still think its lame.
RoboDad said:
Agree with you hands down on that point.
I wouldn't call it absurd. That's probably being a touch rude. It's all a matter of opinion which is all fine and dandy. PJ and Tolkien did amazing work on LOTR both versions IMO. I love both equally and for me the movies have only ADDED to what I love about the books. They go together like PB&J.
Similar threads
