Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

LotR: Not as good as the movies

Name: PassiveSmoking 2004-12-28 12:48

I don't know about anyone else, but I found JRR Tolkien's book really dull and reading it was a real chore.  Big props to Peter Jackson for turning it into a highly watchable trilogy.

Name: Anonymous 2005-08-31 14:28

Cheapest flame bait ever?

Name: Anonymous 2005-09-01 13:29 (sage)

>>40

Except sage doesn't do anything to the current thread order, even if everyone posts to a thread with sage (like they do in 2ch) the thread will remain where it is unless someone posts in another separate thread to age it to the top of the threadlist or creates a new thread

Name: Anonymous 2005-09-01 14:13 (sage)

BURN BURN BURN BURN BURN.

BTW, The Two Towers was my favorite book in the trilogy, but least favorite of the films.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-15 2:20 ID:OHp7+sGk

the only reason tolkien started writing the book of lost tales is because he wanted to read the kind of shit that he liked, he wasnt a skilled writer so he just wrote it the way he wanted to read it.  He didnt give a fuck if the other readers could understand it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-15 5:46 ID:z0RGb5cm

When you go on for two to three pages describing hills and grass, you need to condense your fucking writing.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-15 7:05 ID:WFZm3Qrp

-FuhrerSoulcollector-
      Or learn to wrtie maybe?

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-15 21:45

OP just wants to be different.

>>44
Tolkien was a very skilled writer, which was he was able to put his shit down in words.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 1:28

I believe Tolkien was indeed surpassed in the fantasy genre by the skillful storytelling and superb character development of J.K. Rowling.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-16 13:27

              ∧_∧     / ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄
          ( ´∀`) < http://loldongs.mypunbb.com
        /    |    \________
       /       .|     
       / "⌒ヽ |.イ |
   __ |   .ノ | || |__
  .    ノく__つ  U  U   \
   _((_________   \
    ̄ ̄ヽつ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ | |  ̄
   ___________| |
    ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄ ̄  ̄| |

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-17 1:08

Films > novels.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-17 4:17

Tolkien certainly was boring at times, but you don't read him for thrills, you read him for immersion. Meanwhile, LotR movies  can't surpass anything in anything, except in budget and elf-women. Well, the movies were a great illustration, if anything, but on their own they were pretty awful.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-18 20:35

>>9
My experience was precisely the same. Loved the Hobbit... got the council in LoTR and got bored and stopped reading it.

Name: Anonymous 2008-06-23 1:08

>>48
Ever tried trolling Tolkien fanboys with that?

Name: Anonymous 2008-10-31 20:34

The thing I liked best about LotR was what some people like the least.  I love it because its such an epic story-yeah its slow, but it was one of those stories that by the end of it I had one of those "holy shit" moments.  I also loved the movies; Peter Jackson did an incredible job translating such an involved story onto the screen.

I think its just a personal opinion thing.  I've read LotR twice now, and after the second time, I read the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and Forgotten Tales-the whole world and its mythos interests me to no end.  If you're not into that, though, its gonna suck.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-17 19:43

The first book is useless except for a few bits and eh, explaining the backstory or w/e.

The second book is awesome.

The first half of the third book is awesome.

There you go.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-27 10:18

Both the books and the films were good but would have been much better if JRRT had thought of the following things:

-do away with the hobbits, they are pretty much useless.
-remove the entire plot about having to destroy the ring and have bilbo give it back to golum.
-make golum a bad-ass ninja, not some whiney bitch, he would be able to turn invisible with the ring after-all.
-have the main plot focus solely on legolas and the dwarfy bloke, gandalf and the king dude.
-make them meet with golum and have golum who helps them to kick everyones asses in the battles.
-make legolas not just an elf but a PIRATE elf.
-Make king dude a samuri.

How much more awesome would the books have been then?

A dwarf, a pirate-elf, a samuri king, a wizard and a ninja with invibility powers, saving middle earth... I bet if he were alive today JRRT would be kicking himself for not comming up with that.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-27 23:26

>>58
How do you plan to have Gollum without Hobbits?

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-28 9:27

I don't meen delete hobbits from history, just don't have them in the fellowship apart from golum who is not really a hobbit anymore.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-28 11:13

>>60
People like you are the reason schools keep dumbing down their curriculum.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-28 15:40

>>61

I have an English Lit degree and I agree with >>58

Had Tolkien been aware of the awesomeness pirates, ninjas and samurai he almost certainly would have used them in Lord of the Rings.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-28 15:47

>>62

An English Lit degree?

An ENGLISH LIT DEGREE?


Oh dear

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-29 17:51

>>58
You're horrible. I bet you still find Chuck Norris jokes funny.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-29 21:07

I really liked the books. But I fund the Silmarillion (sort of the history of Middle Earth before LoTR) to be even a greater work of art from Tolkien.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-29 23:25

>>65
none of tolkien's works have any artistic value hth

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-20 19:32

I agree movies > books.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-20 22:23

>>63
englit owns fuck da haters

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-20 23:37

Oddly enough The Hobbit is the opposite. Every chapter is a ten page adventure.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-24 18:08

You're crazy if you think the films were better than the books. Those movies were TERRIBLE. Seriously, just awful, hilariously lame, CGI-laden bullshit.
Of course as an adult you're not going to want to read TLOTR trilogy, but it was great towards the end of gradeschool/beginning of high school. Appreciate it for what it is, and NEVER compare it to the movies, for God's sake.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-24 20:59

>>70
Replying to a post from 2004.

Name: Anonymous 2009-05-24 22:40

>>71
And it's still as foolish as it was then.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-29 1:07

I love the books and the back story behind them really is incredible. It definitely makes both the Hobbit Lord of the Rings more enjoyable.

That said, I can very easily see why people would find them very dull. It just depends on the person.

I thought the movies were excellent as well. Although admittedly, I started reading the books after seeing the Fellowship in theatres. If this doesn't make me a true fan of the books, then whatever. I really don't care.

Name: Anonymous 2009-06-29 3:45

>>73
I thought the movies were excellent as well. Although admittedly, I started reading the books after seeing the Fellowship in theatres. If this doesn't make me a true fan of the books, then whatever. I really don't care.

Indeed.  A fool's distinction. 

That said, I can very easily see why people would find them very dull. It just depends on the person.

Dull?  Anyone who finds the books dull is confusing the condition of their wit with the work.  The Lord of the Rings is of sufficient quality to transcend "personal taste".

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List