hi i’m a massiv fan anyone else out there who likes it?
Both the books and the movies are all pretty much duds. Not many fans anywhere that I’ve ever heard of…
Lord of the Rings
I am sure I detected a hint of sarcasm in the post by ratherbekayaking. They probably didn’t allow him to bring his Kayak into the theatre and he feels bitter about it ever since. I enjoy the Lord of the Rings and I prefer the books. The movies are good but there is so much they miss out on. It is nice that they used our country to film the Lord of the Rings (New Zealand). It shows you a glimpse of our Mountains and some of the scenery. I’m looking forwards to seeing the final chapter of the movie, the Return of the King.
Another fan here. I like the films a lot, but the books are even better. I really like the scenery, NZ looks like such a great place for MUniing!
ps Rowan, I love your avatar!
That’s root beer, of course.
Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ
Yup. Sarcasm. I guess I should have stuck this 
after my post.
The books beat the pants off the movies, IMHO. That is not to say that the movies were bad, but they miss some of the plot so they can make it look cool. (Helm’s Deep should not have been half the movie, because it wasn’t a long part in the book at all.)
Also, if you like the three LOTR books, pick up Unfinished Tales and the Silmarillion, both by J.R.R… (The Silmarillion rocks!!)
Text is better than film.
Can anyone think of a book/film combination where the book doesn’t beat the pants off the film?
I haven’t read LOTR recently enough to compare it to the films, but I recall being very dissappointed at Jurassic Park compared to the book; and the Tom Clancy novels made into films leave a lot of the book out.
Unless we’re to get used to marathon day-long films I guess that’s not going to change.
Phil
Can anyone here explain the walking trees in TTT? I’ve asked and asked people about that, and I still don’t get it.
But Harry Potter is WAAAY better than LOTR, in my humble opinion. But not the HP movies, they sucked.
By the way, I just couldn’t resist posting this:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/5023564.htm
This version of the movie made a whole lot more sense to me.
Urm, maybe…
They are called tree ents, and from what I can work out they were once normal trees that were fed with a special type of water that made them grow really strong and have the ability to move about and talk. They have to keep drinking the special water from magical springs to keep their powers. They are like shepherds, but their flock is the forest and they look after the trees in it.
That is one of the things that is not well described in the film.
i’ve have 2 disagree there
i’m sorry but lord of the rings beats harry potter by far books and film! harry potter books are good, lord of the rings books are amazing! harry potter films not very good lord of hte rings films best ever!
Well said treepotato!
O yes, another good thing about the LOTR films is the music, it’s great!! (But i have to say, the HP music isnt bad either)
mmmmmmm
well maybve i’ll have 2 comprimise there hp mucis is OK but lotr music rules i have the fotr soundtrack and the tt one can’t wait till rotk comes out:p
All this talk of music inspired me to listen to the soundtrack while i revise for my gcses. Its really relaxing and just what u need with teh stress of exams.
I think that LotR are way too farfetched, while the Harry Potter books are written realistically. I like them better that way.
I love the Lord of the Rings!
I’m currently reading all of the books for the second time. I read the Hobbit again and the Fellowship of the Ring as well. I’m now starting the Two Towers. They’re just as good the second time around! I wanted to refresh my memory of how everything really happens so I can compare it to the movies. I couldn’t remember when I watched the Two Towers what remained the same and what changed.
I think that the books and the movies can’t really be compared. The books are awesome books, the movies are awesome movies. Of course they had to leave out a lot of stuff. I had already read the books when I saw the first movie, but it seems to me that you don’t get as acquainted with the characters at first. They left out the whole part with going to Buckland first and how the other hobbits had conspired and figured out all about the ring and everything. But it worked without it for the movie, I guess. I think I would have had trouble following the movies had I not read the books.
I have the extended edition of the Fellowship of the Ring on DVD. I read that the extended Two Towers is coming out November 18th. It has 43 extra minutes instead of 30. So I’m looking forward to seeing the stuff that has been left out.
I can’t wait for the Return of the King!
Nikki
>I think that LotR are way too farfetched, while the Harry >Potter books are written realistically.
Harry Potter realistic??? Just because it is set in perhaps more modern times and such doesn’t make it more realistic.
J.R.R. Tolkien took years to create a whole LOTR universe and even real languages to go along with it. He also created lots of things about the gods and whatnot that helped shape Middle Earth. You don’t see all that in Harry Potter. Also, Tolkien didn’t really live long enough to see the overall outcome his book would have on the world. He wasn’t as popular back then as he is now. And look at Harry Potter. The author must be making some nice cash. And what did tehy do compared to Tolkien? Not much.
But that’s just what I think.
(It’s not even right to compare HP to LOTR because LOTR is better than anything. 
)
I just mean that the Harry Potter books are written realistically, it sounds so completely true. Besides, what’s realistic about walking trees, and winning about 500 battles in a row where you’re outnumbered 1000 to 1 on every one? I mean, the good guys have to lose sometimes!