Lord of the Rings

evenstarx3 · Post by **evenstarx3** » Dec 18 2002 6:31 pm

Any of you who may have been blown away by the first movie of the trilogy......you ain't seen nothing yet! Only one piece of advise....don't forget to breathe!

Wiz · Post by **Wiz** » Dec 20 2002 6:17 am

evenstarx3 wrote:
BoyNhisDog wrote:Another opinion..............

The movie was very good ( I have only seen the first one so far) but a picture is not worth a thousand of Tolkien's words. It pales. The book was far better than the movie. Far, far, far better. I read the Trilogy twice and I don't usually read a book twice much less three books. I don't think I have ever read another pure fantasy that I liked. Tolkien created something that has never been bested.
Agree completely! I first read the Trilogy in the late 60's and have reread it every few years since and don't expect that to change; the movies will be somewhat like the old "Classic Comics"; a very enjoyable few minutes and likely to make one want to dig out the real thing and be totally enraptured for hours and hours!

I agree with all that, but at the same time I wouldn't want to detract from the absolutely amazing thing they've done with this movie! Naturally the books are untouchable; but the books have been done, and, like ellechim said, the movie is a different media. It may not be the book, but damn! I don't think the movie could have possibly been done better! (And I haven't even seen #2 yet). Having read the books several times, I love having the story available in a different form now, all fresh and new again! And so well done!

olesma · Post by **olesma** » Dec 20 2002 9:18 am

Wiz wrote:
evenstarx3 wrote:
BoyNhisDog wrote:Another opinion..............

The movie was very good...but a picture is not worth a thousand of Tolkien's words. It pales. The book was far better than the movie. Far, far, far better....Tolkien created something that has never been bested.
I first read the Trilogy in the late [70's] and have reread it every few years since and don't expect that to change; the movies will be somewhat like the old "Classic Comics"; a very enjoyable few minutes and likely to make one want to dig out the real thing and be totally enraptured for hours and hours!
...I don't think the movie could have possibly been done better! (And I haven't even seen #2 yet). Having read the books several times, I love having the story available in a different form now, all fresh and new again! And so well done!

Who would have thought a Fantasy Advanture topic would crop up on a Hiking forum? Good stuff though.

I have been an evangalist for Tolkein most of my life, I find his books to be the single most enjoyable works of fiction I have ever read. Perhaps it's nostalgia, but I don't think so. The pictures he weaves with his words are truly dramatic and stunning. Character development leaves nothing to be disired. I always feel a tug to be more noble and upright after relating to the strong characters of Aragorn and the members of the felowship. I think my lifelong love of reading sprang out of those first readings of Tolkein. My tastes have meandered all over and now seem to have settled on mostly non-fiction and science related topics, but I still pull out Tolkein now and again and devour the whole series in a week or less. I can't put them down.

I think the best thing about the movies is to see someone elses vision of what the books portray. I've had images in my mind all my life, and now I get to see someone elses. Some I like, some I don't (Galadriel being the most notable subject of the latter) - but it is a fascinating journey the movie has taken us on.

Like I said. I'm just plain stoked about the whole thing. I thik I'll re-read the books this Holiday break.

Wiz · Post by **Wiz** » Dec 20 2002 9:54 am

Hey, we're all fantasy-adventure types anyway, or we wouldn't do what we do.
I think one of the reasons Tolkien's books are so classic is that it's not a "cute" story, a la Harry Potter. It's a serious, grim showdown between good and evil, and there are reference points all through the story that we can relate to our lives.

And then there's National Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings".

Wiz · Post by **Wiz** » Dec 23 2002 6:38 am

YAH! I just saw "The Two Towers"! Wow! Yes, still a pale reflection of the book, but still a killer movie. We went and saw it yesterday for our anniversary!

snow22_5150 · Post by **snow22_5150** » Dec 23 2002 10:57 am

Excellent movie, saw it Saturday and will probably see it again while in theaters. Very good movie!!!

Wiz · Post by **Wiz** » Dec 23 2002 11:16 am

... except I wish they had gotten Frodo to stop chewing his fingernails! Ecch!

Cakewalk · Post by **Cakewalk** » Dec 23 2002 10:40 pm

Havent seen it..... I guess Im one of those wierdo freaks that simply isnt interested...

I did like Nemesis however

cactuscat · Post by **cactuscat** » Dec 24 2002 10:13 am

Ditto on the "not interested" - I like real life adventures, not fantasy!

Wiz · Post by **Wiz** » Dec 24 2002 2:10 pm

cactuscat wrote:Ditto on the "not interested" - I like real life adventures, not fantasy!

Curious outlook, in my view. Are the two exclusionary? Don't you have any "Walter Mitty" in you? I would have thought we all did.

cactuscat · Post by **cactuscat** » Dec 24 2002 3:10 pm

I don't think the two are necessarily "exclusionary" (good word!) and I'm certainly not putting down anyone else's interests. I was just happy to hear I'm not the only one who's not into that type of book/movie. I read alot, and yes I have plenty of "Walter Mitty" in me, but my fantasies tend to run toward hiking the Appalachian Trail, or climbing Mt. Everest and don't involve wizards or elfs, that's all.

Wiz · Post by **Wiz** » Dec 24 2002 4:07 pm

Boy, are you going to be surprised then when you run into Bigfoot on the AT, or an alien base in on K2! Or what about Predator! I've heard him in the forest, sounds just like a woodpecker! (But he can't fool me!)

Cakewalk · Post by **Cakewalk** » Dec 24 2002 4:30 pm

Im not "exclusionary" - I prefer science fiction over fantasy. It's probably a pretty thin line that seperates the 2 however.