Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1

    and i thought star wars fans were bad...

    just when i thought we were the only ones to complain about how our beloved trilogy has been corrupted by a director who has lost touch, i discovered this Lord of the Rings forum whose members claim peter jackson is the devil himself and has forever ruined tolkein's masterworks. one guy even says he cried while watching Fellowship of the Ring because it was so bad.

    click on this link, and anytime anyone feels some are too critical of lucas' prequils, just keep some of these folks in mind........after reading some of their posts, one would think jackson made sauron the good guy!

    http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showt...&threadid=1191
    Last edited by derek; 12-20-2002 at 11:40 PM.

  2. #2
    Yeah, those guys are total morons. Of course, the difference being that the LOTR movies are actually good, as ooposed to the prequels.
    "Roger Nasty Butler!"

  3. #3
    Yeah. I've read some pretty sad things from obvious Tolkien snobs about how the movies are an abomination. Apperantly they fail to realize that the written word and the moving picture are two seperate entities. The movies could never fit everything from the books into them.

    But they do a good job of capturing the essence. And most people that fall in love with the movies, will actually end up reading the novels if they haven't already. Isn't that a good thing, to get a new generation intrested into reading the novels.

    I love how the one guy comments about the Balrog shouldn't have wings. While it doesn't have wings in Lord of the Rings novels. Tolkien did include them on a Balrog that appears in another Middle-Earth book. So that argument is moot.

    It's obvious that Peter Jackson, Ian McKellan, and especially Christopher Lee are huge Tolkien fans. If you listen to the audio commentary they even say that they helped some of the scenes more closely mirror the novels. Hell, Christopher Lee states that he reads the books once a year. I doubt he would do the film, if he felt that they were "raping" Tolkien's vision.

    Just wait til Peter Jackson announces that he plans to do the prequel, "The Hobbit". Then you'll hear the same prequel sucks complaints leveled at "The Hobbit", that your hearing for Star Wars now. They will start complaining it's kiddy and silly. Hello, read "The Hobbit" sometime, it's far less complex and more for kids, then LOTR's. After all, Tolkien did write "The Hobbit", with children in mind.

    MTFBWY and HH!!

    Jar Jar Binks
    THE SPY. THE SPACEMAN. THE GODDESS. THE ROBOT. THE GORILLA.

    AGENTS OF ATLAS - Returns in Early 2009.

  4. #4
    Man, some of those folks need to take a long, loooong break, chill with some Stephen King or Dr. Suess or something. I love LotR too, but jeeze Louise...

  5. #5
    I don't know that the Hobbit would work as cinema. It is extremely episodic.

    Although I suppose I thought the same of LOTR, especially FOTR.
    Peeps who have hooked me up: General Grievous Dark Marble jjreason Ramy GrandMoffLouie Josephe vader121 Val Da Car

  6. #6
    Snobs JJB is the correct word for these folks. These people would get in an argument with JRR Tolkien himself about what the books meant. To fans/admirers like this, there is no better way to show ones love for a genre by pointing out how inaccurate/wrong others are. "I'm a bigger fan because your wrong or not 100% true to my vision."

    SW has their share of these types of fans as well which most fans just roll there eyes at. SW is slightly different in that the prequal movies aren't based on books but a man's vision. Reading those posts sheds a new view on how absurd SW can be expecially those that love being in the limelight as a "ney-sayer." (did I spell that right?)
    "No one helped me so why should I help you?" - College professor circa 1999

    By choosing not to decide you still have made a choice.

    I'm in love with the women of Univision.

  7. #7
    Originally posted by JarJarBinks
    Hell, Christopher Lee states that he reads the books once a year. I doubt he would do the film, if he felt that they were "raping" Tolkien's vision.
    IMDb.com also states that Lee is the only one working on the films that's actually met Tolkien.

    Eh, no one's forcing them to watch the films, if they don't like them then they can go back to reading the books.
    "Hokey packaging and ancient gimmicks are no match for good detail on your figure, kid."
    "I am a Klingot from Oklahoma in human boy form."
    "We came, we saw, we conquered... We, woke up!"

  8. #8
    Originally posted by the guy on the lotr site
    The trip to Bree was in 45 minutes or so...not 1.30 like it should've been.
    JEEZZZZ!!!! the movie was already 3 hours long! how long can an audience sit in one theater anyways?
    [FONT=comic sans ms]ok make me stop talking, it's not interesting anymore[/FONT]

  9. #9
    I want the South Park Super Deluxe Extended Version of Lord of the Rings, Fellowship of the Ring with 12 hours of extra footage.

    But I will settle for the new box set with 1/2 hour of extra footage.

    BTW, did these guys even touch on the extended vesion?
    May the force be with you.

  10. #10
    One man's meat is another man's poison. They're geeks we're geeks. Then we go to war and there's no more geeks left because one of us has the detonator that will activate the worlds supply of nuclear weapons from anywhere in the world because being a geek means being a science and technology genius too. Which means if you upset a geek enough the world will cease to be so everyone should sto fighting right now and save the world from imminent danger.......

    Actually, the geekiest group IMO is the LEGO brigade that catalogs each brick in each set and enthuse on the merits of one brick versus another. Now those sort of geeks really do need to get out more. A set versus a set i could understand and those sort of people are fine but once you start to take the sets apart and marvel at the engineering of one small tiny piece and write essays on the virtues of a particular color brick and how it's changed the face of LEGO forever. And the comments about how LEGO have completely ruined the products for all eternity by using brown and tan and colors that are not green, blue, yellow, red, white, black, grey. The inclusion of purple and orange LEGO bricks is blasphemy to some. . .

    One man's meat is another mans poison I hate Tolkien. Or rather his works. They just all seem grey and covered with a film of ancient dust. Some people like that sort of thing and will cling to the dusty greyness because it says safe and stable. blowing the cobwebs and dust away and opening the books to shed new light on them is going to ruffle a few feathers among the grey dust lovers. They'll be fine and quieten down in a few years when the dust settles again.
    Peter Jackson, films, battles and dwarves and elves and things in swamps and wizards with pointy hats and beards. Where's the jokes? Is LOTR or FOTR funny? if not I won't bother with it. I'll watch Willow instead.... Willow has pigs in it. Pigs are cool. Do LOTR or FOTR have pigs in them by any chance? I'd give them a go perhaps if there's pigs in them. Oh, but i could just watch time bandits again because that's funny, it's got pigs in it and dwarves nad wizards and Robin hood and the Titanic and a giant and an ogre... everything that Tolkien books have and more really. Nah, stuff the tolkien i'll take the Time bandits any day.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO