PDA

View Full Version : Poll: LOTR, did you like the books?



mattclary
06-14-2006, 09:14 AM
OK, if you have seen the thread about King Kong, you know my opinion of the LOTR books. I think the story is a great idea but Tolkien's execution was off. IMO Tolkien is just NOT a good narrator.

I am of the opinion that these books are popular because they are SUPPOSED to be popular. I think people are afraid to admit how utterly boring they are. here is your chance to join "The Official LOTR Hater's Anonymous" club, no name needed, so no one will know you "aren't cool" because you think they sucked.

The movies weren't that great, I didn't even buy them on DVD, but I think they were a huge improvement over the books.

I will do my best to phrase the poll as fairly as possible, I genuinely want to know if I am just way off base here.


So, the question I put to you is: How well did you like the LOTR trilogy?

Captain Obvious
06-14-2006, 09:18 AM
I think they were better than "nothing to write home about," but "I loved 'em" is hardly descriptive either. Please add an option between the two!

Dodgy
06-14-2006, 09:44 AM
I loved them the first time I read them... When I was about 11, and have read them a couple of times, but the last time I did, I did find it a struggle to get through them, probably as I just don't have as much time to devote to reading as I used to.

Thor Simpson
06-14-2006, 09:51 AM
I think that if you don't like them, there are more positive things to direct your time and thoughts to than complaining about how you don't personally like them.

Does that answer the question? :D

robewil
06-14-2006, 09:54 AM
I was about 11 when I read them for the first time. I received the set as a Christmas gift. I had never heard of the story before so I had no idea it was considered a classic or that I was supposed to like them. I was drawn right in and have read them about once, every ten years since. I think it's a great story and I think the writing is magnificent.

I also loved the movies, as well. They aren't perfect and I would have changed a few things, particularly in the first one. However, overall I believe the trilogy was a great achievement in film making.

BazC
06-14-2006, 10:16 AM
I notice you have 1 positive option on the survey and 5 negative, you wouldn't be a litle biased would you? :D

The Hobbit was read to me at school when I was about 7 or 8 and I loved it! I moved on to The Lord of the Rings from there when I was around 11 or 12. I'm not even sure it was considered a classic at the time (around 1970) so I certainly wasn't following the herd, in fact I didn't know anyone else who'd read it. I loved the books then and love them now having read them 8 or 10 times I suppose.

The films were as good as I could have hoped for, some bits dragged, they missed some important parts (for me - The Old Forest/Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs especially) and some of it lost the character of the books. Overall first class though!

The Silmarillion however was beyond tedious! :D

oDDity
06-14-2006, 10:25 AM
Heh, yeah, a bit of a rigged poll this one)
Your problem is that you want the books to e something they are not, nor were ever intended to be.
As I told you in the other thread, they are akin to a mythological tale set in book form, not a novel.

Mylenium
06-14-2006, 10:36 AM
I just love them! Apart from "1984" by George Orwell some of the few books I can read over and over without getting bored. However, I can understand people who find them boring or poor in execution. The problem is you cannot understand a bit (not even "The Hobbit") unless you read all books including "Silmarilion" and "Tales" and of course the complementary materiels provided by Tolkien and others (his collection of letters for instance). Only after you know all this stuff, you can begin to fathom the depth and intricacy of Tolkiens works. Ah, and did I mention it helps to have an interest in languages and mythology in general? ;o)

Mylenium

Titus
06-14-2006, 11:46 AM
I love teh books, more the English version than the Spanish version, even that Spanish is my first language.

Nemoid
06-14-2006, 11:52 AM
I loved 'em!

my most preferred books are the 2nd and third, because first one is full of Hobbit songs and poetry, so it was a bit boring in the first part. i also digged the great descriptions about nature, the landscapes and so on.

the war parts are great u quite feel the presence of evil against good. :thumbsup:

oDDity
06-14-2006, 11:57 AM
Heh, looks like you're losing badly here Matt.

Signal to Noise
06-14-2006, 12:35 PM
I found them boring and admittedly at times hard to read. I even found myself skipping pages of songs because they were so tedious! But I did finish them all including The Hobbit and The Simallarion (sp.?). This was in my high school years. When the movies came out I decided to read them again. It didn't last long before I got sleepy-eyed reading them and they're back on the shelf.

parm
06-14-2006, 12:58 PM
One of the funniest poll premises I've seen.

I won't vote, because I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek.

I was transfixed by the Hobbit when it was read by my teacher in junior school, (age six or seven). And read the trilogy as a teenager, really enjoyed them. I re-read them shortly before the first of the films came out, and have to say, I did have to force myself to stay with it.

He is definitely from the school of; why use a few dozen words when a few hundred will do.

The Silmarillion, is definitely my personal favourite of his work. I hope Peter Jackson makes a movie based on this as well.

oDDity
06-14-2006, 01:14 PM
Ha, one of Tolkien's personal regrets about the book is that it was too short....
The Silmarillion would be a **** of a tough book to translate to a movie. He is making the Hobbit apparently.

gerry_g
06-14-2006, 03:02 PM
welllllllll...................I managed oooh!!, nearly the whole of the first page of the book, but I did watch all of the movies, twice, ok three times. Whether this says more about my IQ than Peter Jacksons achievements I leave for you to decide (except oDDity)

starbase1
06-14-2006, 04:35 PM
A few good ideas, meticulous background, but definitely in need of ruthless editing. Page after page after page of unnessesary description


GET ON WITH IT!

Jackson got rid of some of the worst stuff, (the utterly ridiculous Tom Bombadil for a start), but the last film in particular was way too long - no film needs an hour of endings! (And it felt like more).

Try 'Bored of the Rings' instead.
Much shorter.

Nick

Lightwolf
06-14-2006, 05:14 PM
I read the trilogy when I was 11... and 6 or seven times again after that (usually when ill in bed - 3 days illness = 3 days of reading three books).
I still enjoy the Silmarillon and the Lost Stories every now and then.

Cheers,
Mike

kylekoch
06-14-2006, 06:48 PM
I loved them no question, I still love them. I loved all the movies, I dont care if they werent perfect, to me they were perfect. I got much enjoyment from the books and the movies. Still do! I especially like the Alan Lee watercolor plates in the hardback version I now have. I even have a signed print of the view of Rivendell. Alan Lee's paintings are wonderful IMO
thx for the poll!!
kyle

hrgiger
06-14-2006, 06:52 PM
They were books?



Just kidding

art
06-14-2006, 09:04 PM
I loved them the first time I read them... When I was about 11

I was about 11 when I read them for the first time.

I read the trilogy when I was 11...

Is eleven a magic number here? I've heard about the goodness of the trilogy probably when I was around ... 11 ...or so but at that time I never got to reading it. After I saw the movie (which I loved btw and i'm over 30 now) I started reading it 3 times but never actually finished it.

DragonFist
06-14-2006, 09:36 PM
[QUOTE=mattclary]I am of the opinion that these books are popular because they are SUPPOSED to be popular.QUOTE]


Ah...did you know that Tolkien didn't even write them as novels? They were an experiment in the use of language and to create a mythology for England that Tolkien felt his country had lost due to Roman and Norman invasions distruption British culture and mythology.

He published at the request of friends and the public popularity was a complete suprise to both Tolkien and his publisher. The publisher had printed a small batch expect mediocre sales to the academic community. And were overwhelm by the demand when it came.

Not sure where you are getting your "SUPPOSED to popular" theory from.

Edit: I also first read them when I was 11 or 12.

BeeVee
06-15-2006, 02:19 AM
Considering they are from an English institution I first saw them in the possession of our German au-pair when I was elev... no, dammit! ten and eight/ninths! She had a beautiful set of all three books with fluo green covers with black scratchy monster drawings... She gave me the original version for Christmas that year when Ralph Bakshi's travesty was at the cinema.

B

Silkrooster
06-15-2006, 02:32 AM
You forgot a poll option.... I did not get to read the books yet. Though I have been wanting to.
So this story originated in England? Just curious.
Silk

BazC
06-15-2006, 02:49 AM
You forgot a poll option.... I did not get to read the books yet. Though I have been wanting to.
So this story originated in England? Just curious.
Silk

Yup, Tolkien was professor of Anglo-Saxon and English anguages and English literature at Oxford University. I believe he wrote the books for his own amusement and as an intellectual excercise drawing heavily on his knowledge of Anglo Saxon mythology among other things. Apparently he actually invented fully functional languages for the races of middle earth! Clever chap! :D

Lightwolf
06-15-2006, 03:27 AM
She had a beautiful set of all three books with fluo green covers with black scratchy monster drawings...
That is the classic german edition from Klett-Cotta (they usually publish school books, but also have all rights to the works of Tolkien here in Germany ... and had them for at least the past 30 years). Hey, and the publisher is just down the road from where I live as well :D
That is the edition I (still) have as well.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
06-15-2006, 03:29 AM
I believe he wrote the books for his own amusement and as an intellectual excercise drawing heavily on his knowledge of Anglo Saxon mythology among other things.
Afaik LOTR was written as letters to his son in WWII - but the similarities between WWII and LOTR are supposed to be purely coincidental.
There are also a couple of childrens stories that he told his kids when they were younger.

Cheers,
Mike

Kuzey
06-15-2006, 03:30 AM
Yup, Tolkien was professor of Anglo-Saxon and English anguages and English literature at Oxford University. I believe he wrote the books for his own amusement and as an intellectual excercise drawing heavily on his knowledge of Anglo Saxon mythology among other things. Apparently he actually invented fully functional languages for the races of middle earth! Clever chap! :D

I think he got stuck in the details and the whole thing is repetitive anyway.. based on the films at least. No one wants to get involved, not the humans, elfs, tree creatures etc. until it is almost too late and/or have been saved by our heros.

Wouldn't the tree creatures have been the first to know the forest was being destoryed and there by take the relevant actions, the story would have been shorter.

The dead kings on horses were cool but then in film 2 & 3 we see them(or one) on dragons/flying creatures. Why not send them out on those the first time around, they would have found the ring in five minutes :D

Also, why does the evil dead lord need a small ring to come back to life anyway? Doesn't make him seem all that evil or powerful, why not just possess the body of the wicked wizard like most evil spirits would have done. He would have become unbeatable...brute power combined with magic. :D

I was going to read the book after the film came out lost interest.

Kuzey

oDDity
06-15-2006, 03:57 AM
Ha, ok, next we'll hear the usual 'why didn't he just have the eagles fly the ring to mordor and drop it in the fire, and he could have written the whole book in a few pages'
*yawns*
Perhaps if you bothered reading the books, all of these quesitons would be answered.

Kuzey
06-15-2006, 04:07 AM
Ha, ok, next we'll hear the usual 'why didn't he just have the eagles fly the ring to mordor and drop it in the fire, and he could have written the whole book in a few pages'
*yawns*
Perhaps if you bothered reading the books, all of these quesitons would be answered.


Your too late, that was one of the first things I said in the other thread :D

I don't think I can get past the first page not after seeing the films, doesn't matter if it's better or not or how much detail it has. IF the answers were in the books then one would think they would be in the film.

Kuzey

Lightwolf
06-15-2006, 04:08 AM
Perhaps if you bothered reading the books, all of these quesitons would be answered.
I guess that is the problem with most movie adaptions of more complex books. You loose a lot of the background information. Dune being a great example imho... great book, visually nice movie (the original one) but it lacks all of the background necessary to even half understand what is going on (Wasn't there a 6 hour directors cut?).

Then again, a movie should be able to stand for itself.

Cheers,
Mike

oDDity
06-15-2006, 04:37 AM
I can't imagine what length of a movie would be required to get all the backgound of Middle Earth in. It's not just the Silmarillion, but there are volumes of other stuff as well.
I believe it is a prerequisite for any movie adaptation of a book to have read the book first, or at least read it afterward and then watch the movie again, if you really want to appreciate and understand it, because it is simply impossible to convey everything in a movie that is in a book.

Lightwolf
06-15-2006, 04:44 AM
I believe it is a prerequisite for any movie adaptation of a book to have read the book first, or at least read it afterward and then watch the movie again, if you really want to appreciate and understand it, because it is simply impossible to convey everything in a movie that is in a book.
Then the question remains: Why bother with the movie in the first place? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

lilrayray77
06-15-2006, 04:50 AM
Then the question remains: Why bother with the movie in the first place? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

$$$

Lord Snarebotto
06-15-2006, 05:06 AM
I enjoyed reading them once.

I've enjoyed reading the Thomas Covenant series (all 6 books) several times. IMO the Stephen Donaldson books are much better.

mattclary
06-15-2006, 05:08 AM
Dune being a great example imho...



Now THOSE were some awesome books! I hated the original movie they made. It RAINED on the freaking worms! That would NOT be good. I have the Sci-Fi sceries on DVD, it was OK, definitely better than the first movie (IMO), but definitely not equal to the books.

oDDity
06-15-2006, 05:33 AM
Then the question remains: Why bother with the movie in the first place? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

WHy do you think?
For people who are too **** lazy and meat-headed to read such a long and 'tedious' book.
The want it summed up in some leet visuals.

colkai
06-15-2006, 06:29 AM
I can't imagine what length of a movie would be required to get all the backgound of Middle Earth in. It's not just the Silmarillion, but there are volumes of other stuff as well.
Don't even go there! :p
I recall the furore because Tom Bombadil was being left out.
The books are so long it would be impossible to fulfill everyones 'best' version.

For me, I am glad PJ left out a lot of the prose and songs and poems and endless other minutiea as it just wouldn't sit well on screen.
I do like the way he wove some of it into the story, like Aaragorn singing the old legend.

I still enjoyed the books though, very much so.

Lightwolf
06-15-2006, 07:13 AM
WHy do you think?

I shouldn't post rethorical questions now, should I? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

colkai
06-15-2006, 07:19 AM
I shouldn't post rethorical questions now, should I? ;)

Cheers,
Mike
I dunno, should you? :p

Lightwolf
06-15-2006, 07:33 AM
I dunno, should you? :p
:stumped:
colkai vs. Mike 1:0
:lol:
Cheers,
Mike

badllarma
06-15-2006, 07:38 AM
Read the Hobbit twice but never got round to reading LOTR at around the average age for reading it here I was too busy with my Dungeons & Dragons, Advanced D & D and Gurps Traveller, why read it when you can be there after all :) many a day was spent rolling funny looking dice :D

With both my parents working many a 6 week summer holiday was spent around the dining room table with a group of friends, this was pre computer days of course.

Then guns, girls and computers (in that order) came along All of which I have not grown out of :D

DarkLight
06-15-2006, 08:01 AM
I read them when i was in my mid twenties.

Enjoyed the books in general but found them needlessly slow going in some places. Only read the books once, i should try reading them again but i find it much easier to watch the movies now :)

mattclary
06-15-2006, 08:16 AM
I guess part of my problem is I waited until I was 14 to try to read them the first time. Apparently, I was 3 years too late.

Signal to Noise
06-15-2006, 08:27 AM
...

I've enjoyed reading the Thomas Covenant series (all 6 books) several times. IMO the Stephen Donaldson books are much better.

Now that was/is an excellent series!:thumbsup:

Speaking of Donaldson, have you read the hard-core sci-fi The Gap Series he wrote? Truly epic. Could make a good movie, too.

Another series that I always loved was the Xanth novels by Piers Anthony.

BeeVee
06-15-2006, 08:35 AM
I tried re-reading those recently and didn't get past Spell for Chameleon even. The puns fell flat although I really enjoyed them when I first read them. Have a look for Terry Pratchett's Discworld series for something a little more adult (but only slightly!). Currently re-reading Dream Park by Larry Niven and Steven Barnes, which is standing up better to the test of time...

B

colkai
06-15-2006, 08:40 AM
My fav. Peirs Anthony were the Incarnations of Immortality books.

DogBoy
06-15-2006, 08:43 AM
Matt: I read your posts here and in the Kong thread and wanted to butt in.

I read the hobbit when i was a kid, and tried to get into Rings a few years later, but couldn't do it. I ended up reading lighter fantasy, Saga of the Exiles by Julian May, and Dave Eddings' Belgariad series. Both of which I now realise owe much to LotR.
Though I loved Exiles (and still have a soft spot for it), Eddings efforts did more to make me loathe fantasy then any other writer.

I tried again to read LotR when I was in my 20s, but again got bogged down with the proto-hippy Bombadil, so dropped it. SF was much more interesting so contented my self with Bruce Sterling and the like.

I finally read the whole thing just before the first Jackson film, when my girlfriend asked me to read them to her.
Once i got passed the bad poetry and bombadil, I realised that this really was literature. I can't say I'd want to repeat the process, but i can understand his following. As Llama said worlds of this depth generally are better to play in then read about.

I would say though to compare Tolkein to Stephen King or Julian May is to do them all a dis-service.

Most of us agree Tolkein lacks something in writing but he was an incomparable world builder. Julian May though, possibly, a better story-teller, had to tack on real-world mythology to deepen her books. As a kid i thought it was awesome, but now I find her conceit that a bunch of aliens imprint early hominids, not even humans, with (western) Celtic mythology several million years before Indo-Europeans let alone the Celts :screwy: . They are still a bloody fun read though ;).

Tolkein over a very long period constructed his world, plotted his history, formulated his peoples and how they interacted both culturally and linguistically. He constructed several languages. LotR barely scratches the surface. The depth of his world puts all but maybe 3 other modern writers to shame. Terry pratchett is one of em ;). Donaldson isn't fit to lick their ****s :D

Signal to Noise
06-15-2006, 08:49 AM
My fav. Peirs Anthony were the Incarnations of Immortality books.

Oh, yeah! I forgot about those. They were great. I think I may stick them on my "to re-read" list.

DogBoy
06-15-2006, 09:07 AM
oops, missed my 20 minutes. If we want to compare Tolkein to anything compare it to it's (ideological?) peers: Beowulf, the Sagas or Homer (and I don't mean mr. Doughnut muncher ;)).

I will stop foaming at the mouth now.

P.S. I please disregard the puerile dig at Donaldson. I stand by the Eddings remark though, his work is excrable in my opinion.

mattclary
06-15-2006, 09:41 AM
The Thomas Covenant books were OK, liked better than LOTR, but they didn't do much for me. When I was 14-15, read all the Anthony books I could get my hands on, plan to re-read the first 3 Xanth books one day.

I really like the Belgariad. The Mallorean was good, I think Eddings (actually plural, his wife secretly co-authored his books) is actually a great narrator, but he was a little self-indulgent with the Mallorean. It felt to much like he was rehashing the Belgariad to make a buck.

mattclary
06-15-2006, 09:43 AM
Julian May though, possibly, a better story-teller, had to tack on real-world mythology to deepen her books. As a kid i thought it was awesome, but now I find her conceit that a bunch of aliens imprint early hominids, not even humans, with (western) Celtic mythology several million years before Indo-Europeans let alone the Celts :screwy: . They are still a bloody fun read though ;).


"Had to tack on"?!? That was the whole freaking POINT! :rolleyes: Yeah, pretty sure she had influence from Tolkien, most fantasy authors have. I never denied the story idea was cool, I just think Tolkien lacks as a narrator.

starbase1
06-15-2006, 12:44 PM
I enjoyed reading them once.

I've enjoyed reading the Thomas Covenant series (all 6 books) several times. IMO the Stephen Donaldson books are much better.

What do you mean, 6?!?! Rush to the bookshop, and buy his latest phone directory sized opus immediately!

I think that Donaldson has some very good plot ideas, and was one of very few doing something original in a fantasy setting. But he does not write particularly well, and often seems to get hung up on a few words, re using them in a very irritating manner. (In the latest one 'phosphenes' and 'formic' get mentioned ridiculously often). His use of obscure vocabulary is just disruptive to the flow of the stories - unlike the godlike Gene Wolfe!

mattclary
06-15-2006, 12:54 PM
- unlike the godlike Gene Wolfe!

Great author! His books take a little effort at times, but his ideas are pretty original. I think I own a book or two of his I haven't read yet, need to make more time.

starbase1
06-15-2006, 03:20 PM
I just can get remotely interested in something as simple as good guys fight eveil guys any more... You know who will win from the first page, (however many volumes are involved), and for avoiding that Donaldson deserves a lot of credit...

Eddings has exactly these traps, the end is never in doubt from the first chapter.

OK, Tolkien is long winded and far too simplistic. Here are some that I think are incalculably better.

Gene Wolfe, Shadow of the torturer etc. Astonishingly deep plotting, elegant and powerful writing, and a seriously amoral 'hero'.

Mervyn Peak, Titus Groan / Gormenghast. No elves, no magic, so why does his work read like the best fantasy written? Virtually no sympathetic characters, (though plenty of grotesques, and in Steerpike one of the most memorable baddies ever).

Neil Gaiman, Stardust. A proper fairy tale. By which I mean LOTS of blood...

Anubis Gates, Tim Powers. More great of ideas in this fairly short novel than you will find in 99% of epic trilogies.

Nick

parm
06-15-2006, 03:49 PM
Such a shame really, that Peakes' work has been somewhat overshadowed by Tolkein. More people should give Gormenghast a try. It really is one of the most outstanding works of imaginative fiction.

Ditto the Gene Wolfe quartet. Very rewarding to more than one re-read

:agree:

ercaxus
06-15-2006, 06:26 PM
I was unfortunate enough to read Dragonlance Chronicles (:bowdown: btw) before LOTR series. I would have liked them if I was 11 maybe :)
Silmarillion was great though. I should read it again soon.

mattclary
06-15-2006, 08:18 PM
I was unfortunate enough to read Dragonlance Chronicles

You could have probably stopped right there. ;) I tried to read those when they first came out and soooooo did not care for them.

Isn't Dragonlance the series that has "kinders" instead of halflings? I've always found it amusing that D&D couldn't use "hobbit" because of copyright issues, then, someone writes a D&D book, and can't use "halfling" for the same reason. At least that has always been my assumption.

Meaty
06-15-2006, 08:47 PM
This is what I am reading now, I have a feeling it is more tedious than the most tedious part of LOTR :bangwall:
http://www.gleim.com/products/productdetails.php?proID=5732

Signal to Noise
06-16-2006, 08:28 AM
This is what I am reading now, I have a feeling it is more tedious than the most tedious part of LOTR :bangwall:
http://www.gleim.com/products/productdetails.php?proID=5732

Hehe! You think the book is tedious wait until you actually to the real work! ;)

ercaxus
06-16-2006, 12:08 PM
You could have probably stopped right there. ;) I tried to read those when they first came out and soooooo did not care for them.

Isn't Dragonlance the series that has "kinders" instead of halflings? I've always found it amusing that D&D couldn't use "hobbit" because of copyright issues, then, someone writes a D&D book, and can't use "halfling" for the same reason. At least that has always been my assumption.
Yep they have kender(kindred spirit??) in Dragonlance. DL has a pretty depressed world generally, I mean really really bad usually, but gnomes and kender balance everything. They are so ridiculously funny. I wish I was you so I could read them for the first time(If I do it as myself it's going to be 10th time or something :D)

ercaxus
06-16-2006, 12:12 PM
This is what I am reading now, I have a feeling it is more tedious than the most tedious part of LOTR :bangwall:
http://www.gleim.com/products/productdetails.php?proID=5732
How can one read such a thing? I thought those were made only to fill bookshelves in soap operas.
Good luck :D

Tzalaran
06-16-2006, 05:08 PM
i first read LotR when i was 8. read the hobbit at 7, and was instantly hooked. for most of the next 15 years of my life i reread the series once per year.

i never played D&D much, i was usually running the game, and Tolkeins work had so much influence on that game. The movies were solid, but there was alot i found to be unacceptable (arwen at the river for example...)

The silmarilon is similar to reading the bible... good story if you can keep all the names straight. i did enjoy the books of lost tales and other assorted writings.

Weis and Hickman are very solid fantasy writers (authors of dragonlance stuff) The death gate cycle by them is one of the best series i've read, and as far as newer authors go, Robert Jordan (although it got slow around book 7) has the best series out there currently with the Wheel of Time. Terry Goodkind is a solid author as well.

i hated anthony's work, never cared much for most of the popular fantasy authors because their worlds lacked in continuity for me. I'm hoping the series i am writing will be compared to Tolkein, Jordan, and weis and hickman.

ercaxus
06-16-2006, 05:19 PM
I finished Death Gate Cycle in around two weeks. It was supposed to be one week(1 A Day) but didn't have the time :D
I seriously thought of printing a reference for all the names in Silmarillion, back when I was reading it. That thing was annoying.

gerry_g
06-17-2006, 03:24 PM
Speaking of finishing things, I notice with a growing sense of both satisfaction and vindication that the "Could never finish the darn things, they were too boring." bar is coming along nicely. Seems some of us knew when to quit and get on with our lives after all precious !!.

mattclary
06-17-2006, 06:34 PM
I only finished them out a twisted sense of duty. :screwy:

Adrian Lopez
06-17-2006, 08:06 PM
The books are okay, but as far as the movies are concerned I really hate some of the things Peter Jackson did with the source material. His portrayal of Galadriel when she covets the Ring was way off, and so were many other things I've forgotten about since I saw the movies in the theaters.

As for Tolkien's other books, I liked The Hobbit a lot better than The Lord of the Rings, and I absolutely detest the Silmarillion.

ercaxus
06-18-2006, 02:37 AM
If you guys liked Silmarillion (not Adrian apparently :)) try Blind Guardian (http://www.blind-guardian.com/) - Nightfall album. It's kinda cool.