Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

50 Reasons Lord of the Rings Sucks
Pointless Waste of Time ^

Posted on 12/22/2002 9:05:26 PM PST by A.J.Armitage

50 Reasons why
LORD OF THE RINGS


sucks



  1. Fellowship of the Rings was shoved down our throats.

    I've heard some students are even forced to read some novelization of the movie in their literature classes. Ridiculous. Does Hollywood run our classrooms now?

  2. Greed.

    Hollywood can't make a movie these days without crapping out a sequel the next year to squeeze more money out of the sheep. Guess what; there's ANOTHER LOTR movie coming this Christmas. Gee, I wonder what will bring Rocky out of retirement this time?

  3. Quality Control at New Line.

    Millions of copies of the LOTR DVD have thick black bars at the bottom and top of the screen throughout the film. Didn't anyone catch this? You know what happens at the end, in the extreme foreground and extreme upper sky? Neither do I. Bush league, guys.

  4. They switched Darrens on us!

    Look closely and you'll notice the human member of their party is played by two different actors at different points of the movie (it takes a sharp eye to notice, but one of them has red hair, one black).

  5. Quality Control at New Line, II.

    In the massive Mt. Doom battle scene at the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring, a DVD pause reveals at least half a dozen of the 50,000 Orc Warrior extras are wearing modern tennis shoes.

  6. Speaking of Orcs...

    The Orcs were obviously stolen from PC game maker Blizzard and its Warcraft series. Too bad Blizzard is apparently too scared to sue New Line over it.

  7. Racism.

    Percentage of protagonists in Fellowship who are white: 100. Meanwhile the black antagonists and their black crow spies and their black glass seeing ball inhabit their black towers and perform black magic. Gosh, I wonder if there's some symbolism there?

  8. Gold: The Stretchy Element.

    The ring, which is seen to be at least two inches in diameter at the beginning to fit the polish sausage-sized finger of Sauron, suddenly fits Frodo's child-sized finger later. I guess this movie takes place in a world where rings magically change sizes on their own.

  9. Violence.

    Give me one reason that story couldn't have been told without all the fighting.

  10. Horse sense.

    Why didn't they take horses on their quest? Or even better, why didn't Gandalf's giant flying bird friend haul them into Mordor? Watch out, Frodo! All of your methods of transportation have been swallowed by the Dark Lord of the Plot Hole!

  11. Retracted.*

    See below.

  12. Return of the Living Dead.

    If you watch closely during the Inn scene, Frodo and his crew are shown getting stabbed by the Ring Wraiths. Then, five seconds later, they are fine again. Note to the director: try proofreading your movie before you release it to the public.

  13. Did someone say plot hole?

    Liv Tyler's character is seen easily defeating nine strong supernatural beings, even though she is clearly a woman.

  14. The Battle Droid Syndrome.

    The mutated muscular soldiers of Mordor turned out to be hilariously ineffective soldiers, a dozen of them held off by a single dying human. Apparently they made the beasts by crossing Orcs, Goblins and the French.

  15. Sloppy CGI.

    Gandalf's smoke boat is pretty impressive, but smoke cannot be made to travel horizontally, thus revealing it to be nothing but a cheap special effect.

  16. The Asbestos Wizard.

    We all saw Gandalf fall into the molten core of Middle Earth after his battle with the firebeast thing. Well, I guess the Gandalf action figure must have sold well, because in the slap-together sequel coming up this year Gandalf is back. I wonder if they'll even bother to explain it. Maybe he'll be resurrected via voodoo, a la the corpse in Weekend at Bernie's II (look closely and you'll notice LOTR steals several elements from the WAB films).

  17. Invisible Implausibility.

    Every time Frodo or Bilbo went invisible with the ring they should have also gone BLIND. Your eyes cannot function unless light is reflected off the cornea. If light passes through it (as must be the case with invisibility) sight is no longer possible. Also, rings do not turn you invisible.

  18. The Asbestos Wizard, II.

    The giant fire beast thing at the end was breathing a firey breath hot enough to send heat-distortion waves through the air. The sheer temperature of the air should have burned off Gandalf's beard and eyebrows. None of my reading on evolutionary biology reveals a single reason why a particular race of humans would develop unflammable facial hair as this would provide practically no advantage in either survival or mating.

  19. I'll have to rent that one.

    The rushed-through story the screenwriter threw in as the first ten minutes of Fellowship of the Ring looked a lot more interesting than the movie we were forced to watch. Why didn't somebody make a movie off that instead?

  20. Magic Mechanics.

    Experts on the occult say in order for a wizard to floorspin a fully-grown man like Gandalf, he'd need three magical staffs, not two.

  21. Finders, keepers.

    So Bilbo, who we are supposed to identify with as a protagonist, finds a piece of someone else's jewelry and just keeps it for himself? That's funny, because I would expect a good man to submit it to the local Lost and Found so it could be claimed by its owner. It makes me wonder if he bought that hillside house or if he was just squatting.

  22. Go-Go Gadget Arrow Sprouter.

    Legolas shoots arrow after arrow at his enemies, and yet the number of arrows in his quiver never decreases. I guess elves have glands on their back that secrete arrows.

  23. Watch out! He's going to explode!

    The heroes are shown eating again and again, and yet no one ever goes to the bathroom throughout their entire quest.

  24. Meesa gonna make theesa movie suckah!

    The character of Gollum in The Two Towers will be entirely computer animated, in a cheap effort to cash in on Jar Jar Binks Mania. Thank you, Peter Jackson. Thank you right to Hell.

  25. Propaganda.

    The Elves, clearly the most advanced and wise species, are also clearly gay.

  26. Speaking of Elves...

    Elves are beautiful and wise and tall? Great warriors? Makers of fine lightweight weapons? Our modern knowledge of elves has observed only an ability to make cookies and toys. All the elves in the film are portrayed as living in a warm paradise (Rivendell) but our own information tells us the aforementioned group of toymaking elves work and thrive in the arctic. Hey, Mr. Jackson: Research is half of writing.

  27. Homage or theft?

    The "happy village of little people" idea was stolen from Willow.

  28. Homage or theft II?

    The wise old wizard character was stolen from Harry Potter.

  29. Homage or theft III?

    The "travelling on our quest through a corn field" scene was stolen from Shrek.

  30. Homage or theft IV?

    The character of the rebellious-but-helpful Ranger was stolen from Val Kilmer in Willow.

  31. Homage or theft V?

    The concept of the violent dwarf was based on Al Pacino.

  32. Homage or theft VI?

    The "old man looking through the door hatch at the approaching little people" scene was stolen from A Clockwork Orange.

  33. Homage or theft VII?

    The cantina scene with a noisy bar filled with a mix of otherworldly species was stolen from Cecile B. DeMille's One Night in an Alien Bar.

  34. Homage or theft VIII?

    The incident with the flock of evil magical spying crows serving the All-Seeing Eye was based on an actual incident.

  35. Homage or theft IX?

    The character of the Giant Evil Flaming All-Seeing Eye was based on former President Jimmy Carter.

  36. Homage or theft X?

    The character of Elrond was based on Agent Smith from The Matrix.

  37. Weighty issues.

    AKA "Plot Hole No. 273." Even with all that walking and light eating, the character of Sam only got fatter.

  38. Realism, schmealism.

    Liv Tyler's immortal elf volunteers to give up her eternal life for a single romance with a human man. Could any man really be that well endowed? I find it unlikely.

  39. Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow.

    The most advanced civilization is that of the elves, which are long-haired, new-age types? Sorry, Mr. Jackson, but modern science has proven that in any modern civilization, hippies would be extinct.

  40. Too many notes.

    No movie should be over two hours long. Did we need that whole thing in the mine? Didn't it seem like they were just adding pointless scenes in the middle to pad it? It's like they decided beforehand they wanted three hours and used filler to flesh it out.

  41. Too many notes, II.

    I just want to re-emphasize the above point. There is no reason entertainment can't be concise.

  42. Too many notes, III.

    Too many characters to keep track of. The dwarf was clearly only there as a token dwarf character to sell tickets to lucrative movie-going dwarf demographic. Lose him.

  43. Rationalization for violence.

    Why is the black octopus creature painted as the bad guy when it attacks, when one of the fellowship had clearly been throwing rocks at it?

  44. The Shoeless Land.

    The Hobbits both 1) refuse to wear shoes and 2) run a livestock-based farming economy. Wouldn't they constantly be stepping in crap? Why doesn't the movie address this issue?

  45. Casting.

    Why couldn't Frodo have been played by Christopher Walken?

  46. Casting, II.

    Why couldn't Gandalf have been played by Bruce Campbell?

  47. Casting, III.

    Why couldn't Bilbo have been played by Vin Diesel?

  48. Casting, IV.

    Why couldn't the Ranger have been played by a monkey?

  49. The Score.

    The background music wasn't nearly funky enough for me.

  50. What's that smell?

    As bad as the Lucasfilm leaks were last year, the filmmakers of The Two Towers already have the novelization out in paperback. I've seen it at Barnes & Noble already. As if we needed any less of a reason to go see it.

*RETRACTED REASONS LORD OF THE RINGS SUCKS:


11. Damn you, gravity!

The giant firebeast thing is defeated by Gandalf when he destroys the bridge, sending the creature plunging to its death... despite the fact that it has wings.

This was retracted when a reader pointed out that the wings, like the rest of the beast, were made of shadow and fire and thus would be useless for flight. Thanks for the tip!




TOPICS: Books/Literature; Humor; TV/Movies; The Hobbit Hole
KEYWORDS: 5000dailyvanities; agentsmithrules; allseeingeye; bestthreadever; bilboandroidash; freeshelob; frodolives; funimpaired; gollumrules; growhemp; humor; humorchallenged; legolasmajorhottie; loserslovelotr; lotrsucks; peterjacksonissexy; preciousssss; ripvanitywinkle; ripvanwinkle; sarumandooku; satire; shutupidiot; stfu; stupidfairytale; tolkien; whatyearisthis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-238 next last
Enjoy...
1 posted on 12/22/2002 9:05:26 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage

These so called reasons, are obviously the rantings of person who would make Gollum look sane.

By the way, The Lord of the Rings movies are based on three books written in the 1950s.
2 posted on 12/22/2002 9:17:05 PM PST by jerod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
As someone who has been reading LOTR assiduously for thirty years--that is to say, since childhood--and can hardly waited to see The Two Towers, I laughed out loud at this. It takes a special kind of comic intelligence to write something like this. Thanks!
3 posted on 12/22/2002 9:18:00 PM PST by Capriole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
You do realize this movie is based on some books and not the other way around don't you? Did you know the books were written in the 40's? Makes the claim of stuff stolen from 1970 to the present pretty weak. By the way if you watch the movie closely the Ring does shrink as soon as it is held by the new owner.
4 posted on 12/22/2002 9:24:55 PM PST by Nateman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capriole; Corin Stormhands
Is this serious?

If so, then read the books. If not, then....???>*#@LOL@QAjk
5 posted on 12/22/2002 9:25:30 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
A.J.

About a year ago I stole one of you posts (with your permission) for my profile page. After reading this post I will send it back!

“There is nothing more tiresome than the assumption that intellect consists of agreeing with you.” ~ A.J. Armitage, FReeper ~ ...... ;-)

6 posted on 12/22/2002 9:25:58 PM PST by HoustonCurmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capriole
I managed to get a look at Two Towers last night. For pure entertainment the movie was worth the cost of admission, but it somehow did not live up to all the hype. I noticed several things which were less than optimal somehow or other.

The thing with the trees was cartoonish; they needed to think about that one a bit more. The orcs and some of the monsters look almost believable, the Golom character was fabulous, but some of the things you see, such as the Belrog, still look cartoonish and the movie seems too busy at times, i.e. too many weirdies flying around.

Moreover, the plot and basic story do not really seem altogether plausible. By way of contrast, the thing which really jumps out at you watching Reservoir Dogs or a couple of Quintan Tarrantino's films is the way in which the story strikes you as SO plausible that you walk out wondering what keeps stuff like that from happening more often and, in that sense, Tarrentino's villians are a whole lot more believable than Tolkein's. I mean, Marcellus Wallace just has it all over Sauron and Sauroman.

Aside from that, the Hollywood lefties basically hate Quintan Tarrantino to pieces, and the idea of Pulp Fiction being named one of the hundred best films of the 20'th century totally fried their minds as I hear it.

7 posted on 12/22/2002 9:26:27 PM PST by titanmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
LMAO
8 posted on 12/22/2002 9:26:41 PM PST by ChocChipCookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capriole
IF you liked the books, you're going to hate the movie. It sucks if you know what's supposed to happen.
9 posted on 12/22/2002 9:27:07 PM PST by Pistias
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
This is either humor or the idiotic rantings of someone with a double digit IQ. Okay, I'll stretch it and offer a third possibility....it could be a guy with his panties in a wad because his girlfrinend loves the movies and has the hots for Aragorn.
10 posted on 12/22/2002 9:29:39 PM PST by sweetliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jerod
I could be wrong but while the books were published in the 1950s they were writen even earlier...the 1940s I think and in reaction to the events of the second world war.
11 posted on 12/22/2002 9:33:19 PM PST by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
While I did wonder why one of the characters never ran out of arrows my main gripe with this film is...
I'M NOT GETTING ANY ROYALTIES OFF OF IT!
12 posted on 12/22/2002 9:34:48 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Well, I'm hoping this is somewhat a joke. There are quite a few of these "reasons" that are pretty ridiculous. Some sexist, and then some that are just idiotic. Come on, questioning not being able to see while invisible, but not questioning invisibility? lmao. Like I said, I hope this a joke for the Author's sake, but looking at his LOTR Twin Towers review I doubt it.

It just so happens I came back from seeing this film at the drive-in not more than 40 minutes ago, while not a huge LOTR fan, I have to say it was better than the first. Not the best movie ever, but an enjoyable one.

13 posted on 12/22/2002 9:37:15 PM PST by KineticKitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Where's the pic of the Simpson's Comic Book store owner guy ? He'd be perfect for this post.
14 posted on 12/22/2002 9:37:50 PM PST by Camber-G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
[This won't be popular.]

The first in the planned trilogy of The Lord of the Rings movies, Fellowship of the Ring, was released in December 19, 2001, and it made more than $260 million in the first few weeks. The second in the series, The Two Towers, is scheduled for release in December of this year, and the third, The Return of the King, is scheduled for release in December of 2003.

In spite of the PG-13 rating and occultic imagery, these movies and their literary counterparts are being praised by some professing Christians. The Lord of the Rings movies are based on the books by J.R. Tolkien. The movie edition of the trilogy was filmed at a cost of $300 million, but as we have seen, that amount was almost fully recovered a mere two months after the release of the first episode; and the second and third parts of the trilogy are yet to appear. The television rights to the trilogy were purchased by WB network for $160 million.

Christianity Today ran a positive review of the books and the movie entitled "Lord of the Megaplex." Focus on the Family praised Tolkien's fantasies and promotes the book "Finding God in the Lord of the Rings" by Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware (Tyndale House). The glowing advertisement at the Focus on the Family web site calls fantasy a "vehicle for truth" and says: "In Finding God in the Lord of the Rings, Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware examine the 'story behind' the stories the inspirational themes of hope, redemption and faith that Tolkien wove into his classic tales." World magazine's review is titled "Powerful Rings" and claims that the "movie version of Tolkien's book speaks to today's culture." There is no warning in these reviews about Tolkien's occultic imagery.

HARMLESS FANTASY, WHOLESOME ALLEGORY?

Is the Lord of the Rings harmless fantasy or perhaps even a wholesome Christian allegory? We think not. I read The Hobbit and the three volumes of The Lord of the Rings in 1971 when I was in Vietnam with the U.S. Army. I was not saved at the time, and, in fact, I was very antagonistic to the Christian faith. Had the books contained even a hint of Bible truth, I can assure you that I would not have read them at that particular point in my life. I had forgotten many of the details of the books, so I refreshed my memory recently by going through them again. They are filled with occultic imagery, such as witches, goblins, warlocks, wizards, fairies, and such things; and though these are strongly and unconditionally condemned in the Bible, they are often portrayed as good and desirable by Tolkien. Many of the heroes of the Lord of the Rings, in fact, are wizards and witches. The books were published in inexpensive paperback editions in the late 1960s, and they became very popular with that generation of drug headed hippies.


As a professor of literature at Oxford University, Tolkien specialized in Old and Middle English and loved ancient pagan mythology. His first fantasy novel, The Hobbit, appeared in 1937, and The Lord of the Rings, in 1954-55. Several others were published later, some posthumously.

One of Tolkien's drinking buddies was the famous C.S. Lewis. They and some other Oxford associates formed a group called the "Inklings" and met regularly at an Oxford pub to drink beer and regale about literary and other matters. Tolkien, in fact, is credited with influencing Lewis to become a Christian of sorts. Like Tolkien, though, Lewis did not accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God and he picked and chose what he would believe about the New Testament apostolic faith, rejecting such things as the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ. And like Tolkien, C.S. Lewis loved at least some things about Catholicism. He believed in purgatory, confessed his sins to a priest, and had the last rites performed by a Catholic priest (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, pp. 198, 301).

J.R. Tolkien died in 1973 at age 81, two years after his wife, and they are buried in the Roman Catholic section of the Wolvercote cemetery in the suburbs of Oxford.

THE STORY OF THE LORD OF THE RINGS

The setting for Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is in "Middle Earth" and the hero is a little creature (a hobbit) named Frodo Baggins who accidentally becomes possessor of a magical ring that is the lost and greatly desired treasure of the "Dark Lord Sauron." The story line revolves around Frodo's action-filled journey to take the ring to the Cracks of Doom where it can be destroyed.

OCCULTISM

Though the aforementioned reviewers would have us believe that Tolkien's books contain simple allegories of good vs. evil, Tolkien portrays wizards and witches and wizardry as both good and evil. For example, a wizard named Gandalf is portrayed as a good person who convinces Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit to take a journey to recover stolen treasure. The books depict the calling up of the dead to assist the living, which is plainly condemned in the Scriptures. Though not as overtly and sympathetically occultic as the Harry Potter series, Tolkien's fantasies are unscriptural and present a very dangerous message.

TOLKIEN SAID THE BOOKS ARE NOT CHRISTIAN ALLEGORIES

In his last interview in 1971, Tolkien stated that he did not intend The Lord of the Rings as a Christian allegory and that Christ is not depicted in his fantasy novels. When asked about the efforts of the trilogy's hero, Frodo, to struggle on and destroy the ring, Tolkien said, "But that seems I suppose more like an allegory of the human race. I've always been impressed that we're here surviving because of the indomitable courage of quite small people against impossible odds: jungles, volcanoes, wild beasts... they struggle on, almost blindly in a way" (Interview by Dennis Gerrolt; it was first broadcast in January 1971 on BBC Radio 4 program "Now Read On"). That doesn't sound like the gospel to me. When Gerrolt asked Tolkien, "Is the book to be considered as an allegory?" the author replied, "No. I dislike allegory whenever I smell it."

Thus, the author of The Lord of the Rings denied the very thing that some Christians today are claiming, that these fantasies are an allegory of Christ's victory over the devil.

TOLKIEN SPAWNED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS

Tolkien's books created the vast and spiritually dangerous fantasy role-playing games that are so influential today. Dungeons and Dragons, which appeared in the early 1970s, was based on Tolkien's fantasy novels. One fantasy-game web site makes this interesting observation: "The whole fantasy adventure genre of books came into play when J.R. Tolkien wrote his The Lord of the Rings books. From his vivid imagination and creative thinking he created the fantasy adventure genre. Tolkien probably got his ideas from ancient religions. Peoples of different civilizations were writing epic's way before Tolkien was even born. They wrote epics about people with superior strength, about gods that punished people and, travels to the underworld. Tolkien is accredited to being the man who started it all but if traced back even further you'll see that he wasn't the one that created it, just the one that pushed it forth."

This secular writer better understands what Tolkien's books are about than the aforementioned Christian publications. Tolkien certainly did get his ideas from pagan religions, and the message promoted in his fantasy books is strictly pagan.

ROCK AND ROLLERS LOVE TOLKIEN

Tolkien has even influenced many rock and rollers. The song "Misty Mountain Hop" by the demonic hard rock group Led Zeppelin was inspired by Tolkien's writings. Marc Bolan, of the rock group Tyrannasaurus Rex, created a musical and visual style influenced by Tolkien. The heavy metal rock group Iluvatar named themselves after a fictional god from Tolkien's work The Silmarillion. Others could be mentioned.

D. W. Cloud
15 posted on 12/22/2002 9:37:51 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
The giant fire beast thing at the end was breathing a firey breath hot enough to send heat-distortion waves through the air. The sheer temperature of the air should have burned off Gandalf's beard and eyebrows. None of my reading on evolutionary biology reveals a single reason why a particular race of humans would develop unflammable facial hair as this would provide practically no advantage in either survival or mating.

The "fire-beast thing" is a balrog, which is a fallen Maia, having followed Melkor, the rebel Valar into Evil. Melkor became Morgoth, the first Dark Lord.

Gandalf is one of the Istari, the five Maia selected by the Valar to sail from the Uttermost West to Middle-Earth to fight the scourge of Sauron, the second Dark Lord.

Gandalf is a Servant of the Secret Fire, and is not human, but immortal.

Yes, I know way too much.




16 posted on 12/22/2002 9:41:40 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pistias
One of the things that I love in the movies is to see on screen what's only been in my head for all these years.

For the most part, I haven't been disappointed.

Mark
17 posted on 12/22/2002 9:41:59 PM PST by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Very cool post... I got down to #4 before it dawned on me...

Mark
18 posted on 12/22/2002 9:42:36 PM PST by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
Do you have a "ring ping" list?
19 posted on 12/22/2002 9:43:10 PM PST by sweetliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
I dunno A.J....
all the quotation thefts mentioned..allong with certain individuals like Val Kilmer and AL Pachino....one would think you were hinting that the Lord of the Rings development team were actually doing this part time....the rest spent at Democratic fund raisers.
20 posted on 12/22/2002 9:43:42 PM PST by Light Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jerod
You do realize this was satire, right?
21 posted on 12/22/2002 9:46:14 PM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jael
As a professor of literature at Oxford University, Tolkien specialized in Old and Middle English and loved ancient pagan mythology. His first fantasy novel, The Hobbit, appeared in 1937, and The Lord of the Rings, in 1954-55. Several others were published later, some posthumously.

In a biography that I saw about how Tolkein came up with Middle Earth, they spoke of his feelings that the English people had been cheated out of their own mythology. It seemed that every other european country had it's own mythos, but with the Norman conquest of England, "their own" mythology was lost, with the exception of Beowulf.

Because of that, it's said that Tolkein decided to come up with a new mythology for England, and that's where middle earth came from.

Mark

22 posted on 12/22/2002 9:50:15 PM PST by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
You know, I purchased the widescreen version of the movie, and the image on my TV is still only 25 inches wide, the same as the full screen version. Was I ripped off?
23 posted on 12/22/2002 9:50:38 PM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Great satire. You had me going for the first few. Great stuff once I caught on.
24 posted on 12/22/2002 9:51:01 PM PST by Spyder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
You are such a geek.....can I borrow your copy of "The Simarillion"? :)
25 posted on 12/22/2002 9:52:40 PM PST by SandfleaCSC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
I thoroughly enjoyed both movies and am looking forward to the third installment. Same time, next year....
26 posted on 12/22/2002 9:54:56 PM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandfleaCSC
You are such a geek.....can I borrow your copy of "The Simarillion"? :)

Sorry, it's a first edition. I reserved it months before it came out.




27 posted on 12/22/2002 9:55:05 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Camber-G

28 posted on 12/22/2002 9:55:47 PM PST by csvset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Subtle humore seems sum thymes two much two bear......

Eye, that's the rub! Two subtle for sum hear too muse.
29 posted on 12/22/2002 9:56:39 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Will someone please explain why every single Elf except Arwen is a blond? Why then is Liv Tyler dark-haired?
30 posted on 12/22/2002 9:57:36 PM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
The onscreen character of Gollum is fabulous. I want a Gollum doll. I want a Gollum doll that says "Precious". (smile)
31 posted on 12/22/2002 9:59:05 PM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
Thanks Mark!
32 posted on 12/22/2002 10:00:14 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor; Frodo; silmaril; Gollum; Nazgul; Smaug; glorfindel; Galadriel; aragorn; ...
Do you have a "ring ping" list?

I do.




33 posted on 12/22/2002 10:03:03 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Did you write this?

It is fiction, written 50 years ago, did you know that when you made the hokey claims about ripping off Harry Potter??

And, this WAS required reading in the 70's in my high school for some classes, it is great fictional literature for the modern age!

And as far as movies go, these two so far have clearly been worth the $8 a ticket in my opinion, and 16 per extended version of Fellowship Of The Ring VHS.
34 posted on 12/22/2002 10:03:04 PM PST by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Thanks Toothy!
35 posted on 12/22/2002 10:08:33 PM PST by sweetliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz
Elrond is not blonde.
36 posted on 12/22/2002 10:09:58 PM PST by sweetliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Capriole
I love Tokien and this review was hilariously funny. Very cranky and some great insights. I love it when people spot movie errors. The opinions are fun to read too.
37 posted on 12/22/2002 10:13:30 PM PST by Chemnitz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Pretty damn funny .... no way this could be serious though, unless written by the same writers that make up stuff for the eco-freaks, handgun control inc. and UN NGO's pushing the Kyoto treaty and global warming :)
38 posted on 12/22/2002 10:13:46 PM PST by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz
Will someone please explain why every single Elf except Arwen is a blond? Why then is Liv Tyler dark-haired?

What about Elrond?

Basically, wood elves are usually blond while the Rivendell elves were darker haired.

Now, excuse me while I go back to the Nerdery....

Seriously though, if you're curious enough to ask, you should read the books.
39 posted on 12/22/2002 10:14:39 PM PST by motzman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
You know, I purchased the widescreen version of the movie, and the image on my TV is still only 25 inches wide, the same as the full screen version. Was I ripped off?

Do you have the black bars that chop off the upper sky and extreme foreground? If so, dood, yooz waz robbed! ;-) :-D

40 posted on 12/22/2002 10:16:37 PM PST by BradyLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: motzman
Elrond and Arwen weren't pure elves in the first place. I think, I could be wrong though.
41 posted on 12/22/2002 10:17:01 PM PST by SandfleaCSC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SandfleaCSC
As I said, I'll retreat to the Nerdery and find an answer...
42 posted on 12/22/2002 10:18:07 PM PST by motzman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Truly, your intellect is dizzying! Don't fight any land wars in Asia.
43 posted on 12/22/2002 10:19:07 PM PST by I'm ALL Right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
I have one reason not to contribute to their success. Did anyone see the red headed star on Charlie Rose the other night? Anti-war, Anti-american PIG.
44 posted on 12/22/2002 10:22:29 PM PST by knak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Invisible Implausibility.
Every time Frodo or Bilbo went invisible with the ring they should have also gone BLIND. Your eyes cannot function unless light is reflected off the cornea. If light passes through it (as must be the case with invisibility) sight is no longer possible. Also, rings do not turn you invisible.

This entire post was hilarious. Especially the last line of the paragraph above. Thanks!

45 posted on 12/22/2002 10:23:22 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandfleaCSC
Your instincts are correct. You win a pair of 20-sided dice.

One of the greatest Elves in the history of Middle-earth, Elrond was born at the Havens of Sirion late in the First Age. During their sack, he and his brother Elros were taken captive by the Sons of Fëanor, but Maglor took pity on them and released them. When they were rescued, Elrond was found playing in a cave beneath a waterfall, and so received his name.

Both of Elrond's parents were half-elven, and after the War of Wrath he was given a choice; whether to be counted amongst the kindred of Elves or of Men. He chose the Firstborn, and remained in Lindon with High King Gil-galad.

After the invasion of Eriador by Sauron in the mid-Second Age, Elrond founded a refuge there in a deep hidden valley; this was named Imladris, or Rivendell in the Common Speech. After Sauron's defeat by Tar-Minastir of Númenor, Elrond remained in Rivendell, where he prospered with the aid of the Great Ring, Vilya.

Elrond played a great part in the histories of the Second and Third Ages; he marched with Gil-galad and Elendil to the War of the Last Alliance, and was a leading member of the White Council. At the time of the Council of Elrond in 3018 (Third Age), he had dwelt in Middle-earth for some 6,500 years.



I once had a fish name Gil-Galad....
46 posted on 12/22/2002 10:24:47 PM PST by motzman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
lol...i just read the rest of the posts and the people that didn't get it were almost as funny as the post itself.
47 posted on 12/22/2002 10:27:45 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
When I realized that this opinion was satire,it became sort of funny.
48 posted on 12/22/2002 10:28:04 PM PST by hove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
That was the funniest thing I have read in a long time. I was pretty sure something funny was going on when I read the first point, because no one who hasn't lived in a cave the last year would think Fellowship of the Ring was a novelization of the movie, but it took me until #6 (Blizzard and Warcraft) to be completely sure it was satire. Incidentally, Warcraft Orcs are not that much like Tolkien orcs (they are actually good guys in the most recent game), and the Warcraft series are some of the best computer games ever made. Warcraft III (released about six months ago) was one of the few things I looked forward to as much as The Two Towers.
49 posted on 12/22/2002 10:28:40 PM PST by LonghornFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Millions of copies of the LOTR DVD have thick black bars at the bottom and top of the screen throughout the film. Didn't anyone catch this? You know what happens at the end, in the extreme foreground and extreme upper sky? Neither do I. Bush league, guys.

Although I haven't seen the DVD to verify this, I suspect you're all wet on this one. Sounds like you do not understand the simple concept of letterboxing. Can you elaborate on this a bit more so I can make sure you've done your homework? First explain letterboxing for me [so I can tell whether you even know what it is and why it is used]. Then let me know whether you think the black bars on the DVD are or are not letterboxing, and why.

Also, I think your article is bogus because it mostly consists of what [in your mind] are "goofs" -- plot holes, continuity problems, etc.; you don't have anything substantive to say about the film. Every movie has goofs if you look closely enough. You mistake nitpicking with artistic criticism, which is an arrogant and lowbrow approach to film reviewing.

50 posted on 12/22/2002 10:30:48 PM PST by paulklenk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-238 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson