DeadPoolX wrote:AndreaDraco wrote:I like you a little less, DPX, now that I know you don't like LOTR (film, movies or both?)
Mostly the books. I really tried to slog through them, but half-way through the second book, I just couldn't go on.
I can appreciate how important Tolkien's work was to the fantasy genre and his ideas. However, I couldn't stand his writing style.
I didn't like the first movie. I suppose it didn't help that I found it so boring I fell asleep in the movie theater. I woke up just in time to see some jerk (can't remember his name) get pelted with a million arrows before dying. I was thinking, "Just die already!"
By "some jerk", I presume you mean Boromir. He dies protecting "the hobbits" (Merry and Pippin) from Lurtz and his "fighting" Uruk-Hai. :p
I don't know if the first movie was boring. It depends on what you were looking for. If you wanted a whole bunch of fightin' scenes (like in the second and third movies), then this ain't the movie for you. It sets up the whole adventure to start with. Granted, I hated it that a whole bunch of stuff got cut out of this movie, but it's not
possible to make a movie say
everything that the book says. (A lot of people were disappointed that Farmer Maggot got cut, and Bill Ferny, and Tom Bombadil. Hey dol! Merry dol!) :p
To be honest, the movie would probably be twice as long as it is, if
everything in the book got put in, and I don't know many people who'd watch a movie for six hours. :p
Maiandra wrote:I'm not a hardcore Tolkien fan, but I did quite enjoy The Hobbit. I actually thought it was better suited to movie adaption than LOTR, but now I'm not so sure. Why did they have to pick at it? (Now it will never heal.
There's a saying: it'll never get better if you picket.