DeadPoolX wrote:AndreaDraco wrote:I like you a little less, DPX, now that I know you don't like LOTR (film, movies or both?)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
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
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
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.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
There's a saying: it'll never get better if you picket.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)