Lord Of The Rings

What Would You Rate LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING?

  • 1 - The Worst Piece of Crap Since What FAT BASTARD left in the toilet

    Votes: 1 3.4%

  • 2

    Votes: 1 3.4%

  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 5 - OK

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • 6

    Votes: 1 3.4%

  • 7

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • 8

    Votes: 7 24.1%

  • 9

    Votes: 9 31.0%

  • 10 - Excellent, The Best Movie Ever

    Votes: 4 13.8%
  • Total voters
    29
I'm one of the few people on the planet who wasn't really impressed with it. Although, considering my tastes I liked it alot more than I thought I would. Usually medieval-type fantasy disgusts me. This movie more just bored me. I have no desire to see the rest of the series, but the first one was ok. I don't regret seeing it, aside from the fact that it was "Let's walk....and walk some more....and then walk....and then let's kick it up a notch, and continue walking....and just when you thought it was over....MORE WALKING...."
 
Originally posted by Ladiesman^
I'm one of the few people on the planet who wasn't really impressed with it. Although, considering my tastes I liked it alot more than I thought I would. Usually medieval-type fantasy disgusts me. This movie more just bored me. I have no desire to see the rest of the series, but the first one was ok. I don't regret seeing it, aside from the fact that it was "Let's walk....and walk some more....and then walk....and then let's kick it up a notch, and continue walking....and just when you thought it was over....MORE WALKING...."
Click to expand...

Ladiesman^ you make an interesting point. I certainly see where you are coming from. But you have to admit, even if you critisize the movie like that there was still some excellent effects and some fantastic acting.
 
I think they're great. But there's lots of walking, so Ladiesman won't like them one bit.

The books are better in some aspects, but the movie did better in the action department.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Well, perhaps you really should re-read the book ...
Click to expand...
Mmf, I though I'd spent every third calm sentence to say that... In any case, you didn't need to tell me that.

Ghost: *K'Ha'haf* You wouldn't, by any chance, have read Dostojevskij's 'Karamazov brothers', or whatever it's called in English? THAT's SLOW! :) It took a whole year for me to finish that thing...

Knitewing: You said it.
 
I haven't read Brothers Karamazov, but I did have to read Crime and Punishment in high school.
Ugh...

As far as the Nazguls go, I would guess that Tolkien intended them to be able to survive a torch thrust in their face, but at the same time, to suffer extreme discomfort/pain as a result of it. Remember that in the book, after Frodo gets stabbed, Aragorn charges the Nazgul using an improvised torch, and successfully drives them off.
Ergo- they really don't like fire.
Its also worth noting that traditionally, the undead don't like fire. Tolkien would have been aware of this, and appears to have included a similar vulnerability in his ringwraiths. Traditionally, the dislike of fire would extend to those undead without a physical form.

The moral, as I explained to some of my friends last month during our weekly D&D game, is ALWAYS carry a torch or two. You never know when the monster will ignore your weapons, but nearly everything burns.
 
I haven't read Brothers Karamazov, but I did have to read Crime and Punishment in high school.
Ugh...
Click to expand...

Really? Crime and Punishment was one of my favorites from my high school days.
 
I just remember it dragging on and on, along with some fairly grotesque imagery from time to time (the horse that got clubbed to death, for example).
I did like the police sergent, though - the guy that keeps dropping hints that he knows the main character did it, and why it was done. IIRC, when we wrote a paper after reading the book, my topic had something to do with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top