Reply to Lord of the Rings - Part II
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
To all the folks out there who have read the three books I was wondering . . . is there anything in any of the movies that was changed/interpreted differently from the books that really didn't sit well with you? For some it was the exclusion of Tom Bombadil, or the whole Arwen thing.
Being a book person I generally don't like the movie versions of books (the movie version of John Irving's The Cider House Rules . . . no no no) with the possible exception of Jurassic Park (very cool to see the CGI dinosaurs although the book was obviously much more scientific) and I started reading the books after I saw The Two Towers. I didn't like that in the movie it seemed like Faramir was holding Frodo and Sam hostage, which was not how it was like in the book at all, or that Treebeard and the Ents seemed like these hapless creatures whereas in the book they were much wiser.
Did anything really bother you (besides this post
)? Please bear in mind that some may not have seen the third movie yet (like me).
(BTW, I thought this was kinda a cool site
. Takes a while to load, though).
Being a book person I generally don't like the movie versions of books (the movie version of John Irving's The Cider House Rules . . . no no no) with the possible exception of Jurassic Park (very cool to see the CGI dinosaurs although the book was obviously much more scientific) and I started reading the books after I saw The Two Towers. I didn't like that in the movie it seemed like Faramir was holding Frodo and Sam hostage, which was not how it was like in the book at all, or that Treebeard and the Ents seemed like these hapless creatures whereas in the book they were much wiser.
Did anything really bother you (besides this post
)? Please bear in mind that some may not have seen the third movie yet (like me).(BTW, I thought this was kinda a cool site
. Takes a while to load, though).
