ok so Eowyn needs to be my girlfriend

[LuminousAether]

The songs in LOTR (the books) were definitely crucial... in making the books a tedious chore to read. I was hoping no songs would be included in the movies, but the few they did have didn't disrupt the flow of the movies as much as they did in the books (mostly due to there being about 2,000,000 (give or take a few thousand) more songs in the books).

That said, I didn't know the differences between the book and the movie for ROTK beforehand because that's the book in the series I could never bring myself to finish (what a tedious, loathsome chore it was to try). I noticed many differences between the first book and the first movie, and they were all without a fault positive changes (such as the lack of Tom Bombadil, one of the worst characters ever devised). The second book's changes were more of a mixed bag, but the movie was still so far superior to the book that it wasn't funny.

 

[xfer]

i guess the most positive thing i can say about LuminousAether's opinions on LOTR are that they help support my argument that the films were crucial to getting even more people to buy into the Lord of the Rings as a significant myth thing.

 

[AndICried]

I'm not attacking you Lumi Loomi Lum, nor am I saying you're wrong in any way, but looking at your signature it seems as though Tolkein and yourself share a similar concern for the environment.

 

[LuminousAether]

Yeah, the environmental subtext is definitely good. I like the story and the setting, I just don't like the way it was written. For a good example, I thoroughly loved The Hobbit, which was written in a very different way. I just prefer fantasy to not have so many songs and to spend more time with characters actually doing something, not talking about doing it. Like the council of Elrond... *shudders*

 

[azal]

this thread quickly took a turn for the geekier.