Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent)   Tolkien superfans invited to preview Amazon's new series set in Middle Earth give it rave reviews, which means be wary unless you are fascinated by the taxonomic history of different strains of pipeweed, or the derivation of the elvish word for bread   (independent.co.uk) divider line
    More: Followup, Die-hard Lord of the Rings fans, screening of the forthcoming show, new TV series, The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, Prime Video, fans of Middle Earth, JRR Tolkien enthusiasts, Last week  
•       •       •

640 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 15 May 2022 at 12:44 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



79 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-05-15 9:40:04 AM  
Massa is Quenya, bas in Sindarian
 
2022-05-15 10:10:31 AM  
the taxonomic history of different strains of pipeweed

i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-15 11:39:22 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-15 11:48:48 AM  
Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?
 
2022-05-15 12:47:17 PM  

Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?


Hey! The lord of the rings trilogy was good stuff. I can't believe it's been twenty years already.
 
2022-05-15 12:52:41 PM  
If they're already breaking out the turd polish, you know it's going to be bad.
 
2022-05-15 12:55:39 PM  

Slaxl: Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?

Hey! The lord of the rings trilogy was good stuff. I can't believe it's been twenty years already.


Which makes the fact that the Hobbit trilogy was so incredibly bad just that much more surprising.
 
2022-05-15 1:02:32 PM  

Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?


It's the best attempt anyone has made yet.

Lots of the writing choices were bizarre (especially in The Two Towers). But the films looked exactly like the paintings I've been seeing for my entire life.
 
2022-05-15 1:02:46 PM  
preview.redd.itView Full Size
 
2022-05-15 1:15:34 PM  

NeoCortex42: Slaxl: Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?

Hey! The lord of the rings trilogy was good stuff. I can't believe it's been twenty years already.

Which makes the fact that the Hobbit trilogy was so incredibly bad just that much more surprising.


Amen. The first trilogy was great. Sure there are a load of differences with the books but that was to be expected. It matched the books more than I expected.  The Hobbit movies were horrible. I was shocked when I heard it was a trilogy as the book does not have enough material.  They might have gotten one good movie out if it if it was not too long.
 
2022-05-15 1:15:46 PM  

Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?


I see a slap fight brewing...
 
2022-05-15 1:16:17 PM  

clkeagle: Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?

It's the best attempt anyone has made yet.

Lots of the writing choices were bizarre (especially in The Two Towers). But the films looked exactly like the paintings I've been seeing for my entire life.


You have to change it to make it work in a different medium.

I'm not terribly opposed to any of it except for the army of the dead.

I don't care how that worked in the books, nor do I remember. But it was just silly and overly convenient
 
2022-05-15 1:20:27 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

He has "superfans"?
 
2022-05-15 1:23:42 PM  
If it pleased the superfans (and they are not cherry picking good reviews) then it might be a good sign. Fans often coming with unrealistic expectations and unwillingness to put aside their own personal head canons.
 
2022-05-15 1:28:19 PM  
From all indications it's actually good. Here's a reviewer I like and he has a lot to say about LOTR in general:


Lord of the Rings from Saruman's perspective
Youtube C4tbzT_NaIc


I forgot FARK doesn't like links to channels. w/e

This is just one of many videos he has done and I really recommend them all.
 
2022-05-15 1:28:53 PM  
I don't see the point in making something specifically in the same world as LoTR.  Tolkien set the standard for Western fantasy to the point that it is difficult to find something these days that isn't heavily influenced by it if not outright copying massive percentages of it.

Make your own world.  It can still have elves and orcs and wizards and be set in a pseudo-medieval time period  (and probably will!).
 
2022-05-15 1:33:58 PM  
It might be good. I dunno.
But I do know never to trust early fan reviews of anything.
 
2022-05-15 1:39:36 PM  
I mean...

The fans have already been complaining after the sneak peak.

Apparently, the star on Galadriel's breastplate armor has the wrong number of points to be 'lore correct'
 
2022-05-15 1:46:13 PM  

Gubbo: clkeagle: Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?

It's the best attempt anyone has made yet.

Lots of the writing choices were bizarre (especially in The Two Towers). But the films looked exactly like the paintings I've been seeing for my entire life.

You have to change it to make it work in a different medium.

I'm not terribly opposed to any of it except for the army of the dead.

I don't care how that worked in the books, nor do I remember. But it was just silly and overly convenient


I agree completely. Some changes needed to be made, others were a bit of artistic license that still didn't hurt the story overall.

The Army of the Dead going all the way to Minas Tirith was a way to cut down on some of the side quests and avoid introducing a bunch of new semi-important characters. I don't have an issue with that part, other than maybe there was a bit too many of them for what was supposed to be a sort of traitor company. 

I always skipped the Tom Bombadil chapters. Tolkien readers have been debating about him for decades. His omission from the films was a very good idea.

I also didn't really mind the Elves at Helm's Deep, although they would have been acting on Galadriel's orders instead of Elrond's. 

Aragorn being separated in the warg attack and seeing Saruman's army approaching also cut out some side characters. It helped paint the movie's version of the world as being far less populated than it was in the books (see also the Minas Tirith battle and the complete omission of Prince Imrahil and the men of Dol Amaroth).

My problems with The Two Towers? Treebeard and Faramir. In the book, both understood the magnitude of what was happening in Middle-earth. Treebeard not going to war (and then overturning it) and Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath (and then releasing them anyway) really hurt both of their characters, just at the expense of giving Pippen and Sam (respectively) a few seconds of on-screen glory.
 
2022-05-15 1:49:13 PM  

Unsung_Hero: I don't see the point in making something specifically in the same world as LoTR.  Tolkien set the standard for Western fantasy to the point that it is difficult to find something these days that isn't heavily influenced by it if not outright copying massive percentages of it.

Make your own world.  It can still have elves and orcs and wizards and be set in a pseudo-medieval time period  (and probably will!).


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-15 1:52:26 PM  

clkeagle: Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?

It's the best attempt anyone has made yet.

Lots of the writing choices were bizarre (especially in The Two Towers). But the films looked exactly like the paintings I've been seeing for my entire life.


Visually LotR was amazing, but they actually went well above what Hollywood did for films at the time in that department. Hobbit went to hard into CGI since that seem to be all Studio exec can understand now, even though there is multiple examples where CGI gives a worse result then practical effects would have (see "The Thing" remake/prequel). CGI has its place, and there are things that can only really be done with it, but it is a single tool in the visual effects toolbox and only an idiot takes out his hammer then throws away the rest of the toll box, then treats every screw like a nail.

But ya there was a lot of questionable writing choices, I can understand cutting Tom as a needless side story but so many other changes that did not need to happen. Like cutting Glorfindel to give Arwen more screen time, when she was not a warrior or even in Rivendell in the books, and there are more changes that are just as pointless (plus make no sense or undermine other aspects) as they go on. Heck, if Elrond could deliver Narsil personally then what the heck was the purpose of their journey up to that point? A flash back to when they were in Rivendell would work just as well if you wanted emphasize Aragorn deciding to enter the Paths of the Dead as part of his decision to claim his crown
 
2022-05-15 1:54:14 PM  

clkeagle: Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath (and then releasing them anyway) really hurt both of their characters, just at the expense of giving Pippen and Sam (respectively) a few seconds of on-screen glory.


Yeah but it gave us the best dialogue in the movie.

"I am Frodo Baggins, and this is Samwise Gamgee..."
"...His bodyguard?"
"His gardener."
 
2022-05-15 1:56:23 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-15 2:05:27 PM  
Tolkien superfans were invited out somewhere, by actual real people; of course they're going to be effusive in their praise. Bet the catering bill was a biatch. And some poor intern/usher had to hear about how the icing runes on the cookies were the wrong dialect.
 
2022-05-15 2:23:17 PM  

RoyFokker'sGhost: I mean...

The fans have already been complaining after the sneak peak.

Apparently, the star on Galadriel's breastplate armor has the wrong number of points to be 'lore correct'


She shouldn't even have plate mail she is clearly a caster class not a melee.
 
2022-05-15 2:30:42 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: NeoCortex42: Slaxl: Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?

Hey! The lord of the rings trilogy was good stuff. I can't believe it's been twenty years already.

Which makes the fact that the Hobbit trilogy was so incredibly bad just that much more surprising.

Amen. The first trilogy was great. Sure there are a load of differences with the books but that was to be expected. It matched the books more than I expected.  The Hobbit movies were horrible. I was shocked when I heard it was a trilogy as the book does not have enough material.  They might have gotten one good movie out if it if it was not too long.


I think you could possibly get two good movies out of it. The thing is, while LotR is a sprawling epic, The Hobbit is a relatively light adventure tale. It should be a brisk, and fun, story. The animated version holds up better than the Jackson one turned out.
 
2022-05-15 2:31:06 PM  
Yeah... "Die-hard Star Trek fans" said/say the same things about Discovery and Picard, too, and the rest of us have all seen how that worked out.
 
2022-05-15 2:32:34 PM  

sjmcc13: Like cutting Glorfindel to give Arwen more screen time, when she was not a warrior or even in Rivendell in the books


Arwen is actually directly important to one of the Fellowship. Glorfindel is not. In a movie, he'd just be a "who the hell is this random guy here to save the day?" Consolidating him with Arwen was the right move for an adaptation. Cuts down on the number of characters, helps flesh out Aragorn, and lessens the sausage party.

As for whether or not she could fight in the books, that's a giant "who cares?" It's not like they showed her slaughtering dozens of orcs, anyway. The whole "Arwen Warrior Princess" complaint has always been and will always be silly. She rode a horse. That's the extent of her warrior persona in the movies. She rode a horse and briefly held up a sword. That's it. That's all it was.

sjmcc13: if Elrond could deliver Narsil personally then what the heck was the purpose of their journey up to that point?


Movie Aragorn didn't want the crown and was rejecting his destiny. He wanted no part of Narsil. That's why he left Rivendell without it. Elrond brought it to him, re-forged, because it was time to convince him to accept who he is and he believed presenting him with the re-forged sword would finally set him on his destined path.

The purpose of their journey to that point was to safely get Frodo to Mordor, then, after the Breaking of the Fellowship, to rally Rohan to Gondor's aid.

Whether turning Aragorn into someone who doubted his destiny was the right move is debatable, but it's fairly clear why they did, just as it's clear what the purpose of their journey was.
 
2022-05-15 2:33:38 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-15 2:38:41 PM  

NeoCortex42: TheMysteriousStranger: NeoCortex42: Slaxl: Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?

Hey! The lord of the rings trilogy was good stuff. I can't believe it's been twenty years already.

Which makes the fact that the Hobbit trilogy was so incredibly bad just that much more surprising.

Amen. The first trilogy was great. Sure there are a load of differences with the books but that was to be expected. It matched the books more than I expected.  The Hobbit movies were horrible. I was shocked when I heard it was a trilogy as the book does not have enough material.  They might have gotten one good movie out if it if it was not too long.

I think you could possibly get two good movies out of it. The thing is, while LotR is a sprawling epic, The Hobbit is a relatively light adventure tale. It should be a brisk, and fun, story. The animated version holds up better than the Jackson one turned out.


It doesn't make it less irritating to watch, but I always imagine it this way...

- The Lord of the Rings films are Frodo's account including input from the rest of the fellowship. It's fairly "accurate."

- The Hobbit films are based on Bilbo's account decades after it happened. He embellished it quite a bit, and filled in the details without any good accounts. It explains small inconsistencies like his age compared to the Fellowship intro, the cartoonish appearance of the mountain goblins, and what Wargs looked like... And much greater problems like what really happened at Dol Guldur and Legolas and Tauriel jogging laps around half a continent in a matter of hours, and utter nonsense like the stone giants.

Again, it doesn't really redeem a lot if what Jackson did to The Hobbit... But it makes them a bit more palatable.
 
2022-05-15 2:43:57 PM  
Are these the same LBGQT+ "superfans" that Amazon hired to gush about the show only to delete and bury the video due the fact these "superfans" knew nothing about Middle-earth, the characters, the back story or even the slightest bit about Tolkien's stories and the backlash to the video?
 
DVD
2022-05-15 2:44:57 PM  
Here's where I excitedly shill for Lord of the Rings Online.  It's free to roll up characters and you could actually get all of the game content for "free", if free includes grinding.  Otherwise, later content (After Rohan) does give you an opportunity to support the devs.

But if you want to roll up a character and just do the pre-Gondor content and festivals, that'd take up much of anyone's daily play time anyway and it's lots of fun.

Nice other thing about playing the game is that you end up being a Middle-Earth super-nerd without realizing it.  The devs have done an excellent job with keeping the game close to the literature. So if you happen to be reading the books, and come across some passing mention of an obscure place, it'll actually leap out at you, simply because you'd done some questing there.
 
2022-05-15 2:46:12 PM  
 But I want to be mad about it!
 
2022-05-15 2:47:13 PM  

Unsung_Hero: I don't see the point in making something specifically in the same world as LoTR.


Tolkien didn't view Middle Earth as the setting for the Lord of the Rings, he viewed the Lord of the Rings as part of the history of Middle Earth.

He wrote (in varying degrees of detail) dozens of stories and histories and myths about Middle Earth.   It's a good source for material to adapt if its adaptations are done well.
 
2022-05-15 2:49:23 PM  

NeoCortex42: TheMysteriousStranger: NeoCortex42: Slaxl: Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?

Hey! The lord of the rings trilogy was good stuff. I can't believe it's been twenty years already.

Which makes the fact that the Hobbit trilogy was so incredibly bad just that much more surprising.

Amen. The first trilogy was great. Sure there are a load of differences with the books but that was to be expected. It matched the books more than I expected.  The Hobbit movies were horrible. I was shocked when I heard it was a trilogy as the book does not have enough material.  They might have gotten one good movie out if it if it was not too long.

I think you could possibly get two good movies out of it. The thing is, while LotR is a sprawling epic, The Hobbit is a relatively light adventure tale. It should be a brisk, and fun, story. The animated version holds up better than the Jackson one turned out.


I have the "book cut" of the Hobbit movie downloaded. It is about 4hours, longer than I will ever do in a single sitting. But I look forward to doing it over a few evenings, much as I would the book.

My kindle was dead the other night so I read on my wife's one volume LotR till I fell asleep. I had only read them once in ith grade and hadnt revisited other than the movies. Now I'm done with Book 1 and innit to winnit.
 
2022-05-15 3:00:58 PM  

TelemonianAjax: NeoCortex42: TheMysteriousStranger: NeoCortex42: Slaxl: Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?

Hey! The lord of the rings trilogy was good stuff. I can't believe it's been twenty years already.

Which makes the fact that the Hobbit trilogy was so incredibly bad just that much more surprising.

Amen. The first trilogy was great. Sure there are a load of differences with the books but that was to be expected. It matched the books more than I expected.  The Hobbit movies were horrible. I was shocked when I heard it was a trilogy as the book does not have enough material.  They might have gotten one good movie out if it if it was not too long.

I think you could possibly get two good movies out of it. The thing is, while LotR is a sprawling epic, The Hobbit is a relatively light adventure tale. It should be a brisk, and fun, story. The animated version holds up better than the Jackson one turned out.

I have the "book cut" of the Hobbit movie downloaded. It is about 4hours, longer than I will ever do in a single sitting. But I look forward to doing it over a few evenings, much as I would the book.

My kindle was dead the other night so I read on my wife's one volume LotR till I fell asleep. I had only read them once in ith grade and hadnt revisited other than the movies. Now I'm done with Book 1 and innit to winnit.


I downloaded a similar edit, maybe even the same one.  When I revisit the series going forward, I'd watch that before the full extended LotR series instead of actually watching the Hobbit trilogy.

Same thing with the SW prequels. I have an edit that cuts the whole thing down to one movie that is actually watchable before going into the rest of the series.
 
2022-05-15 3:01:27 PM  
The people who own the thing they're trying to promote dangled something shiny in front of people they want to "review" it kindly, got good "reviews"?

You don't say.
 
2022-05-15 3:04:33 PM  
Amazon Instant REGRET! Hides CRINGE LOTR: Rings of Power 'Superfans' Video
Youtube oxHjg8pJUwY
 
2022-05-15 3:05:31 PM  

clkeagle: NeoCortex42: TheMysteriousStranger: NeoCortex42: Slaxl: Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?

Hey! The lord of the rings trilogy was good stuff. I can't believe it's been twenty years already.

Which makes the fact that the Hobbit trilogy was so incredibly bad just that much more surprising.

Amen. The first trilogy was great. Sure there are a load of differences with the books but that was to be expected. It matched the books more than I expected.  The Hobbit movies were horrible. I was shocked when I heard it was a trilogy as the book does not have enough material.  They might have gotten one good movie out if it if it was not too long.

I think you could possibly get two good movies out of it. The thing is, while LotR is a sprawling epic, The Hobbit is a relatively light adventure tale. It should be a brisk, and fun, story. The animated version holds up better than the Jackson one turned out.

It doesn't make it less irritating to watch, but I always imagine it this way...

- The Lord of the Rings films are Frodo's account including input from the rest of the fellowship. It's fairly "accurate."

- The Hobbit films are based on Bilbo's account decades after it happened. He embellished it quite a bit, and filled in the details without any good accounts. It explains small inconsistencies like his age compared to the Fellowship intro, the cartoonish appearance of the mountain goblins, and what Wargs looked like... And much greater problems like what really happened at Dol Guldur and Legolas and Tauriel jogging laps around half a continent in a matter of hours, and utter nonsense like the stone giants.

Again, it doesn't really redeem a lot if what Jackson did to The Hobbit... But it makes them a bit more palatable.


So, how about the orc Worm-Riders?

Both trilogies suffered from the same pattern: first films were decent adaptations with necessary edits and cuts made.

The third films are less adaptations of Tolkien's works and more Jackson's interpretations, cutting important moments (Scouring of the Shire) and making things from whole cloth that had nothing to do with the stories.
 
2022-05-15 3:23:25 PM  
When the Ents started doing Karate and Legolas was jumping around like Spider-Man on amphetamines, I had problems with suspending my disbelief. I began to expect Lara Croft to show up during the Battle of the Black Gate. Peter Jackson should work at a video game studio.
 
2022-05-15 3:58:50 PM  

DVD: Here's where I excitedly shill for Lord of the Rings Online.  It's free to roll up characters and you could actually get all of the game content for "free", if free includes grinding.  Otherwise, later content (After Rohan) does give you an opportunity to support the devs.

But if you want to roll up a character and just do the pre-Gondor content and festivals, that'd take up much of anyone's daily play time anyway and it's lots of fun.

Nice other thing about playing the game is that you end up being a Middle-Earth super-nerd without realizing it.  The devs have done an excellent job with keeping the game close to the literature. So if you happen to be reading the books, and come across some passing mention of an obscure place, it'll actually leap out at you, simply because you'd done some questing there.


I had the same experience in Star Tek Online pre-Discovery. I have no time left I  my life to Lose to another MMORPG. But LotR Online is on the list if I crack.

I thoroughly enjoyed War in the North on Xbox 360. It felt like LotR: The B Team.
 
2022-05-15 4:06:37 PM  

shoegaze99: Cuts down on the number of characters,


They could have just as easily replaced him with an unnamed elven guard/sentry/protector/militia/etc.

shoegaze99: helps flesh out Aragorn


Not really, it just moved when they meet. In the books she is in Lorien (Galadriel is her grandmother btw) and meet Aragorn there. Putting her in Rivendell just moved her part of his story from a point he needs a boost (right after losing Gandalf) to the start where he does not need one. Using her to flesh out and motivate Aragorn is just better served at the point he needs a boost most, which after the fellowship's first loss. Their meeting in the book is perfectly positioned to be expanded for that effect.

shoegaze99: and lessens the sausage party.


Moving a minor character, or slightly increasing their role does not lessen it though.

shoegaze99: Movie Aragorn didn't want the crown and was rejecting his destiny. He wanted no part of Narsil. That's why he left Rivendell without it. Elrond brought it to him, re-forged, because it was time to convince him to accept who he is and he believed presenting him with the re-forged sword would finally set him on his destined path.

The purpose of their journey to that point was to safely get Frodo to Mordor, then, after the Breaking of the Fellowship, to rally Rohan to Gondor's aid.

Whether turning Aragorn into someone who doubted his destiny was the right move is debatable, but it's fairly clear why they did, just as it's clear what the purpose of their journey was.


The issue is not that, it his how Elrond gets form Rivendell to meet up before they get to the Paths of the Dead, that invalidates much of the journey up to that point since if he can move easily (and he is a known high value target) who should have been on Sauron's list of possible ring holders (I think he had guessed Galadriel held one) The issue is the Elrond could not really move because he was occupied with the defences of Rivendell, as Sauron was causing issues pretty much everywhere there was Orcs, or his other followers, not just in Gondor.
 
2022-05-15 4:09:56 PM  
It's NOT by Peter Jackson & it's on a medium with a pause button feature - thus it won't be an endurance test of my bladder &/or patience.
 
2022-05-15 4:16:55 PM  

Saborlas: [Fark user image 518x466]


Funny but omitting things is not a problem.  It's when they add or change things pointlessly.
 
2022-05-15 4:21:25 PM  

NeoCortex42: Slaxl: Blackstone: Fans of Tolkien, or fans of the excrement that Jackson put out as movies?

Hey! The lord of the rings trilogy was good stuff. I can't believe it's been twenty years already.

Which makes the fact that the Hobbit trilogy was so incredibly bad just that much more surprising.


The Hobbit would've been a great movie or a decent double feature like the BBC's Hogfather.

Trying to stretch things into a trilogy meant filler. sooo much filler.  But since the story itself is basically perfect already, that filler just threw things off
 
2022-05-15 4:22:55 PM  
I always enjoy a good trip down memory lane!
 
2022-05-15 4:38:55 PM  

sjmcc13: shoegaze99: Cuts down on the number of characters,

They could have just as easily replaced him with an unnamed elven guard/sentry/protector/militia/etc.


That would be even WORSE. Then you've got some nameless, faceless character who's only there for a horsey ride. Why insert a character with no relation to anything else in the story into such a pivotal moment? That would be a great example of what not to do in an adaptation.

Moving a minor character, or slightly increasing their role does not lessen it though.

Yes, greatly increasing the role of one of the story's only two relevant female characters (three if you count Rosie) makes it less a sausage party. It's still very much mostly sausage, but it at least makes one of the women far more prominent, while also giving Aragorn a clearer, on-screen reason to fight his fight beyond merely claiming a birthright.

The issue is the Elrond could not really move because he was occupied with the defences of Rivendell, as Sauron was causing issues pretty much everywhere there was Orcs, or his other followers, not just in Gondor.

The movie never makes the case that Elrond can't go anywhere, and Sauron's sieges elsewhere aren't touched on in the movie. Those aspects of the book aren't present in the movies. There is nothing to suggest Elrond can't travel. If the Fellowship can travel in relative secrecy even while being hunted by two different divine beings, so can Elrond.
 
2022-05-15 4:47:17 PM  

leeksfromchichis: Trying to stretch things into a trilogy meant filler. sooo much filler. But since the story itself is basically perfect already, that filler just threw things off


Did the original LOTR movies have less filler?
 
2022-05-15 4:52:53 PM  

Mugato: leeksfromchichis: Trying to stretch things into a trilogy meant filler. sooo much filler. But since the story itself is basically perfect already, that filler just threw things off

Did the original LOTR movies have less filler?


Yeah they did.

They added things that they shouldn't, but it wasn't meant to stretch things into a trilogy because it was already th three books not one.
 
DVD
2022-05-15 4:54:53 PM  

TelemonianAjax: DVD: Here's where I excitedly shill for Lord of the Rings Online.  It's free to roll up characters and you could actually get all of the game content for "free", if free includes grinding.  Otherwise, later content (After Rohan) does give you an opportunity to support the devs.

But if you want to roll up a character and just do the pre-Gondor content and festivals, that'd take up much of anyone's daily play time anyway and it's lots of fun.

Nice other thing about playing the game is that you end up being a Middle-Earth super-nerd without realizing it.  The devs have done an excellent job with keeping the game close to the literature. So if you happen to be reading the books, and come across some passing mention of an obscure place, it'll actually leap out at you, simply because you'd done some questing there.

I had the same experience in Star Tek Online pre-Discovery. I have no time left I  my life to Lose to another MMORPG. But LotR Online is on the list if I crack.

I thoroughly enjoyed War in the North on Xbox 360. It felt like LotR: The B Team.


_____________________________

I kept thinking about Star Trek Online.  I just never made the leap.  I had EVE Online and LOTRO going, so that was filling enough free time.  EVE Online is gone for me now, so perhaps, perhaps... gotta mix up my time between space and Middle-Earth, I suppose.

MOO2 *might* have to sub for my space fix for now, though.
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.