Lord of the Rings

sorbiegunner · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 13:45

Watched the final episode last night, having watched the first one and missed the second one, now, LotR officianados explain this to me.
What's all this hype about Frodo, if they were wanting anything a bit dangerous done again wouldn't they be far better just sending Sam?

murf · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 13:47

sorbiegunner wrote:

Watched the final episode last night, having watched the first one and missed the second one, now, LotR officianados explain this to me.
What's all this hype about Frodo, if they were wanting anything a bit dangerous done again wouldn't they be far better just sending Sam?

Bilbo was old, Frodo was family - his bad choice is therefore understandable.

The logic of how Bilbo was capable of just handing the ring over is something else though :wink:

DixieDean · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 13:50

sorbiegunner wrote:

Watched the final episode last night, having watched the first one and missed the second one, now, LotR officianados explain this to me.
What's all this hype about Frodo, if they were wanting anything a bit dangerous done again wouldn't they be far better just sending Sam?

Because his uncle had given it to him and so he was under it's power...

The easy solution would have been for Gandalf to take the bloody thing and chuck it into Mount Doom but he knew he would come under it's spell and with his already impressive powers he would have become even more evil than Sauron.

I think that sums it up!!! :wink:

Madchester · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 13:59

i've sky+ 'ed it... will probably take me the rest of the week to watch it in installments... 3hrs 50mins :shock:

The Jezster · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 14:03

The return of the king scene is one of the most moving pieces of film you could ever hope to watch..

"You bow to no man" still chokes me up...

sorbiegunner · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 14:22

Quote:

Because his uncle had given it to him and so he was under it's power...

But he did sod all, and the other pair of nutters, pippin and pal, caused more bother than they were worth. Sam was the onl one who should bow to no man, power of strength he was.

DixieDean · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 14:24

There is no way I'm going to debate LOTR!!!...

Jester · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 14:27

Sam was driven by his desire to protect his friend Frodo - he wouldn't have gone that far on his own.

Frodo had the ring because the elves chose him - they knew he was the one. You know what they say? Always trust the elves..!!

Mad - you've got to make time to watch it in one go, won't have the same effect if not...!

TheTon · **Joined:** Wed Aug 16 2006 **Posts:** 9909

As a massive fan of '24' i found it difficult accepting samwise ganji as the high powered boss of division!! :shock:

I could only picture him as a hobbit, and nothing more - albeit the most worthy of hobbits!!

sorbiegunner · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 14:33

jester wrote:

Sam was driven by his desire to protect his friend Frodo - he wouldn't have gone that far on his own.

Frodo had the ring because the elves chose him - they knew he was the one. You know what they say? Always trust the elves..!!

Mad - you've got to make time to watch it in one go, won't have the same effect if not...!

But he wasn't the one he was crap, he was saved from total diaster i dont know how many times and in the end he failed because he was going to keep it til the wee crawling fella with the bad teeth bit his finger off and it was only luck (and the fact that he was as crap as keeping the ring for himself as he had been at getting there) that the ring ended up in the hot stuff.

Wyld · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 15:34

sorbiegunner wrote:

jester wrote:

Sam was driven by his desire to protect his friend Frodo - he wouldn't have gone that far on his own.

Frodo had the ring because the elves chose him - they knew he was the one. You know what they say? Always trust the elves..!!

Mad - you've got to make time to watch it in one go, won't have the same effect if not...!

But he wasn't the one he was crap, he was saved from total diaster i dont know how many times and in the end he failed because he was going to keep it til the wee crawling fella with the bad teeth bit his finger off and it was only luck (and the fact that he was as crap as keeping the ring for himself as he had been at getting there) that the ring ended up in the hot stuff.

Good job it wasn't a knob ring then...

sorbiegunner · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 16:00

Wyld wrote:

Good job it wasn't a knob ring then...

indeed, indeed. A Prince Albert.

murf · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 16:10

At least if he lobbed out his Hobbit knob to put it on he'd soon be invisible

snout · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 16:24

sorbiegunner wrote:

But he wasn't the one he was crap, he was saved from total diaster i dont know how many times and in the end he failed because he was going to keep it til the wee crawling fella with the bad teeth bit his finger off and it was only luck (and the fact that he was as crap as keeping the ring for himself as he had been at getting there) that the ring ended up in the hot stuff.

He was supposed to be the most pure-hearted of the hobbits, who were the most pure hearted of all Middle Earth races, and even he was corrupted by the ring. Anyone other than him would have given into temptation long before he did. If Sam had been the ring-bearer, he would have turned back before the end of the first film to go and try and knob that barmaid girlfriend of his.

Yes, Frodo was going to try and keep it at the end but it was his choice to keep Gollum alive - in the hope that they could both be saved from the ring's effect - that meant the ring got destroyed. Therefore he was the right one to carry the ring.

And, if Jackson had had any balls, he would have ended the film immediately after the destruction of the ring. He could then have filmed a follow-up detailing the return of the king, the journey home and the scouring of the shire.

DixieDean · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 16:49

nash0819 wrote:

And, if Jackson had had any balls, he would have ended the film immediately after the destruction of the ring. He could then have filmed a follow-up detailing the return of the king, the journey home and the scouring of the shire.

I'm with you on that one... It's a shame the film ended the way it did.

sorbiegunner · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 16:56

DixieDean wrote:

nash0819 wrote:

And, if Jackson had had any balls, he would have ended the film immediately after the destruction of the ring. He could then have filmed a follow-up detailing the return of the king, the journey home and the scouring of the shire.

I'm with you on that one... It's a shame the film ended the way it did.

There you have me, not having read it I just assumed it finished like that, don't tell me there's more.

DixieDean · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 17:00

Yep... He missed loads out at the end...

Read the books... you won't regret it.

DixieDean · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 17:01

Yep... He missed loads out at the end...

Read the books... you won't regret it.

murf · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 17:03

DixieDean wrote:

Yep... He missed loads out at the end...

Read the books... you won't regret it.

The book ending was rubbish though (not as bad as the film admittedly).

Ring in fire = The End. Anything extra is anti-climax

DixieDean · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 17:08

I haven't read it for a few years but I'm sure I remember enjoying the end of the book which is why I was disappointed with the film.

That's a very small criticism of a fantastic trilogy of movies though.

TheTon · **Joined:** Wed Aug 16 2006 **Posts:** 9909

DixieDean wrote:

I haven't read it for a few years but I'm sure I remember enjoying the end of the book which is why I was disappointed with the film.

That's a very small criticism of a fantastic trilogy of movies though.

Leads to the question....What is the best movie trilogy??

Aliens
The Matrix
Harry Potter????
X-Men
Star Wars
Indianna Jones (does it count?)

DixieDean · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 17:16

paul-ton wrote:

Leads to the question....What is the best movie trilogy??

Aliens
The Matrix
Harry Potter????
X-Men
Star Wars
Indianna Jones (does it count?)

Why don't you start a new thread based on that?... As long as you include LOTR I'll vote... :wink:

sorbiegunner · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 17:16

It takes 8 hours to watch it, and that with a bit of skimping at the end, for me that translates into a long time to read, I'd be cheaper buying it than paying the fines at the library. :oops:

sorbiegunner · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 17:19

A triology is three, isn't Star Wars up to about 23 now? You be as well with Star Trek as far as the definition of trilogy goes

DixieDean · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 17:19

sorbiegunner wrote:

It takes 8 hours to watch it, and that with a bit of skimping at the end, for me that translates into a long time to read, I'd be cheaper buying it than paying the fines at the library. :oops:

I read all three in about 2/3 months on and off. When I got the chance to pick the book up I just couldn't put it down sometimes. It's better than the movies you've seen. Probably the best book I've read (another thread :wink:

).

sorbiegunner · **Posted:** 20 Nov 2006, 17:24

DixieDean wrote:

sorbiegunner wrote:

It takes 8 hours to watch it, and that with a bit of skimping at the end, for me that translates into a long time to read, I'd be cheaper buying it than paying the fines at the library. :oops:

I read all three in about 2/3 months on and off. When I got the chance to pick the book up I just couldn't put it down sometimes. It's better than the movies you've seen. Probably the best book I've read (another thread :wink:

).

I used to be able to rattle through books when I used the tube but it takes me ages now just for an average length one, always have one, or two, on the go though.