Re:We're back!!!!

[Storm]

Be more specific.
You could say the same about LOTR  

[Storm]

...And star wars  

[Storm]

LOTR is slighty different.

It's basically the same  

[copycat]

Dies in the first.  Returns in the second.  How many times does that happen?  

No, he didn't, he may have feel down that hole, or whatever it was, but nobody every saw him dead. They just assumed he was and that's something you don't do with Wizard-types, assume.

* copycat wants to be a wizard type!

[copycat]

That's way he's returns as Gandalf the WHITE.  Because Gandalf the gray died.

Yes, Gandalf the grey died, but Gandalf did not.

[Oldbushie]

I read the trilogy, and he didn't die at all. He metamorphosed. Kinda like a Phoenix only without the dying part.

[copycat]

* The Knight hands Copycat a copy of the Lord of the Rings

* copycat already has a copy of the Lord of the Rings.

Could you please specify on what page Gandalf said he died?

YAY!  Another one of our arguements.

Life is pretty dull without arguments so let's keep this one alive!

At least I've got oldbushie's support.

* copycat purrs to oldbushie

[Oldbushie]

Oh no. Are we comparatively analysing LOTR now?  

Nah, I don't want to make the discussion violent or anything by introducing religion, I was just noticing the similarity between that part in LOTR and that particular story in the New Testament.

[copycat]

All the LOTR fans I talk to agree Gandalf died.

No, all the other (besides me, that is) LOTR fans you talk to agree Gandalf died. I'm the one that doesn't.

* copycat wonders whether oldbushie is also a LOTR fan

Besides that, I don't think any of the LOTR fans you talk to is Gandalf himself.

[copycat]

Another reson not to go and see the movie for me. I would wonder why they let him out, just as I wondered why they skipped so many pages in the Harry Potter-films at times. Yes, I watched HP1 on DVD, just to see how much it differed from the book. So I guess LOTR will be the same. Luckily, there's no 'Matrix'-book.

[Jeysie]

Another reson not to go and see the movie for me. I would wonder why they let him out, just as I wondered why they skipped so many pages in the Harry Potter-films at times.

Same reason they leave anything out in a movie... no time. Tom Bombadil was fun, but let's face it... he wasn't integral to the plot, and just would have taken up time that could be used for something more "important". The movies are already peeking into the "ungodly" region of length, especially the "extended" versions.

Personally I love the LOTR movies. They're some of the best book adaptations I've seen. And, more importantly, since we can actually just see everything, it means no having to wade through a metric ton of Tolkien description! Oh, and Ian McKellan rules.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Oldbushie]

But I wanted them to spend 5 minutes on each page of the book!!!!

That woulda made them Asian-movie length.

[copycat]

And, more importantly, since we can actually just see everything, it means no having to wade through a metric ton of Tolkien description!

But I want a metric ton of Tolkien description.

[Storm]

26 posts later, and still no comfirmation on Gandalf's death! someone should really skip to the death scene there  

[Yonkey]

Heh, I thought you were gonna say "someone should really get Tolkien in here!"    

[Oldbushie]

Lol!!!!

* oldbushie casts spell to raise Tolkien from the dead so he can join the forums and answer our inane questions.

[mfortunato]

I apologize to all Tolkien fans in advance.
I couldn't finish the Fellowship of the Rings book!!!  I know - sacreligious considering I dressed up as a hobbit for halloween.

Well - I loved the book the Hobbit.  But Fellowship - why the hell do they all have to keep breaking into a song!!!!  And I'm so glad Peter Jackson cut out Tom Bombadil - what the hell did that have to do with the story?  And he just kept SINGING!!  WHY GOD! WHY?!?!?!?
So, after they left Tom Bombadil, I tried to read on, but just got bored with the rings.  So I turned my attention to the movies.  Peter Jackson did a great job of trimming the fat, in my not so humble opinion.
Also, he added the urgency the first book was missing.  Reading the book was like having Walter Kronkite tell you about his fishing trip.  There was no urgency, no immediacy to the story.  Why should I care about something that happened so many years ago?
Well, I love the films and can't wait for the third one.  So, no, I'm not a Tolkien fan - per se, I am a Peter Jackson's vision of Middle Earth's fan.

You can all commence beating me now - I'll understand.

[Oldbushie]

I had no problem with the vast length, as the descriptions were interesting enough for me to keep reading. Of course, I'm used to 900 page long books so it's easy for me.

[KatieHal]

LOL, if they were orignal songs...LOTR the Musical would be a breeding ground for humor opportunities!!!

I also didn't miss Tom. Woulda been cool, but yeah...nonessential to the plot.

It took me a *year* to get into the books, because the first book, I discovered, is VERY SLOW until they get to Bree! Mike, did you get that far? If not, tough it out til then, cause then it gets much faster and better, IMO. Seeing the first movie is finally what made me want to read the books, haha.

I LOVE the first movie. It is my favorite movie, in fact, and I am FURIOUS it did not win Best Movie. It so deserved it. A Beautiful Mind was slow as all hell and I didn't enjoy it nearly as much. Not to mention they apparentally took extreme liberties with the story and ignored huge issues and portions of the man's life.  At least FOTR was true to the story still!

all I know is, ROTK better get it this time around!!

[copycat]

I'm a fast reader,

You too?
It took me a while, but I read every word in the four books. From "The Hobbit" to "Return of the King", front to back. Non-essential parts to the story? Love them, IRL I also skip from one thought to another so the book diverting from the main plot is absolutely no problem for me.

In the Appendices at the back of Return of the King.  If you look at the date of events it mentioned Gandalf returns to life.  Now the arguement can begin on wether returned to life was figurtive, or literal.  

They must have missed that part when pdf-ing it cause I can't find it anywhere. You know I can't resist a good argument but this time I'll leave it be.