porch_monkey_4_life said:

what the hell is christopher lee so angry about? he should be pissed off by the fact that peter jackson talked him into being one of the shittiest ****ing movie trilogies known to man.

allan_shizaar said:

porch_monkey_4_life said:

what the hell is christopher lee so angry about? he should be pissed off by the fact that peter jackson talked him into being one of the shittiest ****ing movie trilogies known to man.

R u dumb?

porch_monkey_4_life said:

what the hell is christopher lee so angry about? he should be peepeed off by the fact that peter jackson talked him into being one of the poopiest sexing movie trilogies known to man.

porch_monkey_4_life said:

if it's so sexing great, how come there were almost no actual plot points in the trilogy? the only significant events that happened in the entire trilogy are:
1. the fellowship is made.
2. the ring is destroyed.

all of the characters' paths were set at the beginning of the first film, and continued to remain set down to the end of the third film. there were no twists or turns. it was just simple "point A to point B". there wasn't even a return to point A. Gandalf handled that within a matter of minutes, which, for the record, he could've sexing done at the beginning of the first movie, but didn't, for the sake of stretching this shitty story across 9 sexing hours.

Longshot said:

No twists? How about Gandalf dies in part 1 and is reborn in part 2? How about the one guy becomes seduced by the ring and tries to kill Frodo, only to then die saving Frodo.

porch_monkey_4_life said:

[oh and btw, i'm ignoring what you said about language, because even a 3 year old knows that just because i'm aware of and understand the forum rules, it doesn't mean i feel it's my personal duty to abide by them.

Longshot said:

Then enjoy your stay here, brief though it may be.

Harry Pothead said:

Based off his name, I'm surprised he hasn't gone into the whole Randal Graves speech about how the whole thing was just a bunch of people walking. Unfortunately, I agree with parts of what he's saying (even tho in another thread he said he was just doing this to piss people off and actually didn't mind the movies so much). I'll put it this way, they took three books that had a good story with WAY to much fluff, and made three movies with a good story and hardly any fluff. They are very straightforward, and the twists weren't there. However, I don't believe this story is about twists. So why do you need them? Also, however brilliant you all want to say Tolkein is, whenever he tried a twist, he was just too damn excited for the reveal that he did them too quickly. I'm going to get chastized for doing this, but what the hell. JK Rowling has a series of seven books, all of which have HUGE twists, and some of which start in book 1 and won't get their reveal until book 7. THAT'S how you do a good twist. Tolkein didn't have that kind of patience for twists in his stories, so they end up being lackluster at best. I do love the movies, don't get me wrong. But porch monkey does bring up some very valid points in the story structure of LOTR.

BatSTUD said:

Harry Pothead said:

Based off his name, I'm surprised he hasn't gone into the whole Randal Graves speech about how the whole thing was just a bunch of people walking. Unfortunately, I agree with parts of what he's saying (even tho in another thread he said he was just doing this to piss people off and actually didn't mind the movies so much). I'll put it this way, they took three books that had a good story with WAY to much fluff, and made three movies with a good story and hardly any fluff. They are very straightforward, and the twists weren't there. However, I don't believe this story is about twists. So why do you need them? Also, however brilliant you all want to say Tolkein is, whenever he tried a twist, he was just too damn excited for the reveal that he did them too quickly. I'm going to get chastized for doing this, but what the hell. JK Rowling has a series of seven books, all of which have HUGE twists, and some of which start in book 1 and won't get their reveal until book 7. THAT'S how you do a good twist. Tolkein didn't have that kind of patience for twists in his stories, so they end up being lackluster at best. I do love the movies, don't get me wrong. But porch monkey does bring up some very valid points in the story structure of LOTR.

Tolkien's a lot like Lucas in the sense that he was a brilliant man who truly created another world and filled it with richness, however, he just wasn't a good writer and had no patience at all for it.

BatSTUD said:


Tolkien's a lot like Lucas in the sense that he was a brilliant man who truly created another world and filled it with richness, however, he just wasn't a good writer and had no patience at all for it.

Rostron2 said:

I just ran across a reference to a scene that was cut from The Return of the King, and which i long suspected was missing as an explanation for Wormtongue killing Saruman in the extended version.

A line of dialogue during the death of Saruman, in which he reveals that Wormtongue poisoned Thiodred, giving further context as to why Wormtongue kills Saruman and Legolas, in turn, kills Wormtongue.

I was pretty certain that was the case, because Brad Dourif (in an interview at the time) alluded to something secret that will be revealed about his character's actions. But that secret, presumably killing off Theodred in his sleep was never revealed.

Random tying up of a loose end, no biggie.