18 Jul 15
Originally posted by Shallow Bluefeist?
Good book adapted Badly: The Lord of the Rings. It was a magnificent, deeply rich book which launched a whole sub-genre, and they were quite exciting Standard Fantasy Fare films... which is a bad adaptation of the former.
Really, if they'd just shot the films, and left off the pretension that they are in any real way an adaptation of the Tolkien Midd ...[text shortened]... 's Tolkien Epigone rather than Tolkien himself. It's a good adaptation of Feist, not of Tolkien.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
18 Jul 15
Originally posted by ptoblerOh, they were good as spectacle films, I'll grant him that. But they were a butchering of Tolkien's fictional world.
It's been a very long time since I read Lord of the Rings - about 37 years - but I thought the films were unbelievably good - I can't believe how well he did
19 Jul 15
Originally posted by Shallow Bluecomplements twat face will get you insults
No, you illiterate halfwit. Feist. Raymond Feist. A cheap, shallow knock-off of Tolkien's world, just like Jackson's films. Faust is something different altogether - and by the way, Marlowe's Dr. Faustus is superior.