1
2
ID:274981
Dec 2 2002, 5:04 pm
|
|
16 days til the two towers come out to theaters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Dec 2 2002, 6:38 pm
|
|
yay . . .
|
My heart races with every commercial for it I see... I can't wait... Luckily, time seems to be flying by these days... It'll be here before I know it...
That's just two days after my birthdaty, coincidentally... |
im no kid, but im certainly excited that the two towers is coming out soon.
I didnt think they would be able to capture all of the book in a movie and its true,. they cant. It takes three :D |
In response to Dareb
|
|
Dareb wrote:
im no kid, but im certainly excited that the two towers is coming out soon. Ummm... It took three books to capture all of the "book"...lol |
In response to Dareb
|
|
Dareb wrote:
im no kid, but im certainly excited that the two towers is coming out soon. "the book" is actually a series of 3 3 books => 3 movies |
In response to SuperSaiyanGokuX
|
|
I beg to differ! My 1,137 page LotR book captures the 3 books nicely, and with room enough for 129 pages for appendices!
|
In response to Garthor
|
|
Heh, I too have a compilation that contains all three books in one edition, along with the appendices... However, that still doesn't change the fact that there are three separate books... You can slap them together under one cover, but there are still three books...
|
In response to SuperSaiyanGokuX
|
|
Well, Tolkien did intend for it to be a single book. It was his publishers that forced him to split it up.
-AbyssDragon |
In response to AbyssDragon
|
|
Legal issues with people throwing out their backs while carrying it around, y'know?
*Struggles to lug his book back onto the bookshelf.* |
In response to AbyssDragon
|
|
Eh, very true...
I believe they're also the ones responsible for the individual titles, not Tolkien... But still, as it stands, by the majority of published editions, the story of the Lord of the Rings is accepted as a trilogy of books... (with the Hobbit as an introduction) |
In response to Garthor
|
|
Heh, more like "we can charge more if we split it up into more books..."
|
In response to SuperSaiyanGokuX
|
|
Yeah, we know they'd do that. Every company does that
|
In response to Dareb
|
|
It would take more than just these three films to cover everything. I am disgusted that they cut out as much as they did, but what they did put in was so good that it is still my favorite movie (soon to be movies) by far.
Must see first showing....twitch twitch |
In response to Gakumerasara
|
|
It is actually six books, but it is always printed as three. I don't know why, it just is...
|
In response to DasFalke
|
|
Well, yes. It is composed of six books, usually printed in three volumes. It was never really meant to be printed in six volumes. "Books" here is like how "A Tale of Two Cities" has two books ("Book the first", and "Book the second"), yet is always printed as one.
[Edit:] Heh, I just realized how terrible of an example that is--"A Tale of Two Cities" was originally published in serial form. -AbyssDragon |
In response to DasFalke
|
|
I highly reccomend the Extended Edition, if you don't have it already. Still no Tom Bombadil, of course, but it has enough extra stuff to make it worth it. There's a really good argument between Boromir and Aragorn that makes Boromir's "my brother, my captain, my king" death speech a lot better.
-AvtssDragon |
In response to SuperSaiyanGokuX
|
|
J.R.R. Tolkien meant for the whole thing to be one book but the publisher split it.
|
In response to AbyssDragon
|
|
Well, Tolkien did intend for it to be a single book. It was his publishers that forced him to split it up. He should have published it under the pseudonym "Stephen King." No one dares edit that guy down. |
In response to Lesbian Assassin
|
|
Lesbian Assassin wrote:
Well, Tolkien did intend for it to be a single book. It was his publishers that forced him to split it up. No kidding. Mr. King is a good writer, but he seriously needs someone to help him rip out every other page. |
1
2