The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Lord of the rings
Page:
Hi, the reason why you don't have any replies(apart from mine) is because so many peaople ask that question! no one wants to vote cos they do it all the time!
Look i find it hard to say things in this forum but if you want some good advice about what to put in the forums then ask Misterhappy or 1/2 Pint!
Lord of the rings!!
Sos my name is Liam and iam 12, how old are you? and whats your name?
Look i find it hard to say things in this forum but if you want some good advice about what to put in the forums then ask Misterhappy or 1/2 Pint!
Lord of the rings!!
Sos my name is Liam and iam 12, how old are you? and whats your name?
lord of the rings.
They're both beaten by their own books.
The films cut out LOADS of the story/background/dialogue/details.
Personally, I think that the films are equally good at showing the action in a way that words can't, but generally, the books are so much better.
The films cut out LOADS of the story/background/dialogue/details.
Personally, I think that the films are equally good at showing the action in a way that words can't, but generally, the books are so much better.
look you realy want 3 9 hour LOTR movies?????
Of course they had to miss bits out!
Of course they had to miss bits out!
I'll take a pillow next time I go and see LOTR.
harry potter was rubbish but i haven't seen Lotr yet
LOTR kicks Harry Snotters a** anyday, i'm gonna go c LOTR 2morrow as for HS ne1 who actually wen't to c that should be ashamed of themselves!!! lol
slik ~_~
slik ~_~
haven't seen lotr but it would be better than harry potter anyday of the week.
Strafex wrote:
> They're both beaten by their own books.
The films cut out LOADS of the
> story/background/dialogue/details.
Personally, I think that the films are
> equally good at showing the action in a way that words can't, but generally, the
> books are so much better.
Yeh, but the one thing that LOTR cut out that did the film a wonderful amount of good was the poetry. For crying out loud, half of the books were poetry, in the Fellowship of the Ring, there was a whole chapter which was one long poem/song thing. Glad to be rid of it, I tells ya.
> They're both beaten by their own books.
The films cut out LOADS of the
> story/background/dialogue/details.
Personally, I think that the films are
> equally good at showing the action in a way that words can't, but generally, the
> books are so much better.
Yeh, but the one thing that LOTR cut out that did the film a wonderful amount of good was the poetry. For crying out loud, half of the books were poetry, in the Fellowship of the Ring, there was a whole chapter which was one long poem/song thing. Glad to be rid of it, I tells ya.
Page: