Viewing Thread:
"LotR related argument"

It's just a simple "Which is better?" argument between me & a equally beardy mate, but help settle it none the less.

Which is better, Fellowship or Towers?

I say Fellowship, he says Towers.

You can touch it if you like.
Go on, finger my follicles.

No-one does beardy better that you, face it. You are The Beard.

BEARD!
BEARD!
BEARD!
BEARD!
BEARD!

Has anyone downloaded The Architect speech from Matrix Reloaded? I want to read just what he was going on ab....oh

Oh, and if you're beardy enough to be interested in the Bombadil argument, President blokey, might be worth giving this a read:

http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html

Goatboy wrote:

> There is just so much beard in this I cannot even begin to Blessed.

--

You love The Beard.

--

Mr President wrote:
> I think he is a Maia - it's worth looking up some of the good arguments stating this case, but there are inconsistencies. However, the general consensus is that he did appear in Middle Earth before all living things, including Treebeard.

--

Nah, can't be a Maia. Gandalf, Sauron & Saruman are all Maia and the Ring affects them. He's got to be a Valar at the least. Read The Silmarillion - Treebeard wasn't the first living thing on Middle Earth. Elves were, created by the Valar.

Towers certainly has more action, more than Fellowship. My favourite though is The Return of the King. Especially the chapter "Scouring of the Shire"

Stryke wrote:
He's more than a
> Maia, because even Gandalf is tempted by the Ring. A Valar? Or
> Illuvator himself?
-----

There is just so much beard in this I cannot even begin to Blessed.

Stryke wrote:
> Mr President wrote:
> Tom Bombadil was left out for much the
> same reason.
>
> --
>
> No. Bombadil would have been a great addition to the film. He's the
> one great mystery of the books - what exactly is he? He's more than a
> Maia, because even Gandalf is tempted by the Ring. A Valar? Or
> Illuvator himself? I would have loved to see the film tackle this.

Indeed - I myself am a Bombadil fan, I was merely pointing out one of the problems his inclusion would pose in presenting this to today's cinema audience. On the subject of what Bombadil is, most members of Tolkien sites and message boards still argue about it. I think he is a Maia - it's worth looking up some of the good arguments stating this case, but there are inconsistencies. However, the general consensus is that he did appear in Middle Earth before all living things, including Treebeard.

Mr President wrote:
> Tom Bombadil was left out for much the
> same reason.

--

No. Bombadil would have been a great addition to the film. He's the one great mystery of the books - what exactly is he? He's more than a Maia, because even Gandalf is tempted by the Ring. A Valar? Or Illuvator himself? I would have loved to see the film tackle this.

Fellowship, it followed the book unlike Towers which was all over the place. Towers was a shorter book, why cut out almost the entire last chapter?( Probably more, but I forget)