The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
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.
Which is better, Fellowship or Towers?
I say Fellowship, he says Towers.
Page:
BEARDS. wrote:
> Fellowship. Towers seemed to be trying to be amusing with Gimli, and
> it wasn't working and just irritated me, and they abused the story
> just too much.
>
And with the Ents. In the book they were shown to be serious calm and unflustered things, relics from the past, but in the films they had several stupid comedy lines.
> Fellowship. Towers seemed to be trying to be amusing with Gimli, and
> it wasn't working and just irritated me, and they abused the story
> just too much.
>
And with the Ents. In the book they were shown to be serious calm and unflustered things, relics from the past, but in the films they had several stupid comedy lines.
The Ents were to quick.
Then again, the US audience might have fallen asleep.
:D
Then again, the US audience might have fallen asleep.
:D
Cyclone wrote:
> Albeit, Battle Of The Pelennor Fields and the last stand battle shall
> rock.
And Shelob.
If they balls that up I will cry.
> Albeit, Battle Of The Pelennor Fields and the last stand battle shall
> rock.
And Shelob.
If they balls that up I will cry.
Fellowship.
Towers missed out a HUGE chunk of the book.
Towers missed out a HUGE chunk of the book.
Cyclone wrote:
> The Ents were to quick.
>
> Then again, the US audience might have fallen asleep.
>
> :D
Hehe.
> The Ents were to quick.
>
> Then again, the US audience might have fallen asleep.
>
> :D
Hehe.
Stryke wrote:
> Fellowship has Sean Bean, though.
> Fellowship has Sean Bean, though.
I say Fellowship is better simply because Towers contains what I think is the worst piece of story out of all three books.
The part where Gandalf falls fighting the Balrog then comes back as again. Phft, that's just crap if you ask me.
It was kinda nice actually seeing the Balrog though, I don't think there was an explanation saying it was a fire being in the book. I could be wrong though I read it ages ago.
The part where Gandalf falls fighting the Balrog then comes back as again. Phft, that's just crap if you ask me.
It was kinda nice actually seeing the Balrog though, I don't think there was an explanation saying it was a fire being in the book. I could be wrong though I read it ages ago.
Fellowship is sooo much better than towers.
Fellowship just felt more "Magical". I think its because it totally blew me away with its awesomeness. I really wasn't expecting much, i hadn't even read LOTR before the film came out, and now im a lotr junkie.
Fellowship just felt more "Magical". I think its because it totally blew me away with its awesomeness. I really wasn't expecting much, i hadn't even read LOTR before the film came out, and now im a lotr junkie.
Starlight wrote:
> It was kinda nice actually seeing the Balrog though, I don't think
> there was an explanation saying it was a fire being in the book. I
> could be wrong though I read it ages ago.
Yes, it says it was a being of shadow and flame. Although the fact that they made it a sort of like a giant bull-man is poetic license. And im also sure that the book says a Balrog stands man high.
> It was kinda nice actually seeing the Balrog though, I don't think
> there was an explanation saying it was a fire being in the book. I
> could be wrong though I read it ages ago.
Yes, it says it was a being of shadow and flame. Although the fact that they made it a sort of like a giant bull-man is poetic license. And im also sure that the book says a Balrog stands man high.
The third one is going to beat both of them put together, though. Anyone got any idea at all when it comes out?
Page: