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.

My biggest worry is that there is just so much left to fit into the final film.


Sadly, I expect the part of Saruman taking over the Shire after the alliance victory will be completely left out.

Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Well he wouldn't have said pukka, no.

Yes he would. Don't spoil it.
And he'd have done a little rap.

Whitestripes DX wrote:
> My biggest worry is that there is just so much left to fit into the
> final film.
>
>
> Sadly, I expect the part of Saruman taking over the Shire after the
> alliance victory will be completely left out.

Yes, PJ mentioned in the FOTR commentry and numerous interviews that this would be the case - but I mean come on - a hobbit battle to round off the film would look pretty pathetic after the extrodinary battles at Pelennor and the Morannon.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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