Sequels that outdid the original

[Deepcrush]

I was also bothered by how useless Men were for war in the movies. Gondor was built by its elite heavy infantry, men able to defend or sack even the toughest of fortress... somehow they couldn't even face the Orcs on their own walls. Rohan, the land of the Horse Lords... had a capital city smaller then my college campus and less then a hundred men in its defense.

[Reliant121]

I admit readily to not having read the books, purely because I found them so tedious to start with. BUT, the personalities of the Hobbits, Gandalf and the elves seemed SO different in the beginning of FotR.

[Mikey]

I admit readily to not having read the books, purely because I found them so tedious to start with. BUT, the personalities of the Hobbits, Gandalf and the elves seemed SO different in the beginning of FotR.

I strongly recommend that you give the books another chance... if not The Silmarillion or the Lost Tales collections (which I find read like a technical manual,) then at least the trilogy. Aside from my dislike of some of Jackson's choices for the films, Tolkien presents a depth of milieu which cannot ever be captured on film.

[Reliant121]

I suppose I could try. I stopped mostly because the opening chapters of FotR make it some of the only book/text etc. that I actively hated. But, I can try again.

[shran]

I admit readily to not having read the books, purely because I found them so tedious to start with. BUT, the personalities of the Hobbits, Gandalf and the elves seemed SO different in the beginning of FotR.

I strongly recommend that you give the books another chance... if not The Silmarillion or the Lost Tales collections (which I find read like a technical manual,) then at least the trilogy. Aside from my dislike of some of Jackson's choices for the films, Tolkien presents a depth of milieu which cannot ever be captured on film.

What if the film was made as some sort of a documentary, a historical report of all that happened?

The richness of the history is indeed enormous and is indeed a daunting task of being put on to film, but if the story is less focussed on characters Hollywood-style, the rest of the universe might get the breathing space to show itself as it deserves.

[Mikey]

I admit readily to not having read the books, purely because I found them so tedious to start with. BUT, the personalities of the Hobbits, Gandalf and the elves seemed SO different in the beginning of FotR.

I strongly recommend that you give the books another chance... if not The Silmarillion or the Lost Tales collections (which I find read like a technical manual,) then at least the trilogy. Aside from my dislike of some of Jackson's choices for the films, Tolkien presents a depth of milieu which cannot ever be captured on film.

What if the film was made as some sort of a documentary, a historical report of all that happened?

The richness of the history is indeed enormous and is indeed a daunting task of being put on to film, but if the story is less focussed on characters Hollywood-style, the rest of the universe might get the breathing space to show itself as it deserves.

Sounds like a task that's a bit too all-encompassing. The allure of the novels, IMHO, is the peeks and hints of the massive backstory/history/mythology of Middle Earth. Trying to portray that through a docu-style film would be tantamount to trying to make a watchable documentary about the U.S.' involvement in Viet Nam while still revealing in an understandable manner the entire history of the nation without making a film about U.S. history.

[Captain Seafort]

I suppose I could try. I stopped mostly because the opening chapters of FotR make it some of the only book/text etc. that I actively hated. But, I can try again.

I strongly suggest you do. Fellowship is a pretty hard slog at times, especially before Rivendell, but TT and RotK are considerably better.

[shran]

Getting back to the original topic: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

[Lighthawk]

Well if we are going to allow books in a long running series, then pretty much every one of the Dresden Files after the first.

[Sonic Glitch]

Well if we are going to allow books in a long running series, then pretty much every one of the Dresden Files after the first.

Yeah... Holy Shit did "Changes" live up to it's name...

[Lighthawk]

Yeah... Holy s**t did "Changes" live up to it's name...

Yeah it did. It was both the best and worst of the series for me.

Though the zombie rex is still the most awesome thing that's been done.

[Sonic Glitch]

Yeah... Holy s**t did "Changes" live up to it's name...

Yeah it did. It was both the best and worst of the series for me.

Though the zombie rex is still the most awesome thing that's been done.

How so if I may ask?

[Lighthawk]

Yeah... Holy s**t did "Changes" live up to it's name...

Yeah it did. It was both the best and worst of the series for me.

Though the zombie rex is still the most awesome thing that's been done.

How so if I may ask?

I'll assume you were asking about my comment on Changes, because if I have to explain the zombie rex thing there's just no hope for you.

Changes was for me the book that fluctuated the most between awesome highs and crushing lows. And so many things I've wanted to see happen, just almost but then not really happened.

Murphy took up one of the swords, and it was good. But then she kind of back-peddled on it afterwards. Harry and Murphy were about to hook up, finally! But then no, he died instead, or whatever it is that happened to him. Harry almost had a real family, a brother, a kid, even a grandfather...but that got spoiled by having to kill Susan.

Basically for every good thing that happened, there was a bad thing, and so it see-sawed on me a lot.

[Sonic Glitch]

Yeah it did. It was both the best and worst of the series for me.

Though the zombie rex is still the most awesome thing that's been done.

How so if I may ask?

I'll assume you were asking about my comment on Changes, because if I have to explain the zombie rex thing there's just no hope for you.

Changes was for me the book that fluctuated the most between awesome highs and crushing lows. And so many things I've wanted to see happen, just almost but then not really happened.

Murphy took up one of the swords, and it was good. But then she kind of back-peddled on it afterwards. Harry and Murphy were about to hook up, finally! But then no, he died instead, or whatever it is that happened to him. Harry almost had a real family, a brother, a kid, even a grandfather...but that got spoiled by having to kill Susan.

Basically for every good thing that happened, there was a bad thing, and so it see-sawed on me a lot.

Indeed. It was almost, "How much can we kick him?" However, I'm very excited to see where the series goes from here.

[Graham Kennedy]

Are we talking about the film or novel?

Film.

Because Two Towers (novel) was better where Fellowship (Film) was the better

Agreed, absolutely.

RotK (both) were impressive in scope but I just didn't feel connected with the characters in the fashion I felt that I should have.

Agreed again, although I'm not a great fan of the film. Its visuals were extremely impressive, but the trek across Mordor and Aragorn's move to the Black Gate felt badly rushed, the lighthouse of Mordor was downright stupid, and they missed out what was probably the most important aspect of the book - the Scouring of the Shire.

Well we probably differ in that I don't regard "It's not identical to the book" as a valid criticism. And I've never read the books anyway - from what I hear of them they are horribly boring to read.

I thought Fellowship was a fine film, but Two Towers blows it right out of the water.