|
Posted Dec 29, '12 at 5:24pm
Bronze
2,179 posts
|
Most of the stuff added to the movie is from the appendices at the back of RotK, notes from Tolkien, and stuff only alluded to in the Hobbit. Oh and stuff just made up by PJ.
And if you honestly don't know who the Necromancer is, I won't spoil it.
|
| |
|
Posted Dec 29, '12 at 10:52pm
nichodemus
10,573 posts
|
The Necromancer was mentioned in the main LOTR books (Correct?) so shame on you who do not know.
|
| |
|
Posted Dec 30, '12 at 12:24am
jeol
3,341 posts
|
The Necromancer was mentioned in the main LOTR books (Correct?) so shame on you who do not know.
Supposedly it was mentioned, but Gandalf dealt with him in the Quest of Erebor, and the entire tale from Return of the King was written in Unfinished Tales.
Reference.
|
| |
|
Posted Dec 30, '12 at 1:13am
nichodemus
10,573 posts
|
Meaning that Dol Guldur was mentioned quite a bit in the more famous LOTR books, which we already have had a decade since the release of RotK.
|
| |
|
Posted Feb 4, '13 at 12:38am
AJtheConquerer
38 posts
|
I was recently annoyed because I hadn't read the book before I watched the movie and it makes me mad how much stuff they made up... even though some off them did make the movie a bit more climactic... e.g. when Gandalf breaks the rock and freezes the trolls... it did not happen in the book
|
| |
|
Posted Feb 4, '13 at 12:47am
ihsahn
313 posts
|
I was recently annoyed because I hadn't read the book before I watched the movie and it makes me mad how much stuff they made up... even though some off them did make the movie a bit more climactic... e.g. when Gandalf breaks the rock and freezes the trolls... it did not happen in the book
You've really got to regard the books and the movies as separate entities. It's not fair to judge one based on the other, because it's its own thing, a self-contained piece of art.
I'm fine with however many movies PJ decides to make, just as long as they don't drag or feel like they have filler material just to justify their existence.
The first one seemed to stand very well on its own, let's wait and see what the others are like.
|
| |
|
Posted Feb 11, '13 at 6:37pm
AJtheConquerer
38 posts
|
I've learned that they have to make up at least 30% of the book...
|
| |
|
Posted Feb 12, '13 at 10:04am
nichodemus
10,573 posts
|
I was recently annoyed because I hadn't read the book before I watched the movie and it makes me mad how much stuff they made up... even though some off them did make the movie a bit more climactic... e.g. when Gandalf breaks the rock and freezes the trolls... it did not happen in the book
How can you get mad if you haven't read the book yet? Paradox much?
Anyway, it's not ''made up'' per se. The extra material comes from 125 or so of Tolkien's additional notes on the Hobbit.
|
| |
|
Posted Feb 12, '13 at 10:37pm
JuicyFruits
171 posts
|
Guess what, I'm finally reading the book and seeing the movie soon!
I was recently annoyed because I hadn't read the book before I watched the movie and it makes me mad how much stuff they made up... even though some off them did make the movie a bit more climactic... e.g. when Gandalf breaks the rock and freezes the trolls... it did not happen in the book
It's a bad idea to watch the movie first, but anyways the book and the movie always has something different in it. I haven't seen the movie yet and I'm close to being done with the book but how would you know if you haven't read the book?
|
| |
|
Posted Feb 13, '13 at 11:23pm
jeol
3,341 posts
|
It's a bad idea to watch the movie first, but anyways the book and the movie always has something different in it.
True that.
Also, I don't see how that's comparably worse to the LotR trilogy... Apparently there was a lot more added/dropped/changed that wasn't in LotR lore compared to the Hobbit.
Gosh, I suppose nobody read the reference I linked in my post above :P
|
| |
