Lord of the Rings: Conquest

[343guiltymc]

http://www.gamereplays.org/portals.php?show=news&news_id=370481
Hmmm I like the idea, but it's too early to make judgments.

[Pooky]

Sounds interesting, but personally I thought the Jackson version of LotR sucked huge Zeph ass.

[Cortexian]

Sounds interesting, but personally I thought the Jackson version of LotR sucked huge Zeph ass.
Jesus Christ... It's the same version, interpreted differently, and cut down A LOT.

And yes, I've read the books, and I currently play Lord of the Rings Online (aka exposed to a SHIT LOAD of Tolkien die hards). The movies are good in their own way, as are the books.

[Amit]

I'm kinda skeptical about how this'll work but Pandemic is making it so I expect to see a good game. The battlefront games were fun and I bought both but I really wished that the graphics and game play mechanics would be thought out better. I felt like I was playing a game full of paper and plastic. It was unsatisfying to die or get destroyed in space.

[Pooky]

Jesus Christ... It's the same version, interpreted differently, and cut down A LOT.

No. Not even slightly. The movies are good by their own merits, but as interpretations of LotR they're terrible.

[Amit]

Oh yeah, Freelancer. I kinda got my video cards working again so I'll be installing LOTRO pretty soon again.

[Cortexian]

No. Not even slightly. The movies are good by their own merits, but as interpretations of LotR they're terrible.
No. I'm re-reading the original version of the books right now (the one-part book), and almost all of the details that Jackson covers from the books, are covered very well. There are defiantly some Hollywood features in the film, but if there weren't then it wouldn't have made such a great interpretation of the book.

I'm tired of all the Tolkien fans bashing the movies BECAUSE they're movies.


Oh yeah, Freelancer. I kinda got my video cards working again so I'll be installing LOTRO pretty soon again.
As you keep saying... Hurry up!

[Pooky]

No. I'm re-reading the original version of the books right now (the one-part book), and almost all of the details that Jackson covers from the books, are covered very well. There are defiantly some Hollywood features in the film, but if there weren't then it wouldn't have made such a great interpretation of the book.

I'm tired of all the Tolkien fans bashing the movies BECAUSE they're movies.


Except no. I'm not bashing them at all. If you read, I said the movies are good on their own merits. But the thing is, watching a movie is absolutely nothing like reading a book. When you read a book like Lord of the Rings, you're going to picture it all in your head. Imagine for yourself what the world of the book looks like. With the movies, all you see is Jackson's interpretations of the books. And not only that, but a lot of things are completely changed. Right off the top of my head I can think of the part with the Ghosts. They never talked in the books, but they never shut up in the movies. In the movies Gandalf starts having this whole internal conflict which was never there before. And then, a whole massive part of the story is completely cut off at the end, leaving it incomplete.

But enough of this. I didn't like those movies and let's leave it at that.

[Amit]

Except no. I'm not bashing them at all. If you read, I said the movies are good on their own merits. But the thing is, watching a movie is absolutely nothing like reading a book. When you read a book like Lord of the Rings, you're going to picture it all in your head. Imagine for yourself what the world of the book looks like. With the movies, all you see is Jackson's interpretations of the books. And not only that, but a lot of things are completely changed. Right off the top of my head I can think of the part with the Ghosts. They never talked in the books, but they never shut up in the movies. In the movies Gandalf starts having this whole internal conflict which was never there before. And then, a whole massive part of the story is completely cut off at the end, leaving it incomplete.

But enough of this. I didn't like those movies and let's leave it at that.


But what do you expect to see from just one person's interpretation? Obviously he can't fit everyone's viewpoint into the way his films are made. He is the director and the director's dream is usually what is supposed to be shown on screen when he makes his own film. Also, please point out to me where the Ghosts talked a lot in the movies? If you're talking about the part where they go to meet the King of the Dead, that should be excused since the murmuring of the voices are supposed to symbolize that these are haunting spirits from an age long past. Besides, it'd be really boring if they were just completely silent.

It's extremely hard to fit the entire book into just three 4-hour(extended editions) films which is why they had to cut corners and change things. I'm sure Jackson could have made a fourth as well but for one reason or another, it was impractical for him.

[Pooky]

I agree that Jackson can't be faulted for interpreting it, but that's just why I don't like the movies. When you read a book, you interpret and imagine everything for yourself. When you watch a movie, you get someone else's interpretation shoved in your face. Then, even if you go and read the book, you'll still have the images of the movies stuck in your head. It's anti-imagination :\