Badmovies.org Forum

 

http://www.cracked.com/article_15739_50-reasons-lord-rings-sucks.html


 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

You do realize its not really hating Lord of the Rings, its just trolling fans.

I will NOT click the link or dignify such a post with a reply .  . .

SNAP!  I just did!!!

May the Valar smite you all!!!!

or I could've just been typing the name of article

My response was actually intended to be humorous.  No offense to you whatsoever.

CRACKED can go languish in the dungeons of Barad-dur, however!!! :teddyr:

Because people keep referring to J R R Tolkien as a British author. He was born in Bloemfontein, South Africa!

1)  Because Frodo Baggins was a very uninteresting character with absolutely no screen presence.   :tongueout:

I enjoyed the movies, but I will have to at least partially agree with this. It's nothing against Elijah Wood, I just thought it was not a good casting choice. But then I can't really offer up a good alternative, so what do I know? I would never want to be responsible for casting such a project. Some of the casting was good though. Ian McKellan as Gandalf was solid. Max Von Sydow would have been a good choice as well.

I liked the article and the movies and I'm looking forward to The Hobbit. I'm hoping Smaug will be AMAZING!

I still wish Sean Connery had accepted the role as Gandalf.  Ever since I first read the books, I have heard his voice in my head when I read Gandalf's lines.  That being said, Ian McKellan did a fine job.

Well he is kinda supposed to be the ordinary everyday Hobbit that is thrown into this crazy thing with Wizards and stuff. The interesting people are supposed to be Aragorn and Gandalf etc. 

Really? I had no idea.

 :thumbup: Gotta agree...

I haven't read the article yet, but reason #1 is because Frodo Always Looks Like He Has to Shart.

The entire hobbits portion of the plot is rather forgettable, actually.  Which is a bad sign, because Frodo is supposed to be the lead character.

Ian McKellan is the strongest actor/character combination in the trilogy.  Sure, Max von Sydow or Connery might have done well there but McKellan IS Gandalf.  He owns it completely.

As was Basil Rathbone, who was born in Johannesburg. Nigel Bruce was born in Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico, but that doesn't make him Mexican. And sisters Joan Fontaine and Olivia de Haviland were both born in Tokyo, Japan, but that doesn't make them Japanese. It is not where you were born, but the nationality of your parents that makes you what you are. I'm afraid.

I understand what you're trying to say, but this is a subject that is endlessly debatable. It's not as simple as what either you or Trevor have suggested, and that's not meant as disrespect to either of you.

My wife was born in Ireland, but raised from the age of 4 on in the U.S. She is 100% Irish by birth and by blood, red hair, freckles and all, but culturally she is very much Irish-American. Sure she grew up strongly influenced by her Irish heritage, but if you were to ask her or her family in Ireland they would consider her more of a yank.

So which is she? Irish? American? Certainly, she is a product of both. Ultimately it doesn't come down to place of birth OR parents, although both certainly play their part. Ultimately it comes down to what the environment dictates and what the individual considers himself/herself. Trevor was born and raised in South Africa, so for a number of reasons, not the least of which is what he considers himself, he is South African.

In Tolkien's case, I don't know that I would consider him South African. His work, his upbringing, his place in literature, seem decidedly British to me.

I never knew my birth parents sadly ~ or considering what they did to me, that's probably not a bad thing not to know them. I would still like to make them suffer the way that I have been suffering the last 44 years.  :hatred:

As to my birthplace: while SA is my home, I was born in what was then Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in 1967 ~ that's where my roots are.