![[Lord Of The Rings]](https://blog.rac.me.uk/photos/lordoftherings.jpg)
Wow! It seems hard for me to believe that LOTR: The Two Towers is already out at the cinema and I still haven’t watched LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring nor read any of the books.
I know there have already been a large number of reviews about “The Two Towers” film, but I’ve never really been “into” Tolkien so it’s doubtful whether I will see the film or not: but reading the 50 reasons why LOTR sucks (they also have a review of LOTR: TTT) and the quite valid reasons such as “Every time Frodo or Bilbo went invisible with the ring they should have also gone BLIND. Your eyes cannot function unless light is reflected off the cornea. If light passes through it (as must be the case with invisibility) sight is no longer possible. Also, rings do not turn you invisible.” makes me wonder if it is worth seeing anyway….
3 Comments
Oh please. You actually believe that article? You do realize that it’s made for the sake of humor only and none of the reasons are actually valid? Stealing Orcs from Warcraft? How thick can you get, seriously? The TTT article was A)Made before TTT was released, and B)The whole thing about the battle never happening is trash, the battle happens, and it’s easily the best battle ever released to the public(ROTK is said to be better).
Rings don’t turn you invisible? First, it’s a goddamned movie. Second, it’s Fantasy. A whole lot more than invisibility rings occur in Fantasy, you ratfink.
And as for the blind thing, if they instituted that, the movies would suck, because Frodo would be blind and he’d walk off a cliff and die. If you’re that technical, you might as well not see any movies at all.
Seriosuly though, the movies are some of the best ever, and are my favorites. See them. NOW.
If not, your loss.
The movies are great but the books are much better.
“Oh please. You actually believe that article? You do realize that it’s made for the sake of humor only and none of the reasons are actually valid?”
I agree they are just attempting to pick faults with LOTR needlessly example being point 16 in the 50 reasons why lord of the rings sucks.
“The Asbestos Wizard.”
They question why Gandalf didn’t catch fire during his battle with the balrog in Moria, the reason for this is revealed at the end of the return of the king (in the book anyway) Gandalf possessed one of the 3 elvish rings, the ring of fire….This protected him from the flames.
First of all, the infamous “50 Reasons” article was created my a man who jokingly calls himself Dr. Oxford (Unless he really is a doctor. In that case he must have been fired for malpractice to result to such a thing as writing fake joke articles) and writes stupid pointless articles featured on the website http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com. So in all sincerity, the things pointed out in this article are all meaningless jokes that, if you look closely, do not make a lick of sense.
And about Frodo not being able to see? That is ridiculouse. Truthfully, he couldn’t. He saw as if looking through a mist, as the book describes it. This is what’s happening: when one places on the Ring of Sauron, he is immediately ‘invisible’ – his body has been transfered into a parallel which is the ‘spiritual world.’ He does see things in the physical, but in a different way. And to tell me that this could not happen in a spiritual world is you own logic flaw. Have you ever been to this spiritual world? Plus, Tolkien made up his own world. The laws are his. Are you going to question this?
-josh