well. if i'm boromir i can take down a lot of ORCS ! including the leaders, all that with 2 arrows planted on me !

too bad i hadn't any strenght left after getting hit by the third one ! :biggrin:

seriously...
guys, "BILBO THE HOBBIT" is considered part of the damn thing ! why i know, because without it, you don't know much about the ring !

and by definition A PREQUEL is part of the story which means the trilogy isn't a trigilogy in itself !
4 books you have to read to have all the complete story !

TarkanX would be Legolas, with his highly accurate barbs and flames.

I think i might be gollum (my precious...my rank..... :biggrin: )

either that or gandalf

[quote:post_uid0="2000warrior"]Both Boromir and Faramir are warriors. And if memory doesn't betray me... you'll see that when Faramir kills the head Nazgul in the 3rd movie... opps. Now I said too much :biggrin:

Edit: Now that I think of it... it might have been Eromir who does that... dam, can't remember... been 4evr since last read da book.[/quote]
Shut up--don't give away parts from the third book.

But since we're on the topic anyway, it wasn't aragorn or eowyn who killed the king of the nazguls. It was Merry.

SSJKarma-no- The Hobbit is not a part of the Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit IS NOT a prequel. It is simply a story of Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf the Grey, and the dwarves defeating a dragon and reclaiming their treasure. The ring was found in The Hobbit, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the series.

The Lord of the Rings is a trilogy on how Frodo ventures off to Mt. Doom to destroy the ring, and how all Middle Earth depends on this one hobbit. If Sauron gets the ring, he is unstoppable.

The Hobbit has nothing to do with this. It is just a story of a Hobbit's adventure. The Lord of the Rings is much more than this--a quest to save Middle Earth.

SSJKarma,I'm sorry, but you're friend who has supposedly "readed all 4 books" does not know what he is talking about because there are just three books in this TRILOGY.

Merry? Lol.. more like an assist :biggrin:

sorry, but without the HOBBIT book, most of how FRODO got the ring wouldn't even have any sense !

THE HOBBIT is the starting point in LOTR.
sure it doesn't necessarely about the ring itself, but it is still a big part of the history of LOTS which makes the book part of the trilogy !

one question...
why do we still say trilogy about star wars when there are lots of books and 5 movies up until now ?
the same happens here...
there are 4 books but peoples don't think about the faqct that THE HOBBIT starts the whole story !

people think TRILOGY, so they say THE HOBBIT isn't part of it... which he still is !

SSJKarma: Tolkien himself said the LOTR wasn't a sequel to the Hobbit...

Quick bio of Tolkien while doing the Hobbit

Quick bio of Tolkien while doing the LOTR

Try reading those books and the Simarlion if you really care to find out what all he's talking about...



Edited By 2000warrior on Feb. 06 2003 at 15:25

You losers...

I've collect Hobbit saga one and when Hobbit striked back. :D

[quote:post_uid0="SSJKarma"]sorry, but without the HOBBIT book, most of how FRODO got the ring wouldn't even have any sense !

THE HOBBIT is the starting point in LOTR.
sure it doesn't necessarely about the ring itself, but it is still a big part of the history of LOTS which makes the book part of the trilogy !

one question...
why do we still say trilogy about star wars when there are lots of books and 5 movies up until now ?
the same happens here...
there are 4 books but peoples don't think about the faqct that THE HOBBIT starts the whole story !

people think TRILOGY, so they say THE HOBBIT isn't part of it... which he still is ![/quote]
What else can I say. How can you not understand that The Hobbit IS NOT part of the TRILOGY. Star Wars is NOT refered to as a trilogy anymore because there are soon to be six episodes. The Simarillion has much to do with the history of Middle Earth. It has a lot to do with how the ring was obtained from Sauron after the great war. This also touches base on the ring, but it has NOTHING to do with Frodo on his quest to destroy the ring at Mt. Doom, as the Hobbit doesn't. So please, believe me, The Lord of the Rings is a trilogy-the three books are the Fellowship of the Ring, the Two Towers, and The Return of the King. These books may be a sequel to the Hobbit, but the Hobbit DOES NOT belong in the series. JRR Tolkien never intended The Hobbit to be in the series either.

i'm not telling that the hobbit is need to understand the movies !
i'm telling that the trilogy is not even a trilogy !

same was for star wars even before three first movies were out !

LOTR world = 4 books out = not a trilogy = the movies will be
star wars = more then 4 books out = not a trilogy = only three movies out so trilogy
x-men = more then 3 books so no trilogy here, do they follow each others ? almost not !

same goes to LOTR...
4 books, so no, i'm not calling the books a trilogy !
THE HOBBIT not even part of LOTR, then why is bilbo in the LOTR movies and books ! that's because he is part of the world which is like saying XMEN has only 3 books when there are actually a lot more then that ! same goes foir star wars ! you want books ! not problems ! there are plenty of em...

JRR perhaps not said it was part of it, but by making BILBO appears and having a big part in LOTR then he has made THE HOBBIT a part of his movie ! why... because now people want to know the story that made bilbo in posession of the ring !

that's what i am talking about !
now... debates over since none of us will stop because your a ####### retard do not understand my point at all !

all i was saying from the start is that the books aren't a trilogy at all !



Edited By SSJKarma on Feb. 05 2003 at 20:03

<span style='font-size:7.111111pt;line-height:100%'>And now 2000warrior contemplates why SSJKarma obviously did not check out his links.</span>

Must I do everything for you kids?

[quote:post_uid0="2nd site"]
Following the resounding success of The Hobbit in 1938, J.R.R.Tolkien