NationStates Jolt Archive

Which of the smilies do you think looks most like smeagol/gollum from the LotR films?

My vote goes to
:eek:

Uhhh...

I guess the eyes have a resemblance.

I think :eek:

:gundge: if gollum had a gun

Ah Smeagol. The only decent thing about the LOTR series.

Smeagol? Decent? Ok...

I'd go for Legolas or Elrond(however you spell it)
Maybe Sauron(without the idiot in him)

LOTR sucked, that's why I said it. The characters could be thought of by my niece.

LOTR sucked, that's why I said it. The characters could be thought of by my niece.

Wow what a coincidence, my niece was a famous author and oxford scholar too!!!

Come on man, Gollum is the shit. He's pretty much the only character with anykind of depth that isn't just "good " or "evil." Lord of the rings is awesome stuff, but, with the exception of gollum, the characters really arn't that interesting. Gandalph is still probably the most badass guy ever though (the gray that is).

Wow what a coincidence, my niece was a famous author and oxford scholar too!!!
lol

I'm saying I liked it either, but I'm just choosing the best parts...

Oh, and Gollum does not = Smeagol.

lol

I'm saying I liked it either, but I'm just choosing the best parts...

Oh, and Gollum does not = Smeagol.

Please please please don't turn this into a serious lord of the rings nitpicking thread! (although it's less likely to get deleted if you do!!!)

:D = a very happy smeagol

Just pointing it out.

Smeagol = :)

Gollum= :eek:

I guess the minor detail that LotR has been the foundation of most literary conventions of the later half of the 20th century just doesn't impress some people.

And, if you're just judging from the movies, you're sorely lacking insight. The movies, while very good, are just not as good as the books. (Though I am grateful that ol' Tom Bombadil didn't make an appearance!)

Come on man, Gollum is the shit. He's pretty much the only character with anykind of depth that isn't just "good " or "evil."

We're talking about the movies I assume ? Boromir also had dept there - more so than Gollum IMO. Denethor also had a personality. Legolas is portrayed as a pretty boy with silly one-liners and Gimli was made too comical for my taste. Sam and Frodo... well, lets not go there.

The books are better in this respect.

(Though I am grateful that ol' Tom Bombadil didn't make an appearance!)

Why ? He was the comical note in the books - and better at it than Gimli ;)
Plus a nice riddle of course.

I guess the minor detail that LotR has been the foundation of most literary conventions of the later half of the 20th century just doesn't impress some people.

And, if you're just judging from the movies, you're sorely lacking insight. The movies, while very good, are just not as good as the books. (Though I am grateful that ol' Tom Bombadil didn't make an appearance!)

I didn't like the movies(except for the last one(extended edition of course))
The books are better.
Tom Bombadil? Thank god he wasn't there. Freaky yellow skin wearer.

http://67.18.37.16/423/87/emo/bush.jpg

:fluffle: Aragorn and Arwen

They are on love...

Why ? He was the comical note in the books - and better at it than Gimli ;)
Plus a nice riddle of course.

Tom really didn't add anything to the story in terms of advancing the plot (unlike Pip, who basically saves Middle Earth, IMHO). All Tom does is have meals, which really doesn't need to be in a movie. I'd much rather have seen the Battle for the Shire...

I guess the minor detail that LotR has been the foundation of most literary conventions of the later half of the 20th century just doesn't impress some people.

Only if you count Generic Extruded Fantasy ProductTM as being the vast bulk of literature published in the latter half of C20th.

Only if you count Generic Extruded Fantasy ProductTM as being the vast bulk of literature published in the latter half of C20th.

Actually, it probably is to most people.

Oh dear!!!!!