Connection ErrorBad RequestSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
How many books from the Harry Potter series have you read?
36
voters
Single choice
Public votes
Sign in to participate in this poll.
Poll results will be visible after you vote or when the poll closes.
Ple-Sen
15 years ago
Auto-translated
Guys, don't open it, it's a virus!
Yeah, I know, I'm writing from my mobile right now.
Happy Life
15 years ago
Auto-translated
The plot was drastically cut down; Beorn and Tom Bombadil were simply removed, even though both characters are charming and memorable.
A necessary sacrifice to fit the already long film into the allotted screen time, and these characters aren't essential anyway. ha_ha_I_am_tom_bombadil_welcome_to_my_forest_of_faggotry.jpg x) And the doves were mentioned in the original book; what do additions have to do with it?
Arwen, who has completely different facial features that don't suit elves at all.
I knew something like this would be written as soon as I saw it. But what else could you expect from an inferior race making a film about Noble Elves? They can't even find suitable actors!
a glamorous pretty boy instead of Legolas
Didn't you realize what you were getting into when you started watching a film featuring elves? Also, I don't know where you saw Armenians. Anyways, as a film adaptation, it's good, much, much better than Potter, which is why it's a good example.
Also, I don't know any sweet boy who could lead more than one person.
Well, now you do!! It's amazing that you thought Alexander was a stern general all this time. The aforementioned glamorous pretty-boy elf is even "tougher and less pretty" than the Mediterranean boy.
Ple-Sen
15 years ago
Auto-translated
The necessary sacrifice to fit such a long film into the allotted screen time, and these characters are not essential.
But not to replace them with something that wasn't there.
And there were pigeons in the original book, what do additions have to do with it?
No, I would remember.
Well, what else can you expect from an inferior race making a film about Noble Elves? They won't even find suitable actors!
I'm quite satisfied with Elrond.
Anyways, as an adaptation, it's good, much, much better than Potter, which is why it serves as a good example.
I wouldn't say so, it's roughly the same level of faithfulness to the books.
Happy Life
15 years ago
Auto-translated
Is it because of the beard? Or did the funny translation have such an impact on you?
I wouldn't say so; it's roughly the same level of faithfulness to the books.
I disagree.
Ple-Sen
15 years ago
Auto-translated
I disagree.
It's your opinion. But you are wrong.
kcfgogbfalgfl
15 years ago
Auto-translated
Christopher Lee was never Armenian.
Небо
15 years ago
Auto-translated
"Sunny!"
We don't know what he was like, we didn't see him, and we can't claim anything, and what is written in books, drawn in pictures, and sculpted, may not necessarily reflect reality.
Lol, it's silly to repeat my words, as if comparing Stalin and Alexander the Great, didn't you notice that there's a difference of more than 2000 years between them?
Goblin-like, in a way.
It just seems that way to you regarding facial features – you see, no one else supports this argument.
That's true. And you are definitely right, as always.
I also think that the Harry Potter movies were poorly made; many of the actors don't match the characters. In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien didn't burden himself with detailed descriptions of the characters, and everything turned out well – Gandalf is a gray-haired old man who looks like a simple traveler, Aragorn is secretive, strong, and skilled (mostly requiring acting talent), and the hobbits... well, I don't know, they scared me, but at least they had hairy feet (the hobbits are the only mistake; they should have cast actors who were under 50!). And so on.
That's strange, my Kaspersky Internet Security 2011 didn't detect anything.
Added 6 minutes later Morning
Well, at least you know now!! Imagine thinking of Alexander as a stern general all this time.
No, I don't. I've seen many officers in my life, and not a single one with a glamorous, polished look. 2. Aziral, do you seriously believe that 2000 years ago, people who slaughtered their relatives and friends like sheep looked any different than they do today?
Happy Life
15 years ago
Auto-translated
Have you ever encountered many Mediterranean officers from antiquity? Back then, for example, homosexuality was not only not condemned but was also actively encouraged.
Небо
15 years ago
Auto-translated
Aziral, do you seriously believe that 2000 years ago, people who slaughtered their relatives and friends like sheep looked different than they do today?
You misunderstood; I meant that the facts depicting Stalin's appearance are much more convincing than the facts depicting Alexander the Great's appearance.
Ivanhoj
15 years ago
Auto-translated
Morni, why dig so deep? Let's take our prisoners – they also engage in homosexual acts, sodomy is present, but try calling them fags. I don't know what Alexander the Great's orientation was; I suppose Hephaestion was his lover, but for me, it's obvious that delicate, feminine facial features on a person who fights knee-deep in blood are nonsense. Can you imagine what sword wounds look like? Try cutting and gutting a rabbit – you'll get an approximate idea. Soft facial features mean a soft character; you won't fight much with that.
