The Lord of the Rings: Only $28,000!

http://www.abebooks.co​m …ortby%3D1%26x%3​D0%26y%3D0

Apparently a first edition.

Mehhh...it's in British...I'd need to get it translated...

Way too much for a book. I'll pass.

Ah, but it's THREE books!

im perfectly happy with the LOTR book i own now. it combines all 3 into one large paper back and it was free to top it off.

AngryCorgi wrote in post #14050275

HTTP response: 403

^$25...best part...NO READING!!

Worst part, two-thirds of the story missing!!!

Good movie. But just that, a movie—with none of the subplots and a good percentage of the main story omitted.

For example: What happened to Fatty Bolger? Or the Old Forest? Where is Tom Bombadil? How about the Barrow Wights? And that's only in the first part of the Fellowship!

20droger wrote in post #14058470
Worst part, two-thirds of the story missing!!!

Good movie. But just that, a movie—with none of the subplots and a good percentage of the main story omitted.

For example: What happened to Fatty Bolger? Or the Old Forest? Where is Tom Bombadil? How about the Barrow Wights? And that's only in the first part of the Fellowship!

Agreed .... I own the trilogy, but the books are so much better. Which is generally the case with movies. Always read the books first.

I was sure that the thread title referred to the combined cost of L lenses. It's probably more than that.

frugivore wrote in post #14059349
I was sure that the thread title referred to the combined cost of L lenses. It's probably more than that.

Much more. Especially if you go used.

An EF 1200mm f/5.6 recently sold for $120,000 from B&H.

Hey!!! You too can have a lens that costs as much as a house!!!

frugivore wrote in post #14059349
I was sure that the thread title referred to the combined cost of L lenses. It's probably more than that.

LOL!

20droger wrote in post #14058470
Worst part, two-thirds of the story missing!!!

Good movie. But just that, a movie—with none of the subplots and a good percentage of the main story omitted.

For example: What happened to Fatty Bolger? Or the Old Forest? Where is Tom Bombadil? How about the Barrow Wights? And that's only in the first part of the Fellowship!

I think the first book had the most parts missing. If I remember correctly, the other two books didn't have as much missing. And to think the movies are freaking long without those parts of the story.

msclman99 wrote in post #14066805
I think the first book had the most parts missing. If I remember correctly, the other two books didn't have as much missing. And to think the movies are freaking long without those parts of the story.

They all had significant parts missing. It's inevitable when transposing a rich and complex story into film.

And remember, The Lord of the Rings is actually six books usually published in three volumes but sometimes as a single volume.

Tony-S, Tolkien actually wrote it as one book but was talked into breaking it up by his publisher because it was just plain LONG. When Jackson first brought the films to New Line Cinema wanting to make them, he had managed to condense it all down into two movies and when the folks at New Line gave him the go ahead they asked "what about the third one?" So Jackson rewrote it all into three very long movies.

I'm kind of nerdy about LotR... Those featurettes and things they put on the discs? I love them. Actually, that holds true for basically all movies.

Anyway, yeah, that collector's piece is rather pricey, but if I were filthy rich and had nothing better to spend my money on, I'd probably be all over it. I love the look, feel, and smell of old books.