One anti-movie rant from an uber-LOTR fan

[Vympel]

I'd like to clear the air about my views on LOTR first. I read this book for the first time last year. I tried to read it time and again before that, but goddamn I was too immature I guess because fuck did I find it boring. Anyways, I finally read the whole thing and I loved it. I made a special point of reading it before the films came out so I could use my own imagination instead of having Peter Jackson's stuck in my head the whole time.

That aside, Tolkien isn't the best author on the planet. His writing style is quite droning and cumbersome at times I felt, and quite frankly the end of the book was incredibly crap- the 'scouring of the Shire' was a small, quaint little ending to a great epic, and had all the excitement of watching pain dry. Luckily PJ isn't bothering with it in ROTK (good lord ... its almost like ROTJ!).

Now that I've given my own personal view:

Read the awesome pathetic rant of one guy who thinks Tolkien is God and LOTR is the Bible.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Assault on Tolkien: An Open Letter to Peter Jackson

In just a few days the first of three movies based on J.R.R.
Tolkien's novel "The Lord of the Rings" will be released. Fans around
the world await this event - some with anticipation, others with fear
and loathing. No fan is unaffected, no one is neutral (although there
are many, of course who are content to settle for a flawed version
rather than no movie at all.) Such is the power of Tolkien's most
beloved work.

I am writing this because I want my friends and fellow fans to
understand my occasionally virulent opposition to this movie. I
readily acknowledge that I have not seen the Lord of the Rings. I
have no intention of ever seeing it. I have advised my family and
friends not to see it. I have lectured strangers around the world
regarding their sin of desiring to watch this movie. I will oppose it
until the end of my days.

I wish to begin by acknowledging that I am not familiar with your
work. I have never met you (and sincerely hope that I never do) and I
have never seen any of your movies. I readily concede that you may be
a talented director and that this movie may indeed be the "cinematic
triumph" that many critics have labeled it. I do not doubt that most
people will find it enjoyable.

My opposition is not based on the cinematic merits of the film -
I am not interested in whether the characters have been cast correctly
or the quality of the musical score or the special-effects. Such
details are subjective and merely divert attention from the true
issue: The exploitation of J.R.R. Tolkien and his creations.

I cannot help but wonder why you chose to make this movie. The
interviews and reports that I have read imply that you had some idea
of how difficult it would be to make such a movie. I do not think
that you truly understood the magnitude of this challenge, however.
It is not merely a problem of adapting the novel to the screen - I
have yet to meet a fan who has not conceded that it is impossible to
capture the true complexity and spirit of the Lord of the Rings on
film - but also of fulfilling the expectations of countless fans
around the world.

Before I continue, I must concede that my standards are
extraordinarily (some might say excessively) rigorous. I expect any
movie based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien to be nothing less than a
masterpiece. I want people, even those who disliked this book, to
passionately declare that this is the greatest movie of all time.
Perhaps it is a consequence of a childhood in Illinois, where shoddy
and mediocre work is the norm, but I am adverse to inferiority of any
type. My philosophy is perfectly expressed by an advertisement which
I once saw that contained a photo of the gorgeous Taj Mahal and the
caption: "When Shah Jehan saw the contractor's bid, did he say 'Make
the pool a little smaller?'" When you are creating a masterpiece of
any type - and that should always be your goal - you should not fret
over such trivial details as budget and time. In other words, I
expect the film to duplicate the magnificence and poignancy of the
book.

I therefore object to your movie because you are simply not
qualified to produce such a masterpiece. You do not possess the
necessary resources. (I would not attempt such a movie unless I had
the combined resources of Spielberg & Lucas and even then I would
still hesitate.) You lack the credentials to acquire such resources.
You have no experience with epic films and your resume is limited and,
in my opinion, unimpressive. You lack the necessary influence to hire
the best writers and actors. The fact that you were forced to film
this movie in a backwater country like New Zealand speaks volumes
about your inability to maneuver within the labyrinth of studio
politics and obtain the results that you desire. These are obstacles
which could all be overcome given time and effort, but even if you had
all of these requisites available you still lack the necessary
insanity.

Lest that seem an absurd statement, I will elaborate. It should
be obvious that any attempt to turn the Lord of the Rings into a movie
is an ambition on a par with, say, the building of the Pyramids or the
Golden Gate Bridge or Versailles or the Taj Mahal. Such
accomplishments are not the achievements of ordinary men. Any one who
would attempt such a challenge must possess a vision tinged with what
can be best described as madness. There can be no compromises, no
half-measures, no acceptable flaws; Every detail must be as close to
perfection as possible. Any one who would attempt such a challenge
must be not only capable of inspiring similar passion in his
subordinates, but also willing to crush anyone who interferes or
challenges his vision. I do not think that you fit this description
at all, Mr. Jackson.

Let us overlook your arrogance and folly, however, and, for the
sake of discussion, assume that you were justified in your decision to
attempt an impossible feat. I have not forgotten that you are human.
It was foolish to even attempt to produce this movie, but you
compounded that error many times over by choosing to limit the number
of movies to three. This choice (and I do not claim to know your
motivation) condemned the movie to mediocrity before you ever shot a
reel of film or hired an actor. This choice dictated that some
material would have to be eliminated if the entire trilogy was fit in
just three movies and that naturally doomed any chance of successfully
capturing the spirit of the book. I firmly believe that a minimum of
four or even five movies is necessary to capture the essence of the
Lord of the Rings. I dismiss any claims that audiences would never
tolerate such a substantial project. The public has proven time and
again that we prefer quality to quantity and are quite willing to
endure any inconvenience if a producer can deliver it. (Who could
ever have anticipated that a movie revolving around an uninspiring
love story aboard a ship called the Titanic would become the biggest
moneymaker of all time?) Television has also repeatedly revealed that
fans will quite eagerly watch epics. ("James Clavell's "Shogun," John
Jakes' "North & South" and Frank Herbert's "Dune" are a few examples
which spring to mind.)

I cannot adequately stress that it is IMPOSSIBLE to streamline or
alter the Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is not a mere
collection of characters and scenes from which you can pick and choose
without affecting the overall story. It is rather more like a
beautifully woven tapestry. Cut any part of it and you ruin the
tapestry! Every scene (even those which many fans find less than
riveting), every passage, indeed every word contributes to the
development and persona of one or more characters. Eliminate that and
you weaken the character and ultimately the story itself.
I object to the movie because you have committed precisely that
sin. I object to this not only because it inevitably affects the
quality of the movie, but also because it is an insidious exploitation
of Tolkien and his fans.

Anyone familiar with the Lord of the Rings will tell you that it
was a labor of love for Tolkien. He poured his heart and soul into it
to an extent that few authors have equaled. (In the lament of
Theodon, for example, we hear the echo of Tolkien's grief as he
watched the natural beauty of his beloved Britain succumb to urban
sprawl and industrialization: 'Yet I should also be sad,' said
Theodon. 'For however the fortune of war shall go, may it not so end
that much that was fair and wonderful shall pass for ever out of
Middle?earth?') He was unable to abandon it even during some of the
darkest hours of his country's history. The powerful sense of loss
that permeates the novel, the sense of evil menace that the enemy
projects, the courage displayed by the most unlikely characters not
only reflect Tolkien's own experiences, but also a poignant attempt to
pass such wisdom as he had acquired to his children. The Lord of the
Rings is thus a subtle love story between J.R.R. Tolkien and his
children and, indeed, all of humanity. I and countless others are
profoundly grateful that Tolkien chose to share this story with us.

I do not think that you truly understood exactly what this book
means to those who have read and cherished it. It is not simply a
book that we enjoy reading and discussing from time to time. I wrote
the following excerpt while explaining my opposition to this movie a
few months ago:

"The town in which I grew up is very small (with a total
population of only 200 most of whom were elderly) and relatively
isolated. There were few children my age and even fewer ways to pass
the time. (We didn't even have cable TV.) In any other state, I
might have gone camping or swimming or just explored the neighborhood
or any of a number of other activities that boys enjoy, but, of
course, these were not options in the pesticide-saturated cornfields
of northwestern Illinois. Consequently, I had little to do but read
and one author whose works became most familiar was J.R.R. Tolkien.
Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond, Frodo, Treebeard and Farmer Giles of Ham are
old friends of mine and I learned many qualities from them -
compassion, courage, loyalty, etc - that are sadly lacking in the
natives of Illinois." [June 2, 2001]

The Lord of the Rings is more than a book. It is our cherished
memories of reading it with our children and our spouses, of countless
hours spent exploring the mysteries of Middle-earth, of intriguing and
spirited discussions with friends from around the world. It is the
wisdom that we have gleaned from its pages as well as the pleasure
that we derive. Tolkien has accomplished what few other authors have:
He created a world in which we can participate as well as visit. The
Quest of the Fellowship is familiar but never stale: Each time we
open this book, we share Gandalf's fears and appreciate his wisdom; we
laugh with Tom Bombadil and weep with Merry as Theodon dies; we can
almost feel the pounding of the hooves as we charge the legions of
Mordor with the warriors of Rohan and we feel the Company's terror as
the Balrog advances. You are (however unintentionally) trampling upon
such memories when you alter the story. It is one reason behind the
fierce opposition to the elimination of Tom Bombadil and the revision
of Arwen's role.

Even if you WERE justified in removing some material (and I do
not concede that point), you are not justified in creating new
material. To cite just one example, it has been confirmed that you
included a scene of orcs being "hatched" from pods in Isengard. I am
absolutely certain that Tolkien would have found this scene repugnant
and a violation of the spirit of his stories. (Not only is this
reminiscent of a science-fiction invention, but it actually diminishes
the true magnitude of evil in Middle-earth. Tolkien repeatedly
stressed that one of the reasons why the orcs were so hideous was
because they had been corrupted. Even their method of reproduction
was a mockery of the wonder of childbirth and the joy of childhood.)
You abandoned the spirit of the Lord of the Rings when you chose to
introduce such vulgar and spurious plot devices. You not only debased
the magic of Middle-earth into another sword and sorcery cliché, you
committed the sin of exploiting Tolkien's labor and genius for your
own profit. You are, in a sense, repeating the folly of Melkor in
corrupting the beautiful designs of someone else to serve your own
purposes.

I find it remarkable how frequently you considered such changes
necessary. I recall an article in Reader's Digest which cites your
thoughts on this particular point: "We thought we going to have to
alter quite a bit to turn this into a film," Jackson says. "But every
time we thought we'd found a clever way to improve the story, we found
ourselves going back to the books." The arrogance implicit in that
statement is astounding! You were prepared to exploit the world that
countless millions have grown to love and yet you did not think that
story as Tolkien related it was sufficient? Do you really have so
little faith in our intelligence that you must improve and simplify
the tale? I truly do not understand why you choose to pander to the
lowest denominator. Surely you have heard of the adage "Try to please
everybody and you end up pleasing nobody?" Why not try to please the
fans instead? It ought to be obvious that we are the most demanding
critics and therefore any film that will satisfy us must by definition
be of the highest quality and thus likely to appeal to others as well.
I did not become a Tolkien fan because he pandered to my taste.

Therein lies the fatal flaw in your movie. In your effort to
ensure financial success, you have compromised the spirit of the Lord
of the Rings. It does not matter whether the performance of the
actors is excellent or whether the sets and props are accurate or
whether the special-effects are spectacular: Ultimately this movie,
this project that has consumed seven years of your life and hundreds
of millions of dollars is nothing more than a neon version of
Isengard: "But Saruman had slowly shaped it to his shifting purposes,
and made it better, as he thought, being deceived-for all those arts
and subtle devices, for which he forsook his former wisdom, and which
fondly he imagined were his own, came but from Mordor; so that what he
made was naught, only a little copy, a child's model or a slave's
flatteryS" And that is why I can confidently predict that in fifty
years it will have been utterly forgotten while an entire new
generation will be discovering and exploring the Middle-earth that
Tolkien set forth in the Lord of the Rings.

All of the preceding arguments are based on the presumption that
you deliberately intended to produce a literal adaptation of the book.
You have, according to several sources, repeatedly stressed that this
is not your intention, that your film is only "one possible
interpretation." I find this rationale even more contemptible. I and
surely countless other fans resent this blatant attempt to
commercialize the Lord of the Rings. I do not want Middle-earth to
become just another attraction in a Disney theme park. Yes, I want
people to enjoy the wonder and beauty of Middle-earth, but I want it
to be the Middle-earth that Tolkien created, not a product ravaged by
advertisers and corporate sponsors whose only concern is the profit
margin. Not only it is a crass exploitation of Tolkien's genius and
the fans love of Middle-earth, but it also has the potential to be
ultimately detrimental to all fans.

I think that perhaps Bill Watterson, the creator of the comic
strip "Calvin & Hobbes," expressed it best when he wrote ["The Calvin
& Hobbes 10th Anniversary Book"]:

"The world of a comic strip is much more fragile than most people
realize or will admit. Believable characters are hard to develop and
easy to destroy. When a cartoonist licenses his characters, his voice
is co-opted by the business concerns of toy makers, television
producers and advertisers. The cartoonist's job is no longer to be an
original thinker; his job is to keep his characters profitable. The
characters become "celebrities," endorsing companies and products,
avoiding controversy, and saying whatever someone will pay them to
say. At that point, the strip has no soul. With its integrity gone,
a strip loses its deeper significance."

Now I realize that Watterson was talking about comic strips, of
course, but I think the same principle applies to the Lord of the
Rings. As he noted in another passage "When cartoon characters appear
on countless products, the public inevitably grows bored and irritated
with them, and the appeal and value of the original work are
diminished." I fear that this will happen with Tolkien's works. It
is entirely possible that the negative impact of the inevitable
commercialism which will accompany these movies could outlast any
temporary interest that the movies may generate. I already know far
too many people, for example, who dismiss ALL of Tolkien's works,
including his contributions to the field of philology, simply because
he wrote a fantasy novel. I cannot help but wonder how many people
will avoid and/or reject Tolkien's works precisely because they are
sick of the incessant commercialism.

Last, but not least, is the fact that the success of your film
effectively opens the gates to a legion of other potential products.
Why stop with only a movie? Why not allow Hollywood to produce a
comic book or an animated series or a sitcom based on the life of
hobbits? In fact, why not produce additional movies centered around
the previously unknown adventures of, say, Aragorn the Ranger or
Legolas, Prince of Mirkwood? Where do we draw the line and cry
"Enough!"

I understand that you have no control over this aspect of the
industry, of course, and indeed you quite possibly share my
apprehension and distaste for this crass exploitation. You did not
(with apologies to Billy Idol) start this fire, but you certainly
added the greatest amount of fuel to the flames and you are prolonging
the affliction by choosing to release the movie over the course of
three years. You are therefore responsible (albeit not completely)
for any adverse effects to Tolkien's legacy.

I cannot believe that you are unaware of these issues. In the
absence of additional evidence, I conclude that you were willing to
effectively defile the works of one of the greatest authors of our
time for your own gain. I therefore deny your claim to be a Tolkien
fan and I sincerely pray that your name will one day be as scorned by
Tolkien fans as the name of Ralph Bakshi is today.

Written by Michael Kohrs on December 12, 2001

[Andrew J.]

Tolkein's works were commercialized decades ago, it's a bit late for this guy to try and stop it now.

[Atlan]

......Somebody needs to find out that there is more to life than Tolkien alone.

[Kuja]

What an ass. It's virtually impossible to perfectly recreate a book on the movie screen. There are some things you just can't film.

And he hasn't even seen the movie. Dick.

[fgalkin]

I do agree with the guy in that the movies had failed to convey the spirit of the book. TTT was also an inferior movie due to the over-use of special effects (the viewers get bombarded by so many, that they become jaded near the end), and other flaws. IMO, the first movie was a lot better.

Jackson a moron in my opinion.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Admiral Valdemar]

I do agree with the guy in that the movies had failed to convey the spirit of the book. TTT was also an inferior movie due to the over-use of special effects (the viewers get bombarded by so many, that they become jaded near the end), and other flaws. IMO, the first movie was a lot better.

Jackson a moron in my opinion.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Jackson is far from a moron, Bakshi is a moron, Jackson at least is trying his damndest to make the films good and appeal to a wide audience.

[fgalkin]

Jackson's talent as a director is virtually nonexistant, TTT proves this beyond any doubt.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Sokar]

This is the kind of CRAP that really sets me off. These Holier than Thou Tolkien fans can suck my, and the whole cast and crew of LotR's, collective cocks!! Before he casts judgement he should watch the movie, better yet watch the 6 hours of documentaires profiling all the blood sweat and love that Pete Jackson, Fran Walsh, Phillipa Bowen and Richard Taylor and everyone at WETA put into this movie, and then tell me that they still lack the heart and resources to bring these books to life. Sanctimonius ASS!!!! For me his entire diatribe is nullified by the love that of all people, the amazing Christopher Lee, has shown for this movie , publicly condemming the Academy for snubbing Jackson and LOTR. There probably is no one who is not a professional Tolkien scholar who loves these books more than Chris Lee, he knows them forward and back, and if Jacksons vision is good enough for him(He even comments on the DVD Cast Commentary on the Extended edition DVD,that Jacksons changes are often for the better) , all the rest of them can sod right the fuck off!

[Sokar]

I do agree with the guy in that the movies had failed to convey the spirit of the book. TTT was also an inferior movie due to the over-use of special effects (the viewers get bombarded by so many, that they become jaded near the end), and other flaws. IMO, the first movie was a lot better.

Jackson a moron in my opinion.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

So how would you have done it, construction paper and a stop-motion camera? I mean really , think before you speak. Ive read the books easily over a hundred times since I first discovered "The Hobbit" and Tolkien when I was in grade school, the movie capture the spirit just fine, not perfectly , but I don't need perfect. The characters are done to perfection , the landscapes and sets ARE Middle Earth as far as Im concerned. I personally , can't wait for the Extended edition of The Two Towers, which Jackson is talking like it will be 3 1/2 to 4 hours, and eventually for Return of the King. All you over puffed Tolkien 'fans' can go sulk in the corner and jerk off over you precious book version all you like, these movies are genius, and Jackson and his team are amazing.

[fgalkin]

This is the kind of CRAP that really sets me off. These Holier than Thou Tolkien fans can suck my, and the whole cast and crew of LotR's, collective cocks!! Before he casts judgement he should watch the movie, better yet watch the 6 hours of documentaires profiling all the blood sweat and love that Pete Jackson, Fran Walsh, Phillipa Bowen and Richard Taylor and everyone at WETA put into this movie, and then tell me that they still lack the heart and resources to bring these books to life. Sanctimonius ASS!!!! For me his entire diatribe is nullified by the love that of all people, the amazing Christopher Lee, has shown for this movie , publicly condemming the Academy for snubbing Jackson and LOTR. There probably is no one who is not a professional Tolkien scholar who loves these books more than Chris Lee, he knows them forward and back, and if Jacksons vision is good enough for him(He even comments on the DVD Cast Commentary on the Extended edition DVD,that Jacksons changes are often for the better) , all the rest of them can sod right the fuck off!

1. Calm down.

2. The movies were deeply flawed. No matter how much Peter Jackson loves Tolkien, he still is a bad director. TFotR did not deserve the Best Movie Award (neither did A Beautiful Mind, btw), and TTT is simply bad.

3. As for Jackson's changes being "for the better", this isn't "What the LotR should be in Jackson's opinion", it's Tolkien's LotR.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[fgalkin]

I do agree with the guy in that the movies had failed to convey the spirit of the book. TTT was also an inferior movie due to the over-use of special effects (the viewers get bombarded by so many, that they become jaded near the end), and other flaws. IMO, the first movie was a lot better.

Jackson a moron in my opinion.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

So how would you have done it, construction paper and a stop-motion camera? I mean really , think before you speak.

I'm not a professional director.

Ive read the books easily over a hundred times since I first discovered "The Hobbit" and Tolkien when I was in grade school,

how good for you

the movie capture the spirit just fine, not perfectly , but I don't need perfect.

if only everyone required as little as you

The characters are done to perfection ,

How strange, I don't remeber Frodo being a teenager in the books. Not to mention Gimli being the laughing stock of the Fellowship, and surely Saruman was a faithful servant of Sauron in the books

the landscapes and sets ARE Middle Earth as far as Im concerned.

With that, I agree

I personally , can't wait for the Extended edition of The Two Towers, which Jackson is talking like it will be 3 1/2 to 4 hours, and eventually for Return of the King.

Oh, god, 4 hours of boring special effects with little substance

All you over puffed Tolkien 'fans' can go sulk in the corner and jerk off over you precious book version all you like, these movies are genius, and Jackson and his team are amazing.

Well, thank you very much. I have no doubt that you think Voyager was the best Sci-fi series, too.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Sokar]

Fgalkin - These books ceased to be Tolkiens the moment he published them to the public and they became everyones for interpretation and visualization as they saw fit.

Why to you dislike TTT so much ? It was perfect. not an exact copy of the book , but still perfect as a middle chapter for these movies? I know it deviates, but for me it was for the better, much better. Tolkiens universe of one-dimensional uber-heroes always struck me as far too one dimensional. not to mention that these books if tranlated literally, would be an interminable snooze fest....I suppose I just dont understand what your missing in these movies ?

What was lost, changed ect..that ruins the movie for you ?

[Sokar]

I'm not a professional director

This is fairly obvious......

if only everyone required as little as you

Actually I had assumed that these movies would suck , and badly, I was 'converted' whilst watching, it a good thing all of us don't require as much as you , other wise nothing would ever get done....

How strange, I don't remeber Frodo being a teenager in the books. Not to mention Gimli being the laughing stock of the Fellowship, and surely Saruman was a faithful servant of Sauron in the books

Yes they made Frodo younger, but would you have found a fat 50 year old Hobbit to be believable , even I always pictured him younger. As for Gimli being the laughingstock, hes a crumedgeon who interjected a bit of humor to what would have been a very boring sequence, but at the same time I take it you missed the parts where hes kicks enough Uruk-Hai ass to fill a dumptruck
And Saruman was NOT a faithful servant. He wanted the Ring, otherwise why have the Uruks return to Isengard, why have the Uruks slaughter the Orc that accompanied them when they begin to push to head to Mordor rather than Orthanc....

Oh, god, 4 hours of boring special effects with little substance

Why do you have an aversion to Special Effects, IN A FANTASY MOVIE.......

Well, thank you very much. I have no doubt that you think Voyager was the best Sci-fi series, too

Kiss my ass, Voyager was crap. You know, its people like you that make being a fan of anything, wether it be LotR, Farscape, or Star Wars so goddamed difficult.......

[fgalkin]

Fgalkin - These books ceased to be Tolkiens the moment he published them to the public and they became everyones for interpretation and visualization as they saw fit.

Following that pattern, I can turn any book into anything I like. Great, I can turn Harry Potter into a porn movie, for example. It is up to everyone's interpretation, after all.

Why to you dislike TTT so much ? It was perfect. not an exact copy of the book , but still perfect as a middle chapter for these movies? I know it deviates, but for me it was for the better, much better. Tolkiens universe of one-dimensional uber-heroes always struck me as far too one dimensional. not to mention that these books if tranlated literally, would be an interminable snooze fest....I suppose I just dont understand what your missing in these movies ?

The thing that I dislike about TTT is not the variation from the book, but rather the movie itself (the cinematografy). My problem was with the overabundance of special effects. All the movie seemed to consist of the characters running/walking to dramatic music with awesomly beautiful landscapes in the background. The problem with that is that the surroundings seemed to overshadow the plot, as if the scenerey was what's important, not the dialogues. Also, by the end of the movie, the people became so jaded by all the beauty they simply stopped responding to it and ignored it. The same was true with all the Gimli jokes. They were fun the first few times, but by the battle of Helm's Deep, they were no longer funny. Also, the special effects were not that good. The wolves during the scene when the Rohan riders battle the orcs were quite bad, especially for a movie of this caliber. They stood out like the toons from Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Hell, even the first season of B5 had better CGI. (the Nakaleem feeder was about the same quality). The same can be said about the ents in the scene whare they are marching on Isengard. They stand out against the background, a no-no for CGI.
TTT is a good exampe of the saying "too much of a good thiong"

As for the characters being more deep in the movies than in the books, Sauman was actually simplified in the movies.

Also, I can't forgive Jacksons for not showing my favorite orc of the trilogy, the mighty warchief Ugluk of the Uruk-hai! (they did show Grishankh, though)

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Sokar]

Following that pattern, I can turn any book into anything I like. Great, I can turn Harry Potter into a porn movie, for example. It is up to everyone's interpretation, after all.

Yes , if Rowling was willing to sell you the rights to do it. Christopher Tolkien and the Estate sold the movie rights to New Line, who then set Jackson loose to film his movie vision of the books. Once they do that the Tolkien Estate has no say over the finished product. Given how protective they have traditonaly been, Jackson and New Line must have impressed the hell out of them, this is not the first attempt to film these movies and Christopher Tolkien has been known for being impossibily difficult to get licencing or merchandising rights out of. Notice the complete lack of Halloween costumes, action figures ect....

[fgalkin]

Following that pattern, I can turn any book into anything I like. Great, I can turn Harry Potter into a porn movie, for example. It is up to everyone's interpretation, after all.

Yes , if Rowling was willing to sell you the rights to do it. Christopher Tolkien and the Estate sold the movie rights to New Line, who then set Jackson loose to film his movie vision of the books. Once they do that the Tolkien Estate has no say over the finished product. Given how protective they have traditonaly been, Jackson and New Line must have impressed the hell out of them, this is not the first attempt to film these movies and Christopher Tolkien has been known for being impossibily difficult to get licencing or merchandising rights out of. Notice the complete lack of Halloween costumes, action figures ect....

My point was that you can do anything you want while converting the book into a movie, but sometimes it won't be the same book anymore. Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, and my Harry Potter porn movie are like that.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Garden Gnome]

The thing that I dislike about TTT is not the variation from the book, but rather the movie itself (the cinematografy). My problem was with the overabundance of special effects. All the movie seemed to consist of the characters running/walking to dramatic music with awesomly beautiful landscapes in the background. The problem with that is that the surroundings seemed to overshadow the plot, as if the scenerey was what's important, not the dialogues. Also, by the end of the movie, the people became so jaded by all the beauty they simply stopped responding to it and ignored it. The same was true with all the Gimli jokes. They were fun the first few times, but by the battle of Helm's Deep, they were no longer funny. Also, the special effects were not that good. The wolves during the scene when the Rohan riders battle the orcs were quite bad, especially for a movie of this caliber. They stood out like the toons from Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Hell, even the first season of B5 had better CGI. (the Nakaleem feeder was about the same quality). The same can be said about the ents in the scene whare they are marching on Isengard. They stand out against the background, a no-no for CGI.
TTT is a good exampe of the saying "too much of a good thiong"

And how would you knwo people 'stopped responding to it" hmmmm? I sure as hell didn't, I thought Rohan, Helms Deep, Isengard, the marsh, the gates of Mordor, and everything in between was truly a sight to behold each and every time. Just because you were "losing interest" doesn't mean you can claim everyone thought it was boring asshole.

As for the your claims on CGI, well that really pissed me off. Were do you get off judging a movie by its special effects? I didn't think the ground battle at Naboo was perfectly well done but I didn't go off ranting about how it all "stood out quite bad." Same for the Ents at Isengard. And might I had, how wouldyouhave had it done? Just fucked over the scene completley? Two things dipshit: This crap costs money, and two he had to do the fucking scene. If you don't like it close your god-damned eyes. And again you go judging the movie by it's CGI! Was that the entire experience to you? I thought the characters (especially Aragorn) were very well done. Could they have subtracted some time from the battle, if only to devote it to the Hobbits? Sure. But does teh movie SUCK and is Jackson an IDIOT for not doing so? No. He wanted everyone to have a good time, while still remaining true to the movie, AND keep within his budget. Tell ya what, once you get into the movie buisness, then you can come back and complain about the movie and how apparenyl EVRYONE hated it.

As for the Gimli comedic relief, I thought it was quite humorous. It lightned up what was otherwise a pretty dark movie. And exactly again how can you claim EVERYONE was sick of it? You can't asswipe. You just ASSUME everyone thinks like your genious apparently. In fact, through out the movie, all the jokes were responding to quite well. So get off your high-horse and go watch that movie again without complainign about how the CG "didn't look real."

Sorry, but that seriously pissed me off.

[Skelron]

Well speaking for myself, and indirectly for my dad I have to say I've loved both Movies, and so has my dad. So what you ask, well My dad has been waiting his entire life to see a decent adaption of the LotR, finnally it happened. I've been waiting my entire life to see the same finnally it has happened. sure it is not perfect nothing is ever PERFECT but it's better than I'd have hoped by a long way. I think for me a sure seal of approval comes from Christopher Lee, if he the man that actually had Tolkien's permission to be Gandalf in a movie adaption. (He took his ultimate acting dream very seriously indeed and wrote many times to Tolkien asking for permission.) a Man whom ctually stated in an Interview that he wanted to be a Movie adaption of LotR more than anything, BEFORE he knew one was to be made and looking for cast. (I remember reading the interview where they told him and his response can be summed up as, 'WHAT, They are making it, I have to get onto my Agent the minute this interview is finished...')

As for his criticisms, well for a few of them... It looks damn nastier that the first actions of the uruk hai in life was to kill, and it talks abou the Coruption. In almost every occasion either the changes are bettr for the cinema OR are addressed in some way. To directly adapt the written word to screen wiull always fail, and if they had done this the Movie would have been S**t, the only fans the die hards, instead a great Movie, a faithful adaptation, and more has been made.

Oh and as for, doing it in a backwards country without the Hollywood resources... well I hate to say it but the guy should have seen the Movie first, if he had he'd have seen that New Zealand IS Middle Earth, a better place could not have been found. He'd also have seen that they more than had the resources, it dosn't need to be the big two companies too get results, and WETA I fully believe did a better job than Lucasarts are anyone else could have, perhaps because they where more interested in the project and put everything towards it could Lucasarts in all respect to their abilties have done what WETA did. On a small scale yes, but at the moment with the Prequals being made, and the other Movie Projects they are always working on for other companies I don't think they could have.

[Tsyroc]

I look at the films this way.

Tolkien intended LotR to be just like real myths in human history.

Most myths have their variations and different interpretations. They often change through time so I think it is cool that in some cases the movies might come from a different emphasis or viewpoint. That kind of stuff happens in myths so I don't think Tolkien would have problems with changes, especially considering how much the people making these movies appear to care about them.

[Morat]

With respect to the rant above, I have to disagree. Even if the LOTR films had been terrible (no matter how terrible), it would not have harmed the LOTR books. The books still exist, and they are, and always will be, preeminent over the films.

In what way was the novel Starship Troopers harmed by the creation of a rather mediocre film based on it? It wasn't. The book is just as good (or bad) as it always was.

Jackson's talent as a director is virtually nonexistant, TTT proves this beyond any doubt.

Hardly. People who actually know anything about directing, from people who only have a cursory education in the art (such as myself), up to critics and even the academy, have noted the incredible skill shown by Peter Jackson in the LOTR film trilogy.

TTT was also an inferior movie due to the over-use of special effects (the viewers get bombarded by so many, that they become jaded near the end), and other flaws.

The Ents, Balrog, Fell Beasts, etc. can only be done through CGI. There is no other way. You can't exactly just leave them out, either.

Plus, Gollum is quite possibly the best CGI character yet seen in film. CGI characters can rarely induce sympathy in audiences, and yet Gollum did. I can't imagine a better testament to the skills of Peter Jackson, Weta Digital, and Andy Serkis. They truely accomplished something groundbreaking in that.

My point was that you can do anything you want while converting the book into a movie, but sometimes it won't be the same book anymore. Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, and my Harry Potter porn movie are like that.

Of course the movie isn't the same as the book. No one ever claimed that it was.

[The Dark]

The thing that I dislike about TTT is not the variation from the book, but rather the movie itself (the cinematografy). My problem was with the overabundance of special effects. All the movie seemed to consist of the characters running/walking to dramatic music with awesomly beautiful landscapes in the background.

A lot of the book is characters running, trying to escape Sauron/Saruman and find each other.

The problem with that is that the surroundings seemed to overshadow the plot, as if the scenerey was what's important, not the dialogues. Also, by the end of the movie, the people became so jaded by all the beauty they simply stopped responding to it and ignored it.

I suppose the landscape was breathtaking, and there were two times where I felt they dragged out the chase scene a bit much, but it was really a minor thing.

The same was true with all the Gimli jokes. They were fun the first few times, but by the battle of Helm's Deep, they were no longer funny.

I thought the Helm's Deep ones were the best. "Don't tell the elf" was possibly the best in-joke for anyone who saw the first movie.

Also, the special effects were not that good. The wolves during the scene when the Rohan riders battle the orcs were quite bad, especially for a movie of this caliber. They stood out like the toons from Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Hell, even the first season of B5 had better CGI. (the Nakaleem feeder was about the same quality). The same can be said about the ents in the scene whare they are marching on Isengard. They stand out against the background, a no-no for CGI.

I'll agree that the Wargs were a bit over-done, the purplish-greyish-not-quite-sure color grated on my eyes. On the other hand, I thought the Ents were very well done. They stood out a tiny bit, but they were better than Jar Jar Binks for animation, and roughly the same as whatever that grey creature is in the second Harry Potter movie (I've only seen the preview, I'm not a Potter fan).

As for the characters being more deep in the movies than in the books, Saruman was actually simplified in the movies.

Unless they could devote 5-6 hours per movie, some characters have to be simplified. They've already removed Tom Bombadil and Glorfindel from the first movie, and Ugluk from the second. It's just not possible to fit novels that thick into a 3 hour movie (try reading and then watching White Fang to get a feel for a really shitty book-to-movie change).

[Graeme Dice]

How strange, I don't remeber Frodo being a teenager in the books.

If you don't, then it's obvious that you haven't read them. He was considered to have finally become an adult by the time he left, and hobbits regularly live to 100+ in a medieval agricultural society. Since humans live to ~40-50 in such a society, a 50 year old hobbit is about the same age as a 25 year old human.

[beyond hope]

The film did seem a bit disjointed to me: one thing I noticed about the extended version of The Fellowship of the Ring was that they cut a *lot* of exposition out of the film that made things flow better and gave you a better grasp of what was going on. Most of the interplay between Gimli and Legolas was cut, for example, as well as some of the scenes that made Boromir a more human and tragic figure. I'm hoping the same will be true of The Two Towers (and I'm reserving my judgement on it) until the inevitable Extended release comes out.

That leads me into a rant all it's own, however: why should we have to wait for months after the release of the movie to see the *real* version?

[Peregrin Toker]

My major complaints with the LoTR movies is that they focus too much on the combat scenes. For example - in the first LoTR movie, I would like to have seen the Fellowship of the Ring singing around the campfire. (I'm serious!!)

Personally, I agree with you a little on the Wargs. They looked to much like british bulldogs. (I envision them as looking more like gigantic wolves)

As a side note, I found that the subplot about Eomer being a traitor felt slightly tacked-on. (It wasn't in the book so why did they add it???)

[Vympel]

My major complaints with the LoTR movies is that they focus too much on the combat scenes. For example - in the first LoTR movie, I would like to have seen the Fellowship of the Ring singing around the campfire. (I'm serious!!)

LOL.

Personally, I agree with you a little on the Wargs. They looked to much like british bulldogs. (I envision them as looking more like gigantic wolves)

Bulldogs? They dont look like bulldogs. They have snouts.

As a side note, I found that the subplot about Eomer being a traitor felt slightly tacked-on. (It wasn't in the book so why did they add it???)

The movie didn't talk about him being a traitor? Grima had him banished, that's all ... IIRC.