The trilogy is an outstanding cinematic achievement.Jackson is a very talented man who obviously knows the books inside out.

I feel that the first film is the better of the three, purely because of the jaw-dropping excitement of seeing the book realised in such a gloriously faithful way.

The subsequent films lose the magic of the "first kiss" effect but are great nonetheless.

I love Star Wars but this is something on an altogether different level.

I bet Jackson is a prog fan!

THat Movie IS AWSOME!!!!!!!

It is my favoprite MOvie EVER! ALso Star Wars is too,
Legolas is the coolest member of the Memberships. Elves rule. I like when Legolas kills the ELaphant. Even though I never read the books (but I read Hobbit) i still think the movie probably captured the books magic goodly enough. My favorite part of the movie is either Legolas killing the elaphant or when Legoals uses his shiled as a shirfboard abnd kills all the OKs. WHo is your most favorite Person in the Fellowship?

Jim Garten wrote: They always said LOTR could not be filmed, and after seeing the execrable 1980's animated effort, I was inclined to agree.... Then came Peter Jackson...... I am now the proud & awed owner of all 3 director's cuts & am utterly blown away by the sheer breadth of PJ's vision. If I had one small gripe, it would be the ommission of the scouring of the Shire, showing Saruman's end at the hands of Wormtongue (that shounds a tad rude...) - otherwise, all praise to him from whom all blessings come!

Totally agreement. I can't wait to see the extended version.

One other omission that I thought would have added some impact was the Sauron's Lieutenant's tossing of the mithril cloak and Frodo's clothing at the feet of Aragorn and Gandalf at the gates of Mordor. That scene in th ebook was powerful.

I know I'm getting the extended version for X-mas. Can't wait. 

Jackson was going to film the scouring of the shire but changed his mind, much to Christopher Lee's consternation.

very little people those hobbitsees indeed, so I wonder why Michael didn't pursue this.this

I'll have to take the negative view. I was pleasantly surprised at how well Jackson did "Fellowship"- I'd been expecting disappointment, and I came out of the theater thinking that the changes he made were completely forgivable. The first film gave me reason to look forward with excitement to the rest of the series.

Then "Two Towers" came around...not only did I not like it, I disliked it enough to ruin the enjoyment I got from the first film. It was bad enough to waste time with the completely crappy scene with Aragorn getting knocked out and dragged by his horse, leading to yet more tacked-on Arwen dross (if so much story had to be cut, why do we have to suffer through so many 'pretty scenery + soaring soundtrack' scenes that go on too long?). The entire last scene with Faramir and Frodo in Ithilien/ Osgiliath was clumsy, mawkish, and completely untrue to the spirit (let alone the story) of the original.

And "Return" was almost completely a shame. Omitting "The Scouring of the Shire" was far more than cutting a superfluous scene; it was eliminating a necessary and esssential part of the story. It was like remaking Casablanca and having Ingrid Bergman stay this time.

And not being able to enjoy the second and third films allowed me to pay attention to some of the poor choices in filming. Jacksons' decision to film much of his scenes with oversaturated monochrome colors ruins a lot of the care that was taken with costuming, scenery, and creature design. The technique works for a film like "The Ring" because the bulk of the scenes are everyday shots, but Middle-Earth is inherently surreal to begin with. And why on Earth would he cast the distinctive voice of Rhys-Davies for two such prominent characters? I'm sure the budget could have stretched for one more actor. Speaking of which, I'm almost positive Tolkien didn't intend Gimli to be almost exclusively comic relief.

Nope, it was a monumental failure in my eyes. I'd like to think that it will encourage people to read the books, but I've already heard some say "yeah, I bought it, but I couldn't really get into it." So unfortunately Jackson's vision (or lack) will be the defining one, not Tolkien's.

It makes me think that Hollywood has run dry of its own self-authored crap, so it needs to remake, adapt, and otherwise crap-ify anything good that is left. Oh, any other fans of fantasy fiction giddy with the prospect of a made-for-TV "Earthsea" spectacle?  Maybe next they'll do Narnia with Heath Ledger as Peter and Jessica Simpson as Lucy.

danbo wrote: One other omission that I thought would have added some impact was the Sauron's Lieutenant's tossing of the mithril cloak and Frodo's clothing at the feet of Aragorn and Gandalf at the gates of Mordor. That scene in th ebook was powerful. I know I'm getting the extended version for X-mas. Can't wait.

I so totally agree, that part should have been in the film.

Overall I liked the film, but still there are a lot of parts I feel belong in the Film.

I'm just glad PJ didn't make Boromir too bad, for I really think he's one of the true heroes in the story (sacrificing his life and in the end aknowledging his shortcomings etc.)

I guess I'll always prefer the book and my own imagination.

Reed Lover wrote: The trilogy is an outstanding cinematic achievement.

It is a great film.As a piece of cinema you are allowed to forget the book. Jackson was adapting a book not remaking a film classic like Casablanca.

Reed Lover wrote: Reed Lover wrote: The trilogy is an outstanding cinematic achievement. It is a great film.As a piece of cinema you are allowed to forget the book. Jackson was adapting a book not remaking a film classic like Casablanca.

I'll bore anyone to tears explaining why I think Kubrick's version of "The Shining" is a masterpiece and can't be compared to the King book. But my Casablanca reference wasn't comparing films; I could have said it would be like adapting "Romeo and Juliet" and having them live, or doing a bio on Jesus and leaving off the crucifixion.

Jackson's film omitted a chapter Tolkien himself considered essential (and said so specifically in the foreward to every edition of the books that I've ever seen). That immediately places him at odds with the author's intent- not for one scene, but for the entire work.

Do you really think making the Lord of the Rings is the same as doing a film version of any other book? I'll wager that no other film ever released has had the kind of pre-existing audience that this trilogy had.

Cinematic achievement? Sure. No argument there. So was the "Final Fantasy" movie, or the "Matrix" films. Doesn't make it great, though.

James Lee wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Reed Lover wrote: The trilogy is an outstanding cinematic achievement. It is a great film.As a piece of cinema you are allowed to forget the book. Jackson was adapting a book not remaking a film classic like Casablanca. I'll bore anyone to tears explaining why I think Kubrick's version of "The Shining" is a masterpiece and can't be compared to the King book. But my Casablanca reference wasn't comparing films; I could have said it would be like adapting "Romeo and Juliet" and having them live, or doing a bio on Jesus and leaving off the crucifixion. Jackson's film omitted a chapter Tolkien himself considered essential (and said so specifically in the foreward to every edition of the books that I've ever seen). That immediately places him at odds with the author's intent- not for one scene, but for the entire work. Do you really think making the Lord of the Rings is the same as doing a film version of any other book? I'll wager that no other film ever released has had the kind of pre-existing audience that this trilogy had. Cinematic achievement? Sure. No argument there. So was the "Final Fantasy" movie, or the "Matrix" films. Doesn't make it great, though.

I agree with most of what you say James, I am just highlighting that books and movies are completely different media.You cant judge the film purely on how faithfully it recreates the books.The fact that it has a pre-existing audience is incidental to the process of film-making.If you used those rules for making Prog Rock we would call it "jumping the shark."

Anyway, there are far greater films to argue about.

What's the connection between "The Shining" and "Blade Runner" ?

What's the connection between "The Shining" and "Blade Runner" ?

I find both films boring

James-The extended version of the Two Towers fixes alot of the problems that the normal version had.

The Return of the King was a friggin 3.5 hours long. If they would have placed in the Scouring of the Shire bit I shudder to think how long it would have been. Especially my bladder!!

Personally I felt the Scouring is non essential to the whole story.

Well I never thought I would create such a great debate. Everyone here has made very succinct informed points. Thanks all for going balls to the wall here . And I would agree that there are a lot of films out there at least as good as LOTR, and certainly many I have enjoyed more. To make a proper adaptation of the books is probably impossible. There is no way to please all the Tolkien fans. Every single fan has his or her favorite part of the books.These movies were under major scrutiny even before they shot the first scene. I too was disappointed by some aspects of them. However I think it does well to tell the story overall. And the things they did well were amazing. It is way better than Bakshi's garbage can.

tuxon wrote:   What's the connection between "The Shining" and "Blade Runner" ? I find both films boring

er No!

Reed Lover wrote: I agree with most of what you say James, I am just highlighting that books and movies are completely different media.You cant judge the film purely on how faithfully it recreates the books.The fact that it has a pre-existing audience is incidental to the process of film-making.If you used those rules for making Prog Rock we would call it "jumping the shark." Anyway, there are far greater films to argue about. What's the connection between "The Shining" and "Blade Runner" ?

There's no doubt that there was way too much to cram into three films (even long-ass ones ) but there are certain things that are essential, and other things that aren't. I think it would have been a decent series if it had been a completely original creation, but you simply can't judge an adaptation on its own merits alone. What would you say if they'd made a succesful film version where the ring wasn't destroyed but used to win the war? Or one that eliminated Legolas and Gimli (they weren't all that necessary to the plot, even in the book)? Or took the same story and set it in outer space? Some basic consistency has to be maintained.

And for all that was cut, a lot of non-essential things were added...mostly for mainstream viewers, which is a lot closer to 'jumping the shark' territory than the filmmakers' understanding of how many Tolkien fans were waiting to see the films. It's funny that some of the things that have been mentioned as favorite elements are some of the silly things that made me want to leave the theater in disgust (*cough* skateboarding elves *cough*).

What is the connection between Blade Runner and The Shining?

Skateboarding elves, very funny actually....give Jackson the benefit of the doubt on that one-he has never been one to pander to a mainstream audience! I think you are being unnecessarily picky Mr Lee.

Blade Runner and The Shining.?

Remember the strange, tacky ending in the original (voice-over) version, when Deckard and Rachel are driving away in the countryside.Well, that sequence is taken from actual unused footage from The Shining and has nothing to do with Blade Runner at all!

Worth the wait?

William Burroughs. Oddly he wrote "Blade Runner-A Movie" which has no connection to The Movie-Blade Runner, other than they nicked the title.

Link between Tom Cruise, Arnold Schwarzeneggar,Ben Affleck and Harrison Ford?

easy-peasy.

Ok, Adonis, the answer is :

They have all played Philip K Dick heroes.

IE screenplays based on Dick's novels.

Blade Runner (Ford)
Paycheck (Affleck)
Totall Recall (Arnie)
Minority Report (Cruise)

Soooo simple.

Ah crap, I forgot about Paycheck. Nice one!

Here's a tougher one- what's the connection between Philip K. Dick and Full Metal Jacket?

Vincent D'Onofrio

Impostor!

c'mon you gotta try harder than that!

Reed Lover wrote: The subsequent films lose the magic of the "first kiss" effect but are great nonetheless.

What a great phrase; 'the first kiss effect' .

I love these films to bits. One of the few cinematic productions that deviated from the book without pissing me off.

James Lee wrote: [/QUOTE]

There's no doubt that there was way too much to cram into three films (even long-ass ones ) but there are certain things that are essential, and other things that aren't. I think it would have been a decent series if it had been a completely original creation, but you simply can't judge an adaptation on its own merits alone. What would you say if they'd made a succesful film version where the ring wasn't destroyed but used to win the war? Or one that eliminated Legolas and Gimli (they weren't all that necessary to the plot, even in the book)? Or took the same story and set it in outer space? Some basic consistency has to be maintained.

And for all that was cut, a lot of non-essential things were added...mostly for mainstream viewers, which is a lot closer to 'jumping the shark' territory than the filmmakers' understanding of how many Tolkien fans were waiting to see the films. It's funny that some of the things that have been mentioned as favorite elements are some of the silly things that made me want to leave the theater in disgust (*cough* skateboarding elves *cough*).

What is the connection between Blade Runner and The Shining?

[/QUOTE]

I can understand your feelings James.  I absolutely loved these books and have read them more times than I care to admit.   

Skateboarding Elves and Dwarves as comical relief made me wince seeing them.  As did the Return of the King Two Towers edition as Argorn fell over a cliff in a battle that never happened in the books. The one that got me was no army of Rohan at Helms Deep and yet they can gather 7000 in a couple of days in the Return of the King. Then there is Faramir's  character change and Merry and Pippin talking Treebeard into attacking Isengard instead of the Ents independently coming to the conclusion their forest was in danger. Gandalf having to knock Denathor out.  Greatly missed was the Barrow Downs to find out why Merry's sword could pierce the Nazgul Lords armor and I did miss the scouring but I also understand why it wasn't put in. 

I look at this movie and my first thought is  I am completely stunned it was even attempted. This story is so epic and the recreation of this world that never existed is daunting.  But in that attempt the man never deviated to the spirit of Tolkien and what he was trying to say or let the effects so take over the movie the heart of the story was lost.  I look at an added scene in the Battle of Minas Tirith where Gandalf comforts Pippin with the narrative at the end of the book as to what Frodo sees going across the sea to the West word for word.  The scene added with Treebeard to give a nod to Tom Bombidil. The arrival of the Riders of Rohan to the Pellinor fields. Grond, the hammer of the underworld and Morgoths weapon,  smashing the gates of Minas Tirith. The Eagles at the gates of Mordor. The army of Minas Morgul leaving the city.  The Cry of the Nazgul in the Shire. The set designs in Hobbitown and Bree.  So many more I could mention that was great and filled me with what I felt when I read these scenes.  This film was incredible in it's scope, its design, it's attention to detail in it's spirit.  Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh and Philipa Boyens deserved every single cinematic award they received.   I also was disappointed with The Two Towers the first time I watched it.  Then I watched the extended version when it came out on DVD and I just cleared my mind of preconceived notions and I liked it much better.  The Fellowship being linear in it's story was much easier to do cinematically and much easier to keep faith to the plot as the TT and ROTK jumps around to so many different events.  I thought Jackson handled them masterfully.  Anyway just my two cents.

Arioch wrote: To nit pik about such details really shows your nerdiness. If I were you, I'd keep these thoughts to yourselves.

When it comes to LOTR I am very proud of my nerdiance!!!!!!

As I do for Prog Rock!

Actually I wasn't really complaining about you. You were defending the movies. It's those trekkie geeks(or in this case mr geeks(middle earth)) that want to point out every flaw of the movie to show their intellectual superiority. I'd like to bitch-slap them around a bit.

Personally I was never a big Tolkien fan. He couldn't describe a battle scene to save his life and his description of magic left much to be desired. The way he described Sauron's demise going up in a puff of smoke....poof!....really bothered me as well. Very childish!!

I prefer Fritz Lieber or Micheal Moorcock myself.

I'm a nerd; no doubt about it. We all have to accept our basic nature sometime!

For what it's worth, I'm well aware of many faults in Tolkien's writing. You didn't even mention his stiff dialogue or annoying repetition. I disagree with your view of his treatment of magic (much more in keeping with the myths he drew from than the modern 'magic as arsenal and fireworks' usage), but there's no way to deny that the end of the war was a huge anticlimax. Still, I'd rather love something with faults than feel nothing for a more respectable work.

I'd take offense at your first few statements, but (given what I've written on this thread) it doesn't apply to me anyway. Although it does seem the general consensus that I'm nitpicking...despite the fact that I've talked almost exclusively about the 'big picture'. It's very true that if I'd never read the books I would have enjoyed the film more...but things like dwarf-tossing and skateboarding elves would still have irked me. It's the kind of thing you find in saturday morning cartoons and by-the-numbers pulp fantasy paperbacks, not in Tolkien.

Arioch: would you enjoy a film version of Elric where Stormbringer was making trendy wisecracks? How about a portrayal of Fafhrd as simply a Conan-like barbarian, ignoring his personal (and essential) conflict about civilization? 

James Lee wrote: I'm a nerd; no doubt about it. We all have to accept our basic nature sometime! For what it's worth, I'm well aware of many faults in Tolkien's writing. You didn't even mention his stiff dialogue or annoying repetition. I disagree with your view of his treatment of magic (much more in keeping with the myths he drew from than the modern 'magic as arsenal and fireworks' usage), but there's no way to deny that the end of the war was a huge anticlimax. Still, I'd rather love something with faults than feel nothing for a more respectable work. I'd take offense at your first few statements, but (given what I've written on this thread) it doesn't apply to me anyway. Although it does seem the general consensus that I'm nitpicking...despite the fact that I've talked almost exclusively about the 'big picture'. It's very true that if I'd never read the books I would have enjoyed the film more...but things like dwarf-tossing and skateboarding elves would still have irked me. It's the kind of thing you find in saturday morning cartoons and by-the-numbers pulp fantasy paperbacks, not in Tolkien. Arioch: would you enjoy a film version of Elric where Stormbringer was making trendy wisecracks? How about a portrayal of Fafhrd as simply a Conan-like barbarian, ignoring his personal (and essential) conflict about civilization?

You really need to get out more!

And you post too much!

It does kinda seem that way, doesn't it?

Well I would admit that I cringed too with the dwarf being tossed(in the 2nd movie-the 1st it was appropriate) and I especially hated the skateboarding scene. Legolas character in the movie was way tougher than the caaracter in the book, but still these scenes are short enough and they move on to more important stuff. Actually I thought Peter Jackson's interpretation of the LOTR was better than Tolkien's!

The idea of a wisecracking Strormbringer would make me vomit.

I get your point James and I didn't mean to offend you.

Arioch wrote:  Actually I thought Peter Jackson's interpretation of the LOTR was better than Tolkien's!

That's because Tolkien wasn't interpreting it.

Just got the Box Set of Extended versions - all 12 DVDs

I'll get to you with my opinion as soon as I've watched them .... so talk to you sometime in February

tuxon wrote: Arioch wrote:  Actually I thought Peter Jackson's interpretation of the LOTR was better than Tolkien's! That's because Tolkien wasn't interpreting it.

you knew perfectly well what I meant you goober!

Zelazny hasn't been adapted for any films, has he? I mean, some of the stuff in "Dreamscape", but that's all I can think of.

I'd like to see a live-action attempt at Lloyd Alexander's Prydain series. The animated version of the Black Cauldron was a little too Disney for me.

"The Belgariad" would make a sweet film series too. The books aren't exactly deep, but they're perfect for a major film.

The Lord Of The Rings Movie Trilogy is the second best Trilogy After the original Star Wars IMO.

Jim Garten wrote: [QUOTE=Quacky] The BBc made a version of Gormenghast a few years ago which was a commendable effort, but I'd like to see someone with the vision & resources of Peter Jackson give it a go....

Yeah I saw that. I had high hopes and it wasn't bad but as you say, it never reached the heights of the book.

Interesting trivia, the owner of the copyright to Gormenghast is none other than STING. He produced a radio version of the book a while back but I never got to hear it.

James Lee wrote: Zelazny hasn't been adapted for any films, has he? I mean, some of the stuff in "Dreamscape", but that's all I can think of. I'd like to see a live-action attempt at Lloyd Alexander's Prydain series. The animated version of the Black Cauldron was a little too Disney for me. "The Belgariad" would make a sweet film series too. The books aren't exactly deep, but they're perfect for a major film.

Edddings! That would be cool.  I would also like to see some of Kathrine Kurtz's Deryni novels go to film.

I can't even imagine adapting Gormenghast for TV, film or even radio. Peake makes Tolkien and Lovecraft seem abbreviated and journalistic- is it any wonder I'm a big fan of all three of them?

James Lee wrote: I can't even imagine adapting Gormenghast for TV, film or even radio. Peake makes Tolkien and Lovecraft seem abbreviated and journalistic- is it any wonder I'm a big fan of all three of them?

Try and get hold of the BBC version it was a fair stab at a very difficult to adapt book.

Pixel Pirate wrote: And with that caustic comment on the impoverishment of modern culture,I'm out of here for the weekend. And perhaps even longer than that,who knows?

Come back Pixie. Cheer up old son.Dont fight fights you cant win!

Jim Garten wrote: James Lee wrote: I can't even imagine adapting Gormenghast for TV, film or even radio. Peake makes Tolkien and Lovecraft seem abbreviated and journalistic- is it any wonder I'm a big fan of all three of them? What we need is a Peter Jackson adaptation of 'At The Mountains Of Madness'.

Are you trying to provoke me?

Actually, Jackson would probably do a better job than anyone else who has tried to do Lovecraft for the screen. Though I do enjoy Jeffery Combs' over-the-top characters in various 'H.P.- inspired' films, and "The Resurrected" isn't bad (though Chris Sarandon wouldn't be my first choice for the role).

For Lovecraft fans (and sad old Call of Cthulhu players), I reckon the best attempt at translating the Mythos (in flavour) to the screen has to be the 1957/8 film Night of the Demon with Dana Andrews.

PLOT: American psychologist John Holden, a determined sceptic of the paranormal, arrives in London for a conference only to find his colleague Professor Henry Harrington is dead. Some of Harrington's friends believe that Harrington had a demonic curse placed on him because he was attempting to expose Satanist Julian Karswell, but Holden dismisses the notion. However as Holden encounters Karswell, he experiences a series of frightening phenomena which leave him uncertain as to whether they are real or just in his imagination. He then discovers that Karswell has passed him a piece of paper which contains a runic curse that will bring about his death in three days time unless he can pass the piece of paper onto someone else.

it's not Lovecraft but owes a lot to old HP and is an excellent little horror flick. Highly recommended. It's available on DVD as far as I know. Check it out on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050766/ - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050766/

as far as trilogies go, I'd love to see Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials books being filmed. For one thing it would drive Christian fundamentalists crazy as Lyra and her cohorts attempt to kill God. And these are children's books? Metaphysics, Physics, History, Victoriana, Natural History, Comparative Theology all wrapped up a in a tale of a girl and her demon. Brilliant.

Reed Lover wrote: Pixel Pirate wrote: And with that caustic comment on the impoverishment of modern culture,I'm out of here for the weekend. And perhaps even longer than that,who knows? Come back Pixie. Cheer up old son.Dont fight fights you cant win!

It's probably the Friday blues. The working week takes it out of me to such an extent that come Friday I feel like a sack of rotten potatoes and a gloomy disposition and sour mood are soon to follow. But I'll be back! But not until Monday though,I'm seeing my girlfriend in the weekend and we haven't seen each other for some time so we have quite a lot of catching up to do.

And "Lord Of The Rings" is probably allright if one likes that kind of thing.

Pixel Pirate wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Pixel Pirate wrote: And with that caustic comment on the impoverishment of modern culture,I'm out of here for the weekend. And perhaps even longer than that,who knows? Come back Pixie. Cheer up old son.Dont fight fights you cant win! It's probably the Friday blues. The working week takes it out of me to such an extent that come Friday I feel like a sack of rotten potatoes and a gloomy disposition and sour mood are soon to follow. But I'll be back! But not until Monday though,I'm seeing my girlfriend in the weekend and we haven't seen each other for some time so we have quite a lot of catching up to do. And "Lord Of The Rings" is probably allright if one likes that kind of thing.

Now that's more like Pixie.

BTW sl*g off Lord Of The Rings once more and I will break your legs!

arcer wrote: For Lovecraft fans (and sad old Call of Cthulhu players), I reckon the best attempt at translating the Mythos (in flavour) to the screen has to be the 1957/8 film Night of the Demon with Dana Andrews. it's not Lovecraft but owes a lot to old HP and is an excellent little horror flick. Highly recommended. It's available on DVD as far as I know. Check it out on IMDB as far as trilogies go, I'd love to see Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials books being filmed. For one thing it would drive Christian fundamentalists crazy as Lyra and her cohorts attempt to kill God. And these are children's books? Metaphysics, Physics, History, Victoriana, Natural History, Comparative Theology all wrapped up a in a tale of a girl and her demon. Brilliant.

Night of the Demon is really great, although I think the best Lovecraft film (also not being a Lovecraft adaptation) is John Carpenter's 'In the Mouth of Madness'. It's a very original movie and really scary.

As for 'His Dark Materials', I also liked it a lot.  New Line bought the rights to make it its next fantasy trilogy after Lord of the Rings. But things aren't developing well. The first draft of the screenplay by Tom Stoppard was dumped. Then, they brought 'About a Boy' director Chrst Weitz on board, but he has just lef a week ago. It seems that dealing with such religious matters is a bit too much for an american blockbuster wannabe... specially aiming for a young audience. I knew it was being optioned for filming when I was reading the last book and I just couldn't imagine how they were going to manage this and not have christian fundamentalists (beggining with certain president) raising hell to stop it. Some activists have made campaing to condemn the book. But the impact of a book is not the same as that of a movie (and, ladies and gentlemen, this ties us up with the ending of 'In the Mouth of Madness' Thouse who have seen it will undersand)

Night of The Demon is indeed a great film. I think Kate Bush sampled a line from it for her song 'Big Sky'...Through the trees...It's comming.

BTW, if you like your ghost stories slightly disturbing, I recommend M R James. I rewarding if dark journey into the depths of terror...

Amazon review:

Mr James was born in 1862. He was the son of a clergyman. He became a biblical scholar and vice-chancellor of Cambridge University. So you might expect from his life and his writing style that his stories are sedate things that the Victorian reader could read without too much upset. They would be free of troubling undertones, macabre inages, they would be comforting.

You'd be dreadfully wrong. The first story in this collection is Lost Hearts, a brutal and twisted story of scholarly detatchment, unethical experiments and gory murder. Going through the book we discover other classics showing just how physically and mentally violent James' imagination could be. There's the desperate attempt to shake the curse in Casting the Runes, the deadening claustrophobia of The Stalls of Barchester Cathedral, and the final story, Wailing Well, stuns the reader by beginning as a comedy and ending so blackly that few Hollywood horror films, shall we say, would dare to film it as written.

This is not sedate. It has an undeniable power that lingers after the book has been shut. I would actually put it above Lovecraft. There are weak points, it must be said; several times stories don't seem to get going before they end, creating a sense of anticlimax. But this does not detract from the achievements made in the other stories, and it's not going to stop me giving the collection five stars.

There's no doubt that Jackson did an amazing job with the trilogy..who could expect anything less of a kiwi director? It's understandable why numerous parts of the book were omitted- Bombadil and Ghan for example...they just didn't have significant impact on the main plot. Including the scouring of the Shire would have dragged out the far too long ending even further...it was all nicely summed up when wormtongue knifed saruman and was then subsequently shot (Saruman should have disappeared in the puff of smoke however). And there were of course, numerous unneccesary bits- legolas and his fascination with uruk-hai shields and murmakils, gimli being a fool, the "dress up as a pirate" scene in the extended version and the Mouth of Sauron GETTING BEHEADED.

But Jackson should be proud of this adaptation of a great trilogy, and Tolkien's ghost can rest easy knowing now that Disney will NEVER get a hold on it.

Well...

Time for me to weigh in here, since it covers so many things of which I'm fond, and know at least a little about...

First, re LOTR.  I have probably read the trilogy more times than most of you have years behind you.  And, no, that is not an exaggeration.  Thus, my love of the books is second to none.  I read them first at age 10 or 11, and read them at least once a year for 20 years.  No joke.  and I've read them a few times since then as well.

When the first half of the first LOTR film came out - the one made by Ralph Bakshi, with a combination of live, animation and "roto-scoping" - I was concerned about "authenticity."  And although he left out Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs (as did Jackson), as well as a few other things, and changed a few things, he was remarkably faithful to the rest of the story.  I particularly liked his vision of Elrond's Council (which is far truer to the book than Jackson's), among other things.

Thus, when I heard that Jackson was doing an "authentic" (his word) filming of the entire trilogy, I was pretty excited, hoping for something even more amazing.

Cinematically, there is no question that Jackson's LOTR is a stunning, incredible, jaw-dropping achievement.  However, I was disappointingly surprised at how much Jackson had changed.  What pissed me off even more was that Jackson claimed to be making an "authentic" film, and even bad-mouthed Bakshi's films.  Yet not only was Bakshi actually truer to the books than Jackson (overall), but Jackson clearly "lifted" certain scenes from Bakshi "wholesale."  I'm not talking about the fact that a scene exists in the book, and is thus going to be the same no matter how many versions are made.  I'm talking about scenes that might have been "interpreted" in minorly different ways, but ended up exactly like Bakshi's, or scenes changed by Bakshi and left "incorrect" by Jackson.  This - Jackson's blatant "lying" about the degree of "authenticity" he was claiming, plus his unnecessary and self-serving denigration of Bakshi, while blatantly lifting things from that film - made me so angry at Jackson that I still have a hard time loving his films even for the great cinematic achievement that they are.

I'm also annoyed by some of the changes he made, many of which seemed netirely unnecessary - even self-indulgent, and thus deliberately not "authentic."

Set aside the missing Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs (coincidentally (?) also excised by Bakshi), he has Arwen, of all people, meet Aragorn, Frodo et al on their journey to the ford (in Bakshi's film, it is Legolas - also wrong).  But then he goes even stupider and has her take Frodo to Rivendell - even though, in the book, Frodo gets there on his own.  Indeed, the scene (in the book) of Frodo personally defying the Black Riders at the ford is one of the most powerful scenes in the book - especially given that he is dying.  Yet Jackson does not give Frodo this moment.  Bakshi got this one right on the money.  Jackson also has Arwen call up the river to drown the Black Riders; yet it was Elrond who did this.  Gandalf even tells Frodo (in the book) that "It is Elrond's river; it does as Elrond wishes."  Giving Arwen this power is not simply wrong, but it lessens the power we would perceive in Elrond when we first meet him.

As noted, Jackson's "take" on the Council of Elrond is completely fabricated: it has not one iota to do with the book (another one which Bakshi gets on the money).  Indeed, Jackson changes "who says what" from the book, and puts the wrong lines in the wrong mouths!  This irked me no end.

And what of the added scene with Aragorn and Boromir as the latter handles the broken sword at Elrond's house?  Where did that come from?  Authentic my butt!  I could go on and on.  Much of the Lothlorien scene was incorrect (i.e., changed).  (Another one Bakshi got right.)  And, as others have noted, the missing "scouring of the Shire" was a crime!!  And I'm only on the first film!!

As for the entire Arwen situation, I am torn.  On the one hand, I think it was valiant of Jackson to attempt to take that Appendix and put it in the context of the story.  On the other hand, I think he failed - miserably - in doing so, chiefly because he used it primarily for sappy love story effect rather than as a way to introduce or develop the characters.

Ultimately, I maintain some admiration and respect for the sheer awe that Jackson was able to create, and in his mastery of his craft.  I am just saddened that, with $300 million, he did not choose to be truly "authentic" and bring the story to the screen as Tolkien wrote it.

As for Gormenghast, it was okay, but not nearly what it could be.  (As an aside, it is ironic that Christopher Lee is in both).  By the way, I'm not sure Sting holds the rights any more.  He did at one time, when he was thinking of either writing a screenplay or acting in a production of it (or, some say, directing it - which would be a travesty  beyond words).  But I think the rights reverted back to the Peake estate.  I say this because I began work on a screen treatment some years after I heard that Sting was interested in it, and the estate gave me the go-ahead to work on the treatment, toward (possibly) getting an option to film.  Because if there is any "fantasy" story I know as well or better than LOTR, it's Gormenghast, with which I have had a life-long love affair.  I own first editions of two of the three books (I have been searching for the third for years...), and have prepared a ten-page synopsis of how to properly make a full-length feature film based on the first two books.  At one time, I dared think I could play Steerpike - and I could have, probably better than most.  Alas, I have grown too old for the role (but not old enough for Flay, darn it...).  I still believe that, based on my synopsis, a properly made feature film of Gormenghast has the potential to be as great - in every way - as Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, or any other film in that pantheon.

Finally, when I was in junior high school, I was given an assignment, to write a short chapter of a book, in the style of a real writer.  Of course, I chose Tolkien.  What I wrote was a chapter involving a hypothetical meeting between Gandalf and Sauron shortly after Frodo is captured in Mordor.  I took quite a few liberties with it, including having things occur simultaneously that occurred at different times in the original.  I humbly offer this assignment to you (in the next post) for your...amusement.  And remember, I wrote it as a teenager, so please don't be too harsh...

Peace.

The Darkest Hour

(the lost chapter of Lord of the Rings)

The battle raged.  Blood and pain were the order of the day.  The sky was dark and filled with malice, the ground bloodsoaked.  Death and anguish and suffering were everywhere.  Orc heads lay scattered, Men and Elves were dying left and right.  The bodies continued to pile up.  Many who were still alive wished they were dead, if only to shut out the nightmare of the scene before them.

Suddenly, a loud trumpet call was heard, and the Black Gate opened with dark foreboding.  A chill wind blew out from the Gate, passing over the battlefield, sending shivers through those still alive.  The fighting ebbed, the trumpet call having had an overwhelming and immediate effect on all present, even the Dark Warriors.  An eerie calm gripped the scene.  All eyes were on the Gate, expecting the worst - though none could imagine what that might be.  Out of the Gate emerged a wraith on a huge black horse, a messenger from Sauron.  He called out in a voice which belied his size, an ominous voice which seemed to penetrate the air and fill the entire space between earth and sky.

"I seek he who is called Gandalf.  Does he yet live?"

After a few moments, a robed figure stepped out from behind a rock wall.  Gandalf looked drawn and tired, a shadow of his former self.  The battle weighed heavily on him, his magical skills being strained to their utmost limits in an effort to keep Sauron's forces from completely ravaging the lesser forces of Middle Earth who had gathered together against their enemy in a final attempt to destroy him.  Gandalf spoke quietly, yet with an air of one in command.

"I am he.  What do you want, messenger of evil?"

"My master, Sauron, would have parley with you - but only alone."

Gandalf looked back at Aragorn, who was standing to Gandalf's left behind the wall, and raised one eyebrow in an evident sign of surprise.  Aragorn made no reply, verbal or otherwise, and maintained a firm, but solemn, countenance.  Gandalf looked back at the wraith.

"I have been behind his black doors once, and have suffered greatly for it.  Does he now expect me to trust him?"

"You speak wisely, wizard.  However, while there are those who would call my master evil, he swears that you will leave unharmed, no matter the outcome of the parley.  I have brought the mark of his signet as proof," and with that, the wraith approached Gandalf and handed him a slip of black paper.

The paper had a discomforting texture, and Gandalf quickly realized that it was made from human skin.  The paper had been marked in red with a signet on it - the seal of Sauron. The wax was still warm.

"Give me a moment," Gandalf said, as he slipped back into the shadows.  After a few moments of discussion with Aragorn and others of his company, Gandalf came forward again.

"Go tell Sauron that I will see him if it means an end to this hopeless and unnecessary violence."

"That is not necessary, master Gandalf: follow me."  With that, the wraith turned and retreated slowly toward the Black Gate.  Gandalf hesitated slightly.  Aragorn walked up behind Gandalf, put a hand on his shoulder, and spoke.

"If ever a trap was laid, Gandalf, this is the blackest.  Do not go into that evil place from which no living thing escapes.  No good can come of it.  It is certain death."

Gandalf looked toward the Black Gate, and then squarely at Aragorn.  "So was the cursed Balrog of Moria."  Gandalf sighed quietly and seemed to reflect.  "No, I am not afraid.  The wraith speaks true - though the embodiment of evil, Sauron honors his signet."  Gandalf paused another moment in thought, and seemed to find a new strength and resolve.  "Besides, I may be able to get some information on our lost friends.  I will go."  And with that, Gandalf followed the messenger inside, and the dreaded Black Gate closed with a loud, metallic clang.

Gandalf was led to a room, dim-lit and round, with a vaulted ceiling.  In the center of the room was a table, also round, with space enough for eight.  On the table stood a red candle, burning solemnly.  Seated at the table, with his back to the door, was the unmistakable figure of Sauron.  The collar of his cape was up, and his hands were folded on the table.  He seemed relaxed, indeed arrogantly confident.  Gandalf walked across the room and sat opposite The Enemy.

"Welcome, Gandalf the White.  Long it has been since last we spoke."  Sauron spoke softly, with only a hint of menace.

"Not long enough, Sauron the Unnameable.  Come to the point; my patience grows thin."

"Now, now, Gandalf, let us not be hasty.  We both want an end to the violence that surrounds us.  This is easily attained, but it will mean giving in a little - on both sides."

"Sauron, your words are twisted.  Get to the point or I shall leave and continue battle against you."  Gandalf's attack was deliberate and purposeful - it was best to keep the enemy on the defensive, especially an enemy as powerful, dangerous and unpredictable as Sauron.

"I have something you want, Gandalf, and you have something I want.  I propose a trade, and I will throw in something extra for your troubles."  Gandalf's serious expression did not change, but inside he smiled.  Sauron did not yet have the Ring and, better yet, did not know where it was and thought that he, Gandalf, knew, or even possessed it.  Gandalf spoke, showing no emotion.

"I know what you want from me, Sauron the Corrupt, but what do you have that I could possibly want?"

"This," Sauron said commandingly, snapping his fingers loudly and gesturing toward the door.  The door opened, and a wraith came in carrying what looked like a small bundle of rags. As he got closer, Gandalf could see that this bundle contained a figure, thin and bare.  The figure was brought before Gandalf, and placed in the light of the red candle.  It was Frodo.  He did not stir. Gandalf got up quickly from his chair and bent over Frodo, checking his general condition, which was not good.  He looked back at Sauron with blazing eyes:

"You barbarian!," cried Gandalf, "Have you no pity?  He is near dead, as I can tell.  Why have you harmed him?"  Sauron sat calmly at the table, unmoved.  He spoke in a slow, deliberate manner.

"He is a hobbit.  What is more, he is a Baggins.  We thought he had my Ring, but we stripped him and found nothing.  He is not badly damaged, though he could have been, simply for entering my domain; the penalty for spying in Mordor is death."  He stopped and looked directly at Gandalf, who had seated himself back at the table.

"I will give him back to you in return for the Ring," Sauron hissed through an arrogant smile.  Gandalf could hold himself back no longer.  He stood up suddenly and looked icily at Sauron.

"No deal!," Gandalf cried.  "You will rot, Sauron, and your bones will be picked by vultures.  You will never get the Ring: not from me, nor from any of my company.  I would rather chance wielding it myself than give it to you.  No, you will not have it!"  With that, Gandalf rose and headed for the door, ending up behind Sauron.  Sauron stood abruptly without turning, raised his right hand and shouted:

"Wait!  You have not heard my whole bargain!  You may still learn to respect me." Gandalf turned non-committally and took two steps toward the table.  He remained there, staring coldly at Sauron's back, waiting.  Sauron turned slowly and spoke:

"Along with the hobbit, I will give you Minis Tirith and three thousand acres in all directions around it, including the Fields of Rohan.  However, if any of your people are found within the boundaries of Mordor, they are subject to death without question.  But the land around Minis Tirith and the town itself are yours.  All I want is the Ring."  Sauron stopped. Gandalf was staring at him with a penetrating glance.  Gandalf seemed about to speak, but Sauron cut in.

"I see that you are concerned about my intentions regarding the Ring."  He stopped again and looked at Gandalf with the most incredible expression on his gaunt face.  It was an expression of power and greed mixed with weariness and - Gandalf could scarcely believe it - respect; it was a bizarre and unnerving expression that made even Gandalf's calm spirit shudder.

"Gandalf, you and I both know the ultimate power that the Ring possesses.  It would be foolish of me to think otherwise.  In fact, we are two of an extremely small group who truly understand the implications of all that now goes on around us.  It is true that with the Ring, there is nothing that I could not do, have or command.  All living creatures would answer to me, and I would be the undisputed Master of Middle Earth.  You are worried that the bargain that I strike now, in this room, will mean nothing once the Ring is in my possession.  That is clear and correct thinking."  Sauron paused.  He seemed to be reconsidering what he was about to say.  Gandalf could not explain the weariness he saw in Sauron's hollow face.  Nor could he explain the feeling of pity that came over him as he stood facing his greatest enemy, the greatest enemy that Middle Earth had ever known.

"The only thing I can offer you as proof of my good intentions is my signet.  I will allow you, or he whom you designate as Master of Minis Tirith, to possess my signet.  In this way there would be a balance.  You would be powerless against my possession of the Ring, and I would be beholden to you to transact business, as you would have my only signet.  And do not forget that you have the Palantirs of both Isengard and Minis Tirith - wielded by one such as you, Gandalf, they are a formidable defense."  He paused. "What say you, Gandalf the White?"

The words were honey to Gandalf's ears.  But Gandalf had long ago lost his sweet tooth. He knew that any other - yes, perhaps even Aragorn - would be helpless against the anaesthetic and pacifying content of this single short monologue.  Lesser men would cry for joy at these words, while others, like Aragorn, would simply be too astonished to gainsay and reject such an offer.

But Gandalf was not any other.  And he was glad now that he had decided to accept Sauron's invitation.  Because by inviting Gandalf, Sauron had made a devastating mistake; indeed, he had made three of them.

His first mistake was admitting that he didn't have the Ring, and believing that Gandalf might.  The second was to have spared Frodo, for this was proof to Gandalf that there was still great hope for Middle Earth.  And now Sauron had made the mistake of meeting with one of the few individuals in Middle Earth who could not be swayed by honeyed words and promises.  Had Sauron chosen to meet with Aragorn, or with any other of the company, the outcome for Middle Earth might have been very different - and infinitely more dreadful.

Gandalf stood reflectively, staring coldly at Sauron.  His aspect had changed tremendously during this short parley; no longer was he the Gandalf the White that Sauron had mockingly called him - old, bent and tired.  He was revealed as the true Gandalf the White; a wizard with great knowledge, strength - and power.  Gandalf knew what his next course of action must be, and he knew that his reply to Sauron had to be perfectly worded and delivered in order to have the maximum effect.

Gandalf slowly closed his eyes and pretended to be thinking.  He then re-opened them, looked directly at Sauron, and took a deliberate, commanding step toward him, seeming to grow taller and stronger.  Then he spoke in a strong, slow, deliberate manner, making sure that each word was clear.

"Sauron, you are evil.  You have always been, and always will be.  I will not strike bargains with evil people, no matter how well-intentioned."  He paused for effect.  "Now, will you see me out?"

Sauron stood almost dumfounded after Gandalf's short speech, and had to forcibly compose himself.  Then he spoke, his voice checked, but full of venom.

"You know not what you do, Gandalf the Fool!  It is not every day that Sauron bargains, for if Sauron wants, Sauron takes!  I have offered more than I should have and all I get back are unkind words."  He looked menacingly at the wizard.

"Gandalf, you have sealed your doom, and the doom of all who attack my fortress.  You may go, but be wary: I strike hard."

Sauron and Gandalf faced each other for a few seconds; Sauron coldly, Gandalf with an expression of pity.  Suddenly the door opened, and a wraith walked in, apparently to lead Gandalf out.  Gandalf turned on his heels and walked out the door, the wraith following.  Gandalf was led out of the Tower and down to the Black Gate.

All was quiet when Gandalf stepped out.  The fighting had ceased for a time, the various armies collecting themselves for the next great onslaught.  Death was everywhere.  Gandalf was greeted by Aragorn and his company, but they were not happy.

"What says Sauron, Gandalf?," Aragorn asked solemnly, though he was both pleased and surprised that Gandalf had returned.

"He has Frodo," spoke Gandalf softly.  Aragorn gasped.  The others looked at each other in hopeless despair.

"But," added Gandalf, "He does not have The Ring."  Aragorn looked at Gandalf with a puzzled expression.

"How can that be?," asked Aragorn.

"It may be that Frodo lost it during his journey."  Gandalf shuddered to think about this. Aragorn gave him an anguished look.  Gandalf responded with a small, sly smile.

"However, I believe he may have given it to Sam in a moment of danger.  That would explain why they have Frodo, but not Sam.  Let us hope that Master Gamgee has a strong heart and a stronger spirit."

Aragorn and the rest of the company seemed hopelessly lost by this idea, and Gandalf's reasoning.  But Gandalf just looked at him and smiled ‑ his first real smile in weeks.

"Sauron has not won yet," he said.

Although Gandalf would never accept the invitation for such a meeting, and Sauron would never show his weaknessess like that. it's nicely written.

is there any doubt that maani is teh r0x0r?

I won't quote the lengthy post, but he hit many nails on the head. The films' grandeur was diminished by countless disappointing details...and maani summed up many of them.

Thanks for the glimpse into your writing life, too! My only criticism is that I can't see Tolkien's Gandalf saying "No deal!"...although I could almost see Jackson's Gandalf saying it...just before he forged a pair of sunglasses and rode a surfboard to Valinor. 

But if you think Tolkien suffered on the big screen, just imagine what they'd do with poor Titus and Fuschia! Peake's characters were purposefully homely, morbid, and nearly unlovable (which is mainly why I love them!) and by the time Hollywood was through, it would look like a gothic episode of "The O. C."

You know what I mean Clown?????

Well , , to you too!

James:

Re your comment re what they would do to the characters from Gormenghast, I quite agree.  Which is why I wrote the ten-page synopsis of "how to make the film" so that does not happen, and so that Peake's "vision" can be put on screen as "perfectly" as possible.  Consider that, even before we concern ourselves with the characters, there is the physical Gormenghast to consider: according to the book, it is probably the largest free-standing castle ever built - miles of connected buildings.  Then we have Swelter's kitchen, Fuschia's attic, the twins' tree, the Countess' parlor (and her cats!), the Library, the Prunesquallor's residence, the Hall of Bright Carvings - to say nothing of the Outer Dwellers and their living quarters near the wall.  Then there's the ritual and, of course, the weather...

All in all, a logistical nightmare.  But one that could be overcome by a great director and great cast, given current cinematic technology...

If I win a megalottery, I'll probably do it myself...couldn't possibly cost more than $150-$200 million...

Peace.

Eddy wrote: i thinjk i stand for all kool people that lotr is for geeky geeks!

 No, little Edward -- it's for people who like to read heroic fantasy/swords & sorcery.

Now Star Trek, on the other hand....

Peter wrote: Now Star Trek, on the other hand....

Hey Peter,what's a split infinitive?

Much of what I write here, Reed, is not grammatically correct, but conversational English.

Saves time. Sounds more "down to earth" -- less "stuffed shirty."

Put that in yer grammar text & smoke it!

You two would argue that the toothpicks were put upside down in the holder.

Maani,

While your story was very will written in the spirit of Tolkien I have to ask is it not the exact same thing that you criticized Jackson of doing?  My opinion is you protest too much about what Jackson did.  You mention that Bashki's version is more accurate to the book.  It was also very boring.  I can never watch that whole thing without falling asleep. You talk about the differences in the Council of Elrond and other scenes where dialogue was given to other characters yet fail to mention that the exact same result was there. He made three movies from three books. For the most part he honored the spirit of Tokien while having quite correctly I might add, change aspects of the story to fit in the medium he chose to tell the story in. Changing who said what is trivial to the story in many case (I do not say all).  It is done to give other characters more lines to add weight to the reason they are onscreen in the first place or to eliminate another character who would have to be explained. I think Jackson really tried to pay tribute to some of the things he cut out.  For instance that scene in the Two Towers where Treebeard 'rescues' the two hobbits from the tree who has trapped them with their roots.  We both know that is not in the book nor did Treebeard say that but it was inserted to give a bow to Tom Bombidil and the Old Forest which were cut out.  The death of Saruman in ROTK EE where Wormtounge stabs him and then wormtounge is killed with an arrow is the same manner as how they died in the shire. No person is ever going to be able to transfer the books as they are to the screen.  I think Jackson did an admirable job and I applaud him. Just so you know where I am coming from I read these books at least once a year and have since I found them when I was 15 in high school so I am not a fair-weather nor recent fan in this. 

Your points I have read many times over by other purists.  The way I got around most of these changes was to ask myself how could I have done it better without taking an extra 15 minutes here or there, introducing minor characters and their relevance or completely added another two hours to the movies to tie up the loose ends I just created.

He could have cut it down to 5 minutes if he just had Gandalf teleport him to Mount Doom at the start. Doesn't matter what's in the middle- as long as the result is the same, right?

James Lee wrote: He could have cut it down to 5 minutes if he just had Gandalf teleport him to Mount Doom at the start. Doesn't matter what's in the middle- as long as the result is the same, right?

He could have Frodo throw the ring from the shire all the way to the cracks of doom establishing hobbits had incredible arm strength and it turns out Saruon was actually George Steinbrenner trying to sign them to pitch for the Yankees.  Oh I am sorry that is the Disney version.

That is not quite what I meant, James.  He didn't remove the scene just changed elements of the dialogue.  For example what is the purpose of the scene Council of Elrond?   The scene in the book is to tell the full story of the ring to the others that were summoned or came to Rivendell.  It also was to decide what to do with the ring.  Since the story of the ring had already been told in the prolog of the movie it would have been tedious to do so again in this scene.  Instead Jackson used the free time to introduce the members of the fellowship and give them some dialog which would reveal their characters part in the story later.  I don't find that deviation annoying at all.

Jeez, boys, cant you see that Jackson was making a

FILM

some people here seem to be suggesting they could do better!

I have never in all my time on this forum read anyone state they could do better than Yes or Genesis, so why be so arrogant as to denegrate Jackson's achievement in making these films?
Some people here seem absolutely ignorant of the nature of movies.Jackson himself claims to be a massive fan of Tolkien and is known for his artistic integrity.Why can you not accept that there will be genuine reasons for him doing the fims as they are? What are you suggesting, that he deliberately changed some things just to piss the afficianados off?

Reed Lover wrote: Jeez, boys, cant you see that Jackson was making a FILM some people here seem to be suggesting they could do better! I have never in all my time on this forum read anyone state they could do better than Yes or Genesis, so why be so arrogant as to denegrate Jackson's achievement in making these films? Some people here seem absolutely ignorant of the nature of movies.Jackson himself claims to be a massive fan of Tolkien and is known for his artistic integrity.Why can you not accept that there will be genuine reasons for him doing the fims as they are? What are you suggesting, that he deliberately changed some things just to piss the afficianados off?

Jerkoff

Shocktaktix wrote: Jerkoff

Not just now love, I'm a bit tired!

Once in a while, there's a danger that we'll have a decent conversation around here.

RL: what are amateur reviews, after all? It's not like none of us have ever questioned the value of Yes or Genesis in these forums. Might as well apply our armchair quarterback skills to a film once in a while in between maligning (or praising) prog bands.

Shocktaktix: that doesn't apply to you.

I tried in every post on the film to make it clear that I think Jackson's achievement is amazing. I don't think I'm being too much of a purist or a geek...if that was truly the case, I could go off on dozens of other things which didn't match the books. I think Jackson faced considerable challenges adapting the books to the screen, and he was largely successful and accurate. But he neglected or altered a few very important things- and it was done at least in part with the idea of appealing to a mainstream audience, a stance to which I think most of us are generally opposed, at least in the musical realm.

Call me geeky, pretentious, or whatever...but think about a current pop star (even one who has some talent and skill- I don't want to downplay Jackson's ability) doing a remake of one of your favorite albums (oh, ITCOTCK, Fragile, BSS, Selling England, whatever you like), chopping it down to a quarter of its length and adding plenty of trendy modern twists to make it popular with the hip-hop/ numetal audience. I doubt there'd be a single member of the forums who wouldn't be tempted to express some kind of dissatisfaction, no matter how much of an achievement it was.

Reed Lover wrote: Peter wrote: Now Star Trek, on the other hand.... Hey Peter,what's a split infinitive?

A split infinitive is a question of style, not grammar. There is absolutely nothing wrong, grammatically speaking, with inserting an adverb or any other part of speech between to and the base form of a verb. All this started because some Victorian pedant with too much time on his hands decided that, as Latin has no split infinitives, English shouldn't either. The only problem with that is it's impossible to split a Latin infinitive, because the infinitive is only one word, as in ire - to go, or esse, to be.

Split infinitives often sound 'wrong', perhaps because they're used so rarely, but in some cases a split infinitive is the better choice. Captain James Tiberius Kirk put it best, when he described his 5 year mission - "To boldly go where no man has gone before." "To go boldly..." just isn't the same, and if you can't trust Captain Kirk, who can you trust?

Syzygy wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Peter wrote: Now Star Trek, on the other hand.... Hey Peter,what's a split infinitive? A split infinitive is a question of style, not grammar. There is absolutely nothing wrong, grammatically speaking, with inserting an adverb or any other part of speech between to and the base form of a verb. All this started because some Victorian pedant with too much time on his hands decided that, as Latin has no split infinitives, English shouldn't either. The only problem with that is it's impossible to split a Latin infinitive, because the infinitive is only one word, as in ire - to go, or esse, to be. Split infinitives often sound 'wrong', perhaps because they're used so rarely, but in some cases a split infinitive is the better choice. Captain James Tiberius Kirk put it best, when he described his 5 year mission - "To boldly go where no man has gone before." "To go boldly..." just isn't the same, and if you can't trust Captain Kirk, who can you trust?

Thank you Mr Bryson for allowing Sausages quote you without suing him!

Sometimes you try and bait one member and forget to remove the trap. Then some poor unfortunate nibbles at the bait and whumph,his sense of irony gets lopped off!

Syzygy wrote:  Just dug out my old copy of Mother Tongue - I hadn't realised how closely I was paraphrasing what Bryson wrote. Still, mediocrity borrows but genius steals as someone almost as brainy as what I am once said.

Just remember Reed always finds out. You can't get away with anything!

Remember my expose of the Danbo and Gdub scandal?

Great book BTW I must have read it half a dozen times.

I still not understand to what infinitives split into?

(should try to keep away from the blue cheese that is)

tuxon wrote: I still not understand to what infinitives split into? (should try to keep away from the blue cheese that is)

Infinite halves,then infinite quarters it's obvious.

Just imagine an NFL game!