Obviously I never meet the man. However any decent analysis/research into his critque would valid my point.

I believe he riducled college stage verisions of his works for heaven't sakes!

As I consider Inverse's previous post about other ways the film could have turned out it makes me realize how great these films really are. I am not going to say that they really do the books justice, but as has been stated before, there is no way they could compete with the books. Film and prose are different art forms, and they have different rules and just don't compare well.

Consider the films as they will be completed as a whole (all 3 together). It is going to be remarkably thrilling to sit down and work your way through all 3 EE's on dvd and about 12 hours later think back to when you put the first disc in and realize what a journey you have just been on.

There are definitely parts of the films I don't agree with, and I am a very harsh critic of films and rarely come out of a film liking everything. I am especially picky about the treatment directors give their work, and I find that most films suffer from a case of "if the director just wouldn't have cut this corner, then ..." PJ has done an absolutely brilliant job treating this story. He didn't cut any corners, he even filmed the whole thing at one time!

If you don't like the way the film treats the books then don't watch them, nobody is forcing the film into replacing the books. The films are only there to parallel the books and so that viewers can share a vision of the story in another format. I even bet PJ would say, "yeah, I want you to watch my films, but for god's sake ... read these books!"

I think the films are great. Bravo for PJ!

I agree with Scot. Tolkien probably would have disapproved of the film version of his book. But, Tolkien probably wasn't a fan of movies in general either. (I'm speculating of course).

Again, even though Tolkien wrote the LOTR he doesn't wholly "own" LOTR. When we read LOTR the reader often expands, imagines, re-imagines, or focuses on parts of the book. Its human nature. Just like we interpret music or lyrics in different ways.

Out with those who want to hem us in with rules! Even if its Tolkien himself guarding those gates. The book and the movie belong to all of us. All the different opinions; liberal, conservative, racist, multi-racial/cultural, political, environmental, mythic, etc is what makes this work so dynamic.

Personally I think if they made LOTR just like the book, people would fall asleep during the movie and it would bomb.

Take Frodo's trip to Rivendell for instance. If PJ followed the book to the letter then it would put everyone to sleep. I prefer the changes he made to keep a sense of danger, suspense and action always flowing. The book worked fine as a book. But a movie needs to always keep the viewer's attention.

i'm reading LotR for the first time, having gotten a gorgeous hardcover edition for christmas. i'm only a few chapters in, but i caught myself (1) smiling approvingly at how the adaptation was done and (2) picturing characters and scenes from the film while reading.

so far, i'm very impressed. PJ trimmed the fat, but not ALL the fat. little details that had nothing to do with the story, but would make any tolkien fan grin are obvious even in the first few chapters of fellowship.

a few examples:

children following gandalf for fireworks...also a perfect time to introduce frodo. in a book, you can tell a narrative in reverse (talk about a character, and then introduce him), but that simply won't work on film.

the dragon firework was a brilliant way to realize a great visual from the book while simultaneously introducing pippen and merry.

similarly, showing the hobbit party and using it as a way to introduce sam was equally brilliant. PJ could have just concocted whole new scenes, but instead, he used scenes from the book and kept tolkien's tone.

the proudfoot/proudfeet snippet had no bearing whatsoever on the storyline, but it was a brilliant addition to keep the tone of the book.

similarly, old toby...just the fact that it's there. think about that for a minute. PIPEWEED! it's not at all important to the story of the ring, but is a great moment in the film.

i think these little asides are what bring the movie to life and are truly the reason why even the most fanatical tolkien lovers seem also to love these films. they appreciate these little sidenotes, and PJ has done a brilliant job of integrating them into an action packed movie, often using them to accomplish advancement of the plot.

i fear that PJ might have strayed from this formula bit with TTT, but i reserve judgement. i just somehow doubt that gimli is the C3PO of TTT...there for comic relief and not much else.

but a mere couple of chapters into FotR has me very optimistic, and very appreciative of what may be the most impressive (given the source), if not the best book adaptation i've ever seen.

BRAVO indeed.

You mean the BBC made a filmed version of LOTR? Oh, you mean the radio series. I guess you're right, Jackson should've made a 15 hour film of nothing but black screen with audio.

Comparing the radio series to the film is the same as comparing the book to the film, they're different forms that have different advantages and disadvantages. While I'm sure you loved the radio series, I doubt you sat still with your eyes closed listening to it for 15 hours straight. Radio is only audio, which means that someone can do other things while listening to it (driving a car, etc.). Also, both poems and songs can be conveyed well through radio (songs better than print even), and were cheap padding to the series. Finally, as a series, it never required one to sit down and experience it in it's entirety.

Film doesn't have such convience of time. However, as being both and audio and visual experience, it is a much more engaging experience, actually showing you what you had previously only imagined. It can show in a few seconds what may take several pages of text or minutes of audio. However, as a visual medium, the poems and songs would not be as interesting and the film around it, and were rightfully (for the most part) excised.

Don't go thinking that the filmed versions are in any way supposed to supplant the book. It's an adaptation, and as such only has to stand on it's own. Jackson and the other writers have claimed that part of the reason for filming LOTR was to encourage people to read the book. They don't view the films as a successor to the book, and niether should you expect it to be.