I think that the original example of the mother observing her child's 'out-of-stepness' and thinking that it were s/he that was correct and the others incorrect could be useful as an explanation.

• The odd marcher - This person may or may not see his or her self as marching in step. Maybe s/he thinks that s/he marches in step, meaning that s/he is delusional and not accurately perceiving reality correctly. On the other hand, maybe the marcher knows the truth. In this case, is the 'out-of-stepness' deliberate or not? Maybe it is beyond the skill of the marcher to stay in step. Or maybe the marcher actively chooses to go against the band, either thinking that s/he is right or just to stick it to them.

• The mother - This person may or may not be delusional as well. Realizing that her child is not like the others, mom may be happy as (1) the child is at least marching, (2) sticking it to the band. Note that a priori, we assume that the mother is biased if we were to ask her to judge her child's performance. Is she a band director? Does she know the actual band director's goal? Does she know what the correct 'step' is?

• The other marchers - The other band members may or may not realize that the odd marcher is out of step. If they do, then what do they think? Do they figure that this is the best that the person can do, that they (individually) are all wrong or that the person is sticking it to them? Do any change their marching to be in unison with the lone marcher? We know that statistically that a few or some of the band members are, of course, delusional.

• The band director - Speaking of judging the child's performance, the band director may be somewhat more objective (s/he's probably delusional too, but for me today, everyone is...;)). Is this person's goal to show a band that marches in unison? If so, then s/he has failed. Is it his/her goal just to get everyone marching to the best of his or her ability? In this case then the band director is successful. The band director should know which is the correct 'step' (assuming this is the goal), and so could indicate which set is in error. That all said, I assume that the director would prefer that all marched in unison, and so the lone marcher would be in error.

• The random person on the street - This person, unless s/he is related to or is in league with the out of step marcher, the mom and/or the band director, may judge the whole scene otherwise. Assuming that bands typically march in unison to one beat (note that I was never in any band, and so make this assumption reservedly), this observer more likely would conclude that the lone marcher was out of step, that the mother (cheering on the child) was delusional and the band director was at best lax or at worse a complete failure. On the other hand, this person may not notice (enjoying the music and not caring about the band's stepping), may not care, or know that in the real world you always have some error.

What am I trying to say? Not exactly sure, with the exception that some of you are most likely delusional ;) (and I might be as well), and that your judgment, your conclusions regarding who is and who is not out of step, may be due to your perspective and the information that you have within your head.

Interesting thoughts, alatar! I have one more that fits into your first point - I recall (only vaguely, alas) a poem which mentions that if you are out of step, perhaps it is because you hear a different drummer...

If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away. - Henry David Thoreau

Is that the one, Esty?

My position (oft stated) is that I find the films fairly average entertainment & actually struggle to get worked up about them at all. That said I do find some parts of them quite silly, & other parts nonsensical. I'm happy - if I get a moment between the feeds & changes - to point up how Tolkien handled the story, incidents & characters far better than Jackson et al did.

What does irritate me is the lack of respect for Tolkien himself & for Christopher which some people display - if its pointed out that Tolkien strongly disapproved of adaptations of his work, or that Christopher (having seen the films) dislikes them, this is dismissed with the flip comment that 'Well, Tolkien sold the movie rights, so ... tough!' I would venture to suggest that if Tolkien had lived long enough to see the movies & expressed approval of them, or if Christopher had publicly stated he liked them then those very people who are dismissing their opinions would have latched onto them & prefaced every positive comment about the movies with the statement 'Tolkien himself/Christopher loved these movies, which proves how accurate/authentic they are...' - the feelings of Tolkien & Christopher would not have been so summarily dismissed if they suited their arguments.

I've pointed up elsewhere Humphrey Carpenter's comments re an adaptation of The Hobbit he was putting together for a school play & how, while Tolkien thought the whole tidea of adapting his work was 'silly' & 'nonsensical' , he was still polite enough to see Carpenter, suggest a few tunes for the play & go along to see it. Apparently (& I think this is mentioned in his biography of Tolkien) Tolkien liked the bits of the play that stuck to his story, & disliked the changes Carpenter had made. Probably he would have felt the same about the film. And one can understand that - if an author spends 14 years writing a book, & most of his life creating a mythology of which that book is a major part, he will understandably feel miffed if someone else has the temerity to think they can 'improve' on it. And a writer may sell the film rights to his work believing that anyone choosing to make a film of it will actually want to put his story on the screen, rather than turn it into something else entirely. I know that Ursula Le Guin was furious with the makers of the Earthsea mini-series, feeling that the makers had messed it up big time & turned it into something a million miles away from her creation.

This argument 'Films are different from books' is wheeled out everytime the movies are criticised for any reason at all - as if the fact that the two media are different somehow excludes the films from all criticism. My criticisms of the films have been mainly of them as films - Denethors 3 mile run through the upper levels of Minas Tirith while on fire (& even from shots in the film - long shots of the city, the distance Gandalf & Pippin walk from the Citadel to the precipice - this is clearly impossible. It may not be clear that it is a full 3 miles, but its fairly clear that its way too far for anyone in that state to run) , or Boromir beeing hurled right across the chamber of Mazarbul into a rock wall & ending up only mildly stunned, the Rohirrim charging down a 60 degree scree slope for example, the cringeworthy mis-use of the English language by the scriptwriters, or the misunderstanding of the social rules which bound the kind of society Tolkien created.

There is a special place in my heart for the BBC radio adaptation - because it captures the spirit of the books for me in a way that the films never could. Perhaps that's because it relies on words - & most of them are Tolkien's own. After listening to the series, hearing Stephen Oliver's heartbreaking music play over the reading of the final credits, I know I've been in the Middle-earth I know & love for the last thirteen hours. When the movies ended I didn't feel that at all. And to me that's the whole point. That's why the movies - however technically good they are, however much the writers & production team may have loved the books, however good the actors were - don't work for me. Something is just not there. And, sorry, but all the stats on how much money they made, how much the critics liked them or how many awards they got, is irrelevant. For me they are fake, because the heart is missing. Its there in the books, its there in the Radio adaptation. Its absent from the movies. They aren't orange juice for me, they're Sunny Delight ...

God bless the radio adaptation!

I admire Christopher's actions - he's chosen to stay neutral. He hasn't approved and he hasn't disapproved. Instead he's wisely spent his time productively on the books and I'd say the publication of COH as a stand-alone work achieved far more than if he had wasted the last few years criticising Peter Jackson.

You're probably right in some way. I can guess from personal experience - a few years ago I was involved in a school play and at one point I had planned out a whole action sequence between a group of warriors on stage. When I presented it to the teacher she liked it but insisted it was replaced with a duel between the two main characters. Though that was probably the best decision to make in the long run I couldn't help but feel just a bit annoyed.

All the same I'd be interested to see his reaction - Tolkien was a very analytical man. But then I'd also like to see what Shakespeare made of the Dicaprio version of Romeo and Juliet.

My point from my earlier post (now that I figured out what it was) is that the movies are successful or not depending on your point of view/criteria. No one can argue that, financially, they were not successful. The awards, both technical and otherwise, show that the films were acclaimed by the peer community for certain and specific aspects. This does not, however, make them successful with me and some others who compare them to the books (our criteria).

Another point: Is there any information regarding Peter Jackson and the Bakshi films? For those who don't know, the Dune book(s) were made into movies - twice. The first version was a big production that just went too far from the books; the second a TV version that was more modest and closer to the book story. That said, the producer of the second version was constrained by the first. He did not want to repeat anything, even those things that were done well, from the first movie, and so to me could have done better but could not as he wanted to avoid the taint/stink of the first. So, this producer wasn't just trying to accommodate the books and the fans but also the first movie.

Was Peter Jackson influenced by the first LotR movie? If so, if even in a more positive way, then it's not only the books that he's dealing with, but this other version as well (as well as the BBC audio production). What I'm trying to say is that it's just not Tolkien versus Jackson, but versus Bakshi and Morgan/Leicester.

Apparently Jackson discovered Tolkien via the Bakshi movie - & one can see the influence (the scene where the four Hobbits are hiding from the Ringwraith among the tree roots is a straight lift from the Bakshi version, as is the 'Proudfoot-Proudfeet!' scene - shot from the same angle!) Bakshi has gone on record that he was not happy at not recieving any credit from Jackson.

The radio series, according to Sibley (one of the adaptors) was popular among the team making the movie (he was there working on a book about the movies) More here: http://www.ebookee.com/BBC-Radio-Lor...4b-_84924.html

Now, there were a number of cross-overs between the three versions - Bakshi movie Gollum & Boromir (Peter Woodthorpe & Michael Graham Cox ) played the same roles in the radio series, & Ian Holm moved on from playing Frodo in the radio series to Bilbo in the Jackson movie. The major 'lift' by PJ from the radio series was the final scene of Sam's return to Bag End with a voice over from Frodo - the movie scriptwriters not only took the idea but even the actual words from the radio series.

For anyone interested the series is available through You Tube http://uk.youtube.com/profile_videos...radioDrama&p=r - you'll have to go to page five & work backwards through the episodes, as they're in reverse order. This is part one, episode one : http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=imF8TnXcdhU.

Mithalwen are hoping to start up an 'Episode by Episode' thread for the series soon, so if anyone is interested & hasn't heard it yet, get listening...

I'd like to add one very memorable scene to what davem posted: the Ringwraiths stabbing the bolsters in the Prancing Pony. As I remember the Bakshi movie from the theatres (many years ago by now! - I don't have them available for rewatching), the same cutting back and forth from the dark room with the Nazgul to the sleeping hobbits makes the scene very suspenseful!

Bit from Bakshi here http://www.angelfire.com/film/rings/...ws/bakshi.html Check the pic at the bottom of the page.

Oh, & here http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/3357 - Apparently Priscilla sent Bakshi a letter saying she 'absolutely loved the movie'.

Funniest thing I learnt today from all this is that Baskshi did Fritz the Cat. *knocks head on desk wondering how I never made that connection before*

*thinks of a few Frodo the Cat possibilities for a blog*

Other funny think is that interview with Baskhi. Not as funny as my first revelation though. It's sort of like the mouse complaining that the elephant used some of his shadow.

What sort of score did the animated movie employ? Did Howard Shore have to assiduously avoid certain notes?

Oh Downs, thou hast outDowned thyself today. :D

Okay, now that I've got over my giddiness about Frodo the Cat, I can make some more sobre observations about that fascinating website davem linked to.

I would like to recommend its webmaster, J.W. Braun, for an honorary membership on the Downs. (I don't know if we have those, but I propose one nonetheless).

Why? Because I was immensely impressed with this page in particular, where JW demonstrates similarities between PJ's movie and Baskshi's movie and compares those scenes to the books: Visual sources Jackson borrowed.

Of course, I suppose Sauron the White will object that a movie must be considered on its own merits and not compared to other oranges--er, movies--but I find this point of view very interesting and I highly commend Mr. Braun (who seems to have given up updating his site) for taking the time to consider the power of visual images.

There, I hope this is a sobre enough post to compensate for my uncharacteristic outburst yesterday.

:o

Yes! I agree, the radio adaptations are the best adaptations I have seen (well heard) yet!

The PJ movies are so so, not really all that good of an adaption and really if you think of it, they are not that terribly bad... when Lauri first watched them she said that they were more in the spirit of LotR than actually a good adaption, I think she is right! When I watch the PJ movies It just doesn't feel the same as the books or even the radio adaptations. For instance, the other day I read from Moria to the end of the Fellowship of the Ring, and when they were in Lothlorien it was amazing, the picture that it put in my mind was just splendid but Peter Jackson just doesn't do that for me. He just doesn't bring Middle-earth alive like it should have been...

I assume then that you haven't listened to the unabridged version via Rob Inglis. ;)

Can't totally agree. The scenery *was* Middle Earth, and Gandalf the Grey was spot on.