[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, friends, for the considered responses. All of them. Diamond18, I don't think Aratlithiel's "tirade" was aimed at you at all. Your points are well taken.<P>I do agree that the scenery in the movie was exhiliarating. Not having anything from the book in my imagination to compare Osgiliath against, I can't say for sure if I felt that was the weakest scene. It did seem to fit, as scenery - I guess. Nevertheless, the plot sequence simply didn't make story sense. That alone is a d*mning enough weakness to hold the scene as filmically a failure, nevermind that it was never even in the Book.<P>I also feld that Helm's Deep was over-long and frustrating. I started sighing in exasperation (ask my wife) with each new querulous argument between Theoden and Aragorn, Aragorn and Legolas, et cetera.<P>I forgot another bit my brother sent me, which I think may answer a few rebuttals in terms of directorial blame, and may serve as fodder for continued vigorous debate (nothing wrong with that, eh?) <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I have a number of criticisms of the movie, but they can be summarized into<BR>two:<P>1. Making changes in both characters and events that blunted or even<BR>distorted the real spirit of the story.<P>2. Missing the mark entirely on what was probably the most compelling part<BR>of the books: their unrelenting suspense.<P>My earlier criticisms, [which made up the first post of this thread] were largely<BR>along the lines of the first. This was, after all, the most obvious.<P>The second is more subtle. After all, the movies do keep your attention<BR>undivided for a full three hours, even wanting more.<P>But I think that has less to do with the movies, and a heck of a lot to do<BR>with the story. It's just so amazing. A whole world of suspense, drama, and<BR>action in just three books.<P>If we look at Tolkien and analyze what contributes to his grip on the<BR>reader, we find a whole mix of many different things.<P>What hits me the most, however, is his amazingly light touch: subtlety,<BR>suggestion, hints, implication, intimation; constant, slow, ever-growing<BR>buildups of tension, with sudden, dramatic, and swift release, all against a<BR>background of incredible atmosphere.<P>Jackson took all of this, and changed it into an action movie. Where Tolkien<BR>hinted at something, Jackson hits you over the head.<P>Where Tolkien spent pages and pages, whole chapters, in fact, building up<BR>tension, to release it in just a few paragraphs of incredibly vivid,<BR>evocative action, Jackson does the opposite. He minimizes the buildup, and<BR>he maximizes the action.<P>Now, I can imagine that there are those who would say that Jackson could do<BR>no different, that it was all necessary to take a novel like LOTR and move<BR>it to the screen.<P>I don't buy this, and here's why: There is a director who would've been<BR>perfect for it. His name is Ridley Scott, and his hallmark is precisely what<BR>I've just been describing. If you've not seen his movies - Alien,<BR>Bladerunner, Legend - you really need to.<P>Of late he's moved to different themes (i.e. away from Sci-Fi and Fantasy,<BR>toward history: 1492, Gladiator, etc.). But I insist he would've been<BR>perfect.<BR>H.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There. I could not (and tend not to) say it better. I've seen Blade Runner and Gladiator and Alien. They're full of atmosphere and they do indeed build up the intensity and release it.<P>Jackson made LotR the Movie into an action/adventure film when it could have been an epic/adventure film. That's the nub of it, and it's a disappointment.<P>As I said, I love the scenery. Jackson (or I should say the artists) got that right. The plotting could have been a lot better. Maybe, someday, there will be an LotR movie that functions as a cross between the sheer length and breadth of "I, Claudius", and the atmosphere and story-telling intensity of Blade Runner. Now THAT would be worth seeing.