[Thenamir]

Well said, Lush.<P>To paraphrase Peter Jackson himself, the movie is one man's vision, one man's interpretation of what a Tolkien movie should be. He knew going in that it was not going to be the be-all and end-all for Tolkien fans everywhere. I personally hope that there is someone down the line, some years from now, who will attempt to improve on PJ's work. And I will await the coming of that movie as well.<P>A last note on the subject of humility. As Lush pointed out, there are vast differences between a story made for reading on a page, and one made for viewing on a screen. If a scene diverges from the book in some points to make a better viewing experience than a scene shot literally from the text, I don't think they're saying they improved on the written word of Tolkien, just that they improved over a scene that merely aped the book word-for-word.<P>And my apologies to anyone who thought (horrors!) that anything I said was intended to restrict a person's First Amendment right to free speech. On the contrary -- critique the movie ad nauseum if you wish. Like the argument over the Balrog's wings, by now it has all been said before, it has been done to death. <P>Here is, for me, an important point. I feel that those who say such things about the movie have a sort of superior air to themselves, like they are the "last loyal keepers of the True Flame". When they speak I feel I am being impugned and maligned, accused of some kind of secular blasphemy for liking the movie on its merits in spite of the fact that it diverges so far from the Holy Text. "Why, they cut out Bombadil! And Glorfindel! And they even wrote in some lines and scenes that Tolkien didn't write! (GASP!) And YOU have the AUDACITY, the NERVE to DEFEND these desecrators of the Sacred Writ!!! BURN HIM!!"<P>Critique the movie all you like. But don't make me feel like I'm less of a person, or even less of a Tolkien-head, for liking it.<p>[ November 23, 2002: Message edited by: Thenamir ]