[HCIsland]

I agree with you on that point Eomer and that is why I'm very much looking forward to the EE Towers which seems to have much additional material for the Ent and Frodo two thirds of the story line and not so much for the Rohan third.<P>I think the comparison to Pulp Fiction is apt, but there is a huge difference between the two. Pulp Fiction didn't cost $100 million to make. One of the most brilliant things about Pulp Fiction is it's non-linear time sense and perhaps something similar could have been done with Towers. A medium budget ganster film offers a director far more latitude than a mega-budget fantasy film. If Jackson didn't stick to some conventions there is absolutely no way he would have gotten the funding for his project. Goodness knows, LotR is already setting a new standard in this genre as it.<P>A non-linear timeline could have been absolutely brilliant, but by the same token it could have failed miserably and with this kind of money on the line, there is no way the benefit out-weighed the risk.<P>My own taste in movies is coming through here, but if you were to ask me which films were better, Pulp Fiction or LotR, I would say Pulp Fiction. But that doesn't stop LotR from being leaps and bounds above it's competition.<P>H.C.