Okay, so what do you think NOW?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961

It has been a few years now since the release of all of the LOTR movies by Peter Jackson. We have all had time to reflect. Whay is your opinion of them now? Has it changed?

By the way, I am BACK!!!

I think one of them is on Channel Four this evening?

Anyway...

I've not been near the films for a while and I'm quite happy with that. I had grown bored with them. I feel myself slowly slipping back into my old ways with regard to Lord of the Rings, my old images and mental pictures slowly reasserting themselves from the leaf mould of an old mind.

To me, there was always a slightly unfashionable, musty, eccentric, hippyish quality to Tolkien's stories, like they're an old early 70s Genesis album replete with songs about giant hogweed that you might find at the back of the cupboard or an amiable old schoolteacher with a bushy beard and leather patches on the elbows of his tweed jacket. I am getting back to that and it's marvellous. The films are too....MTV. I like my comforts and Lord of the Rings is one of them.

Not that I do not like them, no, they're marvellous entertainment, but they don't have the Tolkien Essence I seek. The films don't allow my mind to go off on mad tangents, savouring the smells of the Old Forest and picturing Frodo as he ought to be. I think one of the reasons I've grown to dislike Elves so much lately is the image of them in the films - all skinny minnie models with bleached hair like they've come from some medieval dressing up party on a Floridian beach.

The films are in one corner and the books in another, invested with long, beloved memories of The Times Before...

[Quempel]

I agree with a great deal of what Lalwendë has said. I enjoyed the films and own all the versions, extended ect., but I have not viewed them in some time. I like the books much better, it is simply a much better story with more detail. Yes the films are fine entertainment, and give some of the story of Middle Earth, but it is Jackson's interpretation of the story, not Jackson's story.

I also did not like the changes of the Elves in the movie. I much prefer the book Elves, they have a much more 'humanistic' quality about them in the books. They're flawed in the books and that makes them more lovable.

[Boromir88]

The events depicted in UNITED 93 were based on actual real life events. Middle-earth is a contrived fiction, an imaginary world filled with imaginary characters.~Saruman

I was answering a question about what I felt would make a good representation of the books...or if the books were 'unfilmable.'

To which case I see it on the same level as making a movie off a real life event. If you want to make an authentic, and good representation of a real-life event, than you try to stay as true to the actual story as you can. Jackson did not do this in his films...there were other things deemed more important than staying true to what the author wrote. If you want a comparison to a 'fictional' movie based off a 'fictional' book, I would suggest The Day of the Jackal...which is a near carbon copy of the book.

There are many differences between the book The Day of the Jackal and LOTR; I doubt anyone would argue that you need to show every single blade of grass that is in the books. But my point is to create a good representation of whether it be a fictional book, a real life event, or whatever it is, than all you really need is a respect and love for what the author wrote (or a respect for the events that took place), and a respect for the intellect of the audience. My point with United 93 I never questioned Greengrass's ego, he was making a movie that would be as near to the actual event as possible, and never let his ego get in the way. I can't say the same for Jackson and company, who's primary focus always seemed to be money. Therefor, we end up with a very entertaining movie, yet a bad representation of Tolkien's story.

Jackson did hire many experts ranging from experts on the various langauges

I believe one of those so called experts PJ hired was a self proclaimed 'dwarvish expert.' I find that funny considering Tolkien never created a language for the dwarves (besides the names of a few places, people, and the saying 'Baruk Khazad! Khazad-Aimenu'). So this self-proclaimed expert in the dwarvish language, was just making up his own bilge.

The presence or absence of a tomato in the story is so trivial as to be meaningless to 99% of those who saw the films.

Again I'm not talking about whether it's good for the film or not (same can be said about The Scouring), I am talking about Jackson's ego in thinking he knows more about Middle-earth than Tolkien. Tolkien said in his story tomatoes didn't belong, Jackson got word of this and said 'that's just silly.' So what did he do, he put tomatoes in...that's disrespect towards the author and also has the arrogant air of 'I know more than some author who's past his prime.' To which case I think we can apply Tolkien's comments about Zimmerman in Letter 210:

He may think he knows more about The Lord of the Rings than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him.

I'm sorry but when the author of the book says that something doesn't belong in his story, or that something is 'essential' to his story. And the director responds with remarks of 'that's just silly,' and to prove his point that it's silly he goes directly against what the author said. That's plain out arrogance and disrespect.

It may be a trivial matter as far as the entertainment of the movie goes, but when dealing with whether these movies are a good representation of the books...it is surely not trivial. Especially when you have the director who was definitely aware of Tolkien's feelings on 'tomatoes' and 'The Scouring,' and he treats his thoughts in such a disrespectful way.

Am I being too harsh? Maybe some think so, sorry I'm very blunt and straightforward and not going to beat around the bush. Sorry if anyone's taken any offense, but I'm not going to crown Jackson the greatest director this world has ever seen, with the toilet humor and bilge he pulls.

[Meriadoc1961]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To me, there was always a slightly unfashionable, musty, eccentric, hippyish quality to Tolkien's stories, like they're an old early 70s Genesis album replete with songs about giant hogweed that you might find at the back of the cupboard or an amiable old schoolteacher with a bushy beard and leather patches on the elbows of his tweed jacket. I am getting back to that and it's marvellous. The films are too....MTV. I like my comforts and Lord of the Rings is one of them.

Interesting...I have always associated Middle-Earth and the books with the Beatles and the Moody Blues!

[Sir Kohran]

I think one of them is on Channel Four this evening?

LOL, a while ago my younger brother was hammering on my door screaming, 'Lord of the Rings is on!' I didn't watch most of it but saw the last half hour. I was amazed at how primitive the theatrical version felt compared to the extended.

Therefor, we end up with a very entertaining movie, yet a bad representation of Tolkien's story.

This seems very unfair. It wasn't perfect, but it certainly wasn't 'bad' - the sadness, heroism and sheer spirit of the books are definitely there, if in a lesser form.

I believe one of those so called experts PJ hired was a self proclaimed 'dwarvish expert.' I find that funny considering Tolkien never created a language for the dwarves (besides the names of a few places, people, and the saying 'Baruk Khazad! Khazad-Aimenu'). So this self-proclaimed expert in the dwarvish language, was just making up his own bilge.

Oh really? What about all the various Elvish lines in the movies which used Tolkien's languages, or the Elvish lines used by Enya in 'May It Be'? Viggo even asked for more Elvish lines because he enjoyed using different languages.

I'm sorry but when the author of the book says that something doesn't belong in his story, or that something is 'essential' to his story. And the director responds with remarks of 'that's just silly,' and to prove his point that it's silly he goes directly against what the author said. That's plain out arrogance and disrespect.

This just sounds ridiculous. Of all the things to criticise, you find a type of food being used a problem?

but when dealing with whether these movies are a good representation of the books...it is surely not trivial.

But it *is*. Anyone who judges an adaptation by whether or not it includes something so small as a tomato just comes across as nit-picking to an insane level.

Sorry if anyone's taken any offense, but I'm not going to crown Jackson the greatest director this world has ever seen, with the toilet humor and bilge he pulls.

Oh really? Does Gandalf's fight against the Balrog, Boromir's last stand and Aragorn's promise to him, Sam willing to drown to follow his master, Gandalf and Eomer's arrival at Helm's Deep, Faramir turning away from temptation and releasing the hobbits, Sam's tearful speech to Frodo, Faramir's mournful ride, Rohan's epic charge in the golden morning, Sam carrying Frodo up the mountain, Aragorn's speech to the soldiers at the Black Gate, the final victory and celebration in Gondor, Frodo's last farewell to his comrades and Sam's return to his home and family count as toilet humour and bilge?

Compare all those beautiful moments to other 'fantasy films' (**** like Eragon and Dungeons And Dragons) and maybe you will see just how great these films were. Not perfect, but great.

I also did not like the changes of the Elves in the movie. I much prefer the book Elves, they have a much more 'humanistic' quality about them in the books. They're flawed in the books and that makes them more lovable.

Actually I think the Elves were one of the things they got right - the physical beauty with a tint of sadness. Also, the book 'version' of the Elves seems nigh on perfect. The film Elves struck me as more flawed (Elrond and even Galadriel change their minds in ROTK and TTT respectively on how to treat Men).

And I never once found the Elves 'lovable'. That sounds vaguely like a cuddly animal, probably not what Tolkien imagined.

[Boromir88]

This seems very unfair. It wasn't perfect, but it certainly wasn't 'bad'

In my opinion it is 'bad.' I don't get why people take offense to someone who doesn't think the movies should be hailed and praised as 'great' pieces of film. Simply because I don't think they're good representations doesn't mean no one can think they are.

This just sounds ridiculous. Of all the things to criticise, you find a type of food being used a problem?

How many times must I say I am not talking about this causing any 'problems' with the movies. I'm making a point about Jackson's attitude towards what Tolkien wrote. Tolkien said tomatoes didn't belong in his world, Jackson said that's just silly so he includes them in his movies. By including tomatoes Jackson shows he knowingly disregarded something Tolkien said about his story and went against it. Which to me shows arrogance on the part of Jackson.

Oh really? What about all the various Elvish lines in the movies which used Tolkien's languages, or the Elvish lines used by Enya in 'May It Be'? Viggo even asked for more Elvish lines because he enjoyed using different languages.

That's got nothing to do with the self-proclaimed 'dwarvish expert.' Ok, they did get a team of experts together, I believe Tom Shippey was was among them. So, they were able to get things right, that doesn't mean I'm just going to ignore all the 'wrong' and pretend it's just not there.

I know that Verlyn Fleiger (who's wrote 3 stellar books regarding Tolkien) came out and blasted the movies as being just a Hollywood action film. Who's to say she's wrong? No one, that's her opinion. Yes there were experts who worked on the movies, but there were also 'experts' who shouldn't be titled such (example the 'dwarvish' guy) and also experts who have flat out ripped the movies to shreds. In fact Fleiger (with regards to FOTR) says the only thing she enjoys is Sean Bean's performance and the scenery (yet with the scenery the actors are constantly in the way!) And some would think I'm a harsh critic!

Oh really? Does Gandalf's fight against the Balrog, Boromir's last stand and Aragorn's promise to him, Sam willing to drown to follow his master, Gandalf and Eomer's arrival at Helm's Deep, Faramir turning away from temptation and releasing the hobbits, Sam's tearful speech to Frodo, Faramir's mournful ride, Rohan's epic charge in the golden morning, Sam carrying Frodo up the mountain, Aragorn's speech to the soldiers at the Black Gate, the final victory and celebration in Gondor, Frodo's last farewell to his comrades and Sam's return to his home and family count as toilet humour and bilge?

No but what about Gimli being transformed into a bumbling buffoon that likes to belch and fart? Or Gandalf beating down the Steward of Gondor? Or Aragorn chopping off the Mouth of Sauron's head? Or Denethor chomping down them tomatoes (!) during that beautiful 'charge' of Faramir? Or Legolas being made into a Captain Obvious superelf trick stud? Or googly eyed Frodo losing most of his courage and bravery? Or Gollum tricking Frodo into sending Sam home? Or the green slime army of the dead which virtually makes Rohan's glorious charge useless? Or the marshmellow man Gothmog limping around Pelennor? Or The Witch-King owning Gandalf, breaking his staff, making him whine? Or Denethor sending Boromir off as a secret agent to bring him back the Ring? Or Sauron being shown as an eye? Or the Gondorian soldiers transforming into pathetic guys who suddenly lost the ability to actually fight? Or the absense of The Scouring? Or just making up characters like Lurtz and Madril? Or Aragorn's tumble off the cliff? Or the Witch-King-Frodo scene at Osgiliath? Or Saruman's death? Or Aragorn being the stereotypical 'reluctant' King until the very end?

And that's just some of the bigger ones that have sprung to my mind. I never said there wasn't anything Jackson got right, but just because things were 'right' doesn't mean it just negates everything that he got wrong and changed around. Whether it is better for the movie that he made these changes...I don't know, but since there are tons and tons of changes (many of them being to the characters and plot!) I don't see it as a good representation. And I don't see the films as a good 'introduction' to Tolkien's Middle-earth...I see it as a good welcome to Jackson's 'Middle-earth.'

Just a little aside about Saruman's death. To start out, Mr. Lee wasn't too happy with his 'death' having to happen in Isengard as he knew The Shire was the 'proper' place. But also, Chris Lee actually boycotted the premiere of ROTK because he was angry about the scene being cut from the theatrical. I remember watching the TV interview and he was furious over Jackson editting out his death, and said there would then be no reason for him to go to the premiere. A day later Lee actually recanted these statements and said that he wouldn't be going to the premiere, but he couldn't say anymore because of his confidentiality agreement. hmm....

[Sauron the White]

"Gee whiz Wally , I gotta wonder what the rest of the world was watching since all these nifty folks here think the movie was a pile of crap? Why did people pay all that money to see crap? Why did those crappy movies win all those awards? Why did the professional critics love those crappy movies? It doesn't make sense Wally."

"Gosh Beav , I dunno. Maybe everybody is just stupid except for a few real smart guys who know all the answers while the rest of us go around with our heads stuck up our butts."

"Gee whiz Wally. I don't want my head up my butt"

"For heavens sake Beav, its just an expression. It means that regular guys like us are a bunch of jerks and only a few smart guys really know anything. You know it like at school where a few really smart kids always get called on and everybody else just sits there."

"Thanks Wally."
--------------------------------------------------------------

apologies to the old LEAVE IT TO BEAVER TV show.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boro

Well as movies are out to make money and 'entertain' I would say Jackson did an absolute stellar job.

First off, if the fims hadn't made (or been capable of making) money, then they wouldn't have been made in the first place. I, for one, am very glad that they were made. Secondly, if they entertain, then they have done much of what is expected of them. I, and my teary eyes, think that they went much further than that.

Originally Posted by Boro

And those involved with making the movies attached them to Tolkien's books, therefor I find it impossible not to compare them. They have to be compared.

Logically, this makes no sense to me. They were based on the book, but were rendered in a completely different medium. There is no need to compare if one simply wishes to enjoy the films. I will admit that, because the films were based upon the book, they have a special significance for me. But it does not follow that I have to compare one to the other. I can enjoy them both for what they are, separately and differently.

Originally Posted by Boro

For the question of are the films Tolkien's Middle-earth? Or did it bring Middle-earth to life? I would have to say a definite 'no' to both.

Firstly, I should clarify that, when I said that the films bring the books to life for me, I meant that, in almost every respect, the films captured the visual images that I already had of the books. The films did not visualise Middle-earth for me, but rather captured my own visualisation magnificently. Secondly, I disagree that the films did not capture Tolkien's Middle-earth. They might not tell exactly the same story with exactly the same characters but, for me, they captured many of Tolkien's themes perfectly: the importance of friendship, the valiant stand of good against evil in the face of hopeless odds, courage and valour, the bettering of the mighty by the humble, beauty and primitive power in simplicity, trust in hope against the odds and so on. These things are just not present in your run-of-the-mill swords and sorcery gorefest. Yet they were, for my money, present in spades in Jackson's films.

Originally Posted by Boro

Therefor, when I say 'Jackson' I pretty mean everyone involved.

I thoroughly agree. When things are perceived to be wrong with the films, Jackson generally takes the wrap. It couldn't possibly have been the actors' fault, so let's blame Jackson's direction or the lines that he wrote. It does you credit, Boro, to share the "blame". But I would rather credit all concerned with all that is right about the films (the majority of things, in my view).

As regards the comparison with United 93, I would agree that was a superb film. And, having watched the companion documentary, I was impressed with the lengths to which the director and others involved went to to assuage the feelings of the relatives and enhance the accurate depiction of the protagonists. But don't kid yourself that that film too did not have an eye to the box office. Or indeed, the Bourne Supremacy which, by all accounts, is an action-fest (not my cup of tea, but I am sure that it will be hugely successful and entertain many). But, as Sauron the White points out, we are not talking here about a portrayal of real life events. The considerations involved were different. Jackson was looking to make a successful and entertaining film from Tolkien's novel. There were no relatives to appease or real-life characters to depict correctly. Should he have taken into account the feelings of the Tolkien purists? To my mind he did, and he certainly satisfied me. Of course, many remain dissatisfied. But there is a line to be drawn. In my view, he got that line more or less in the right place.

Originally Posted by Boro

Also Jackson (as well as Walsh and Boyens) showed an extreme disrespect - to the point of arrogance - with the 'I can do better' attitude.

I have seen the interview where one of them (Boyens, I think) says this. To my mind, this line has been misunderstood and misinterpreted by those who criticise the film, often to their own ends. I see them as saying that they changed the book where they thought that it would work better on film. That is their right. They were making a film based on the book. In many respects, I think that they succeeded. The Scouring of the Shire is one example. Much as I personally love that chapter, it would, for the reason that Sauron the White has stated, have been a disaster, film-wise, to add it on to the end, after the major climax of the trilogy. It was not disrespect. It was good film-making. The tomatoes example is simply too trivial to bear response.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I've not been near the films for a while and I'm quite happy with that. I had grown bored with them.

A healthy attitude, I think. Films are not meant to be watched over and over again, until one gets so bored that one picks holes in them to amuse oneself. As I said, I have watched the films only infrequently, with long gaps between them. And I enjoy them all the more for that, when I do watch them again. Equally, I do not read and re-read LotR over and over again, as I am sure that it would bore me too if I did so. I am currently re-reading it again (to my chldren) after a gap of some four years, and thoroughly enjoying it.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Not that I do not like them, no, they're marvellous entertainment, but they don't have the Tolkien Essence I seek.

I would agree that they are marvellous entertainment. And they are, admittedly, not pure Tolkien. Many others had a hand in their making and their influence inevitably shows. Yet, as I have said, for me, they do retain the essence of Tolkien and the essence of his Middle-earth. That is one of the things that, for me, sets them so far above many other films of the same type.

Originally Posted by Boro

Therefor, we end up with a very entertaining movie, yet a bad representation of Tolkien's story.

To my mind, an extremely entertaining film, a reasonable adaptation of Tolkien's story (it was never meant to be, nor could it ever be, an authentic representation), but a wonderful recreation of much of the essence of Tolkien's Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by Boro

I never said there wasn't anything Jackson got right, but just because things were 'right' doesn't mean it just negates everything that he got wrong and changed around.

Is your glass half empty or half full ...?

I don't know why I got myself back into this. When one posts an opinion, one always feels obliged to defend it. Yet, really, I do not care what anyone else thinks of these films. I only care that they are a great source of enjoyment for me. Yet it does annoy me when they are belittled, precisely because I think that they are such great films. So worthy of praise. Yet, because they depart from the book in a number of respects, they are crucified as not being worthy. No, they are not the deepest films ever made. Yet, they had depth. Seriously, just watch Eragon or umpteen other films of the same genre and tell me that these films are not head and shoulders above their rivals. For all the gripping action scenes and unsubtle (Gimli-based) humour, they have moments of great depth and poignancy.

I will finish by relaying my experience of today. As anticipated, we sat and watched TTT, generally held to be the worst of the three films, as far as comparison with the books goes. Yet, once again, so many scenes brought tears to my eyes. The despair of the Three Hunters when they thought Merry and Pippin dead, the pain of the mother sending her children away from the burning village, the unknowing diffidence of Theoden on first hearing of his son's death followed by his very real anguish that he feels when burying his child, Eowyn's lament at Theodred's funeral (mouthed in the background by fellow mourners), the wonderful dialogue between Gollum and Smeagol, the look of fear on the faces of the old men and young boys as they were armed in readiness for defending Helm's Deep, the anguish of their wives and mothers as they left to prepare for battle, the desperate last ride out from the Hornburg, and the appearance of Gandalf astride Shadowfax as the sun rose in the east behind him,. Just a few of the moments that I found incredibly moving, supplemented in no small way by the magnificent score. And, you know what, not all of those were written by Tolkien. Yet, for me, they capture the essence of the world that he created. Heck, I even appreciated the Wargs this time round.

There is so much more to these films than crunching axes and belching Gimlis. And that's what I find so entertaining and so enjoyable about them. I like a good action flick as much as the next fellow. But there is so much more to these films than simple swords and sorcery. Thanks, in a large part, to the man who wrote the book on which they are based. But I give due credit too to those who brought them to the screen for my delectation.

Finally, Boro and others, if you find the films so entertaining, why not just let them entertain you? Why the need to find fault because there were tomatoes present, or because Faramir would never act that way, or because Gandalf would never have let himself be humbled by the Witch-King. These films do not tell the story told by the books, so don't let the books shackle your enjoyment. Enjoy the films for what they are and enjoy the books for what they are. Then, surely, you can let yourself be happy that you are lucky to have two such rich sources of enjoyment.

[Sauron the White]

I know that Verlyn Fleiger (who's wrote 3 stellar books regarding Tolkien) came out and blasted the movies as being just a Hollywood action film. Who's to say she's wrong?

So just to be clear - Verlyn Fleiger is a film expert? She has the qualifications to make these statements and to be considered as someone with the background, education and credentials to pronounce upon the quality of a film? She knows so much about film that the rest of us should be cowed by her opinion and ignore the massive worldwide success of the movies based on box office revenue, industry awards and professional critical acclaim? All this is to be shoved into the dustbin of life because of the opinion on a film by one Verlyn Fleiger?

Which to me shows arrogance on the part of Jackson.

What I see here is a very small number of people who somehow, someway feel that they are the Keepers of the True Knowledge of JRRT. Only they know what is holy and good. The rest of the world is out of step..... those people who bought over $3 billion dollars of tickets to see the movies were fools ..... those critics who praised the films were boobs .... the members of the professional industries who heaped many awards on the three films were all idiots. All are ignorant cretins ...... everybody but that small number of the Chosen Few. You want to talk about arrogonace and lack of respect? Thats a great example of it right there.

[Quempel]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Well Beav if the playing field is level and an actual account of how many tickets were sold the movie, Gone With the Wind spanks everything.


And oh golly Beav, Star Wars A New Hope won a bunch of awards too, including some oscars and BANFA awards.

Just because Gibson made money and won awards off of The Passion doesn't make him Jesus either.

[obloquy]

Tolkien's work has depth and the movies do not. They were made to be blockbusters, and as such their potential value was limited from the start. I would love to see someone come at Tolkien (preferably Hurin) from a more mature angle, as has been discussed elsewhere on the forum, but as long as the Estate exercises no control over who the film rights are sold to, any future installments will be made with CGI monsters being priority number one.

[Sauron the White]

Quote:
I did NOT see SW win the AA award for Best Picture or come anywhere the take of ROTK did with its 11 awards out of 11 nominations. SW won a few technical awards like many sci-fi/fantasy films often do. But its "excellence" stopped with special effects.

from Aiwendil

All the more reason to think SW is the better picture . . .

could you please offer a bit more in the way of explaining that drive-by comment?

And regarding the assertion from JRRT himself that the Scouring of the Shire was an essential and important part of the book and thus should have been in the film .... I would dearly hope that when any author writes a book, everything they put on the page is considered as essential or important. Otherwise, why waste the space? A good editor should see to that. So if that is true, then everything in the book is essential making any cuts of material to film impossible by that criteria.

Again, a book and a film are two very different things, each with their own components, advantages and disadvantages, limits and boundaries and internal demands. To compare them is like comparing apples and cinderblocks. After exhaustive study the expert proclaims proudly that yes indeed apples taste better. However, cinderblocks make for a better building material. Hardly news.

[Boromir88]

So if that is true, then everything in the book is essential making any cuts of material to film impossible by that criteria.~Sauron

Tolkien did say he carefully considered every single on of his 600,000 words (in talking about The Lord of the Rings). However, I disagree with your remarks about the 'essential part of the plot.' Tolkien was no director (and in some ways I'm glad he didn't try to make movies out of his books). We do live in a different time, the majority of people want to see an action packed film, full of explosions and wild chases. So, Tolkien directing a movie for the audience of today, I don't think that would turn out too well. With that being said, he's no fool when it comes to moving making. He understood cuts need to be made as by around 3 hours people's bottoms get sore, and it would be impossible to film his entire book. We critics of the film aren't idiots either:

Contraction of this kind is not the same thing as the necessary reduction or selection of the scenes and events that are to be visually represented.~Letter 210 (Tolkien to Ackerman, in response to the Zimmerman script)

Tolkien understands things need to be cut out, but why he never really warmed up to movies being made off his story is because of the very nature of Hollywood:

But I would ask them to make an effort of imagination sufficient to understand the irritation (and on occasion the resentment) of an author, who finds, increasingly as he proceeds, his work treated as it would seem carelessly in general, in places recklessly, and with no evident signs of any appreciation of what it is all about.

It's not the necessity of 'contracting' scenes that annoyed Tolkien, it's Hollywood's nature to feel the need to change things around and create an action-packed thriller.

And about The Scouring, perhaps we can apply Tolkiens' response to how Zimmerman treated Helm's Deep and the Ents?

If both the Ents and the Hornburg cannot be treated at sufficient length to make sense, then one should go. It should be the Hornburg, which is incidental to the main story...

For the record, I disagree with Tolkien here, as no one wants to see the Ents, they would rather watch some big brawl of 2 large armies crashing into eachother. I'm one of those who would rather see the fight at Helm's Deep. But my point here is, that The Lord of the Rings is about the growth of the hobbits (particularly 4 in general). Tolkien says this right in the Foreward, this story (LOTR) is about them. So, the whole story of Aragorn becoming King, Gondor's war with Sauron, Rohan's involvement...etc are all just subplots. The Lord of the Rings is about the hobbits and I didn't feel this from the movies. I felt in the movies Jackson got it switched around...I probably wouldn't have felt that way if the 'essential part of the plot' was added into the movie.

Before anyone starts talking about there wouldn't be time to add in the Scouring, how about we talk about time usage and Jackson mishandling time? Lets take this comment from Letter 210:

The canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different; and the failure of poor films is often precisely in exaggeration, and in the intrusion of unwarranted matter owing to not perceiving where the core of the original lies.

So, the 'intrusion of unwarranted matter, could this be the warg fight? And having the storyling of Aragorn's 'fall of the cliff' that follows? What's the purpose of that? How about Faramir taking the Hobbits to Osgiliath and having that scene where The Witch-King finds Frodo? Why did Frodo need to be taken to Osgiliath in the first place? Had Jackson not put in his own scenes that have really no purpose in the movie, then perhaps there would be more time for the essential part of the plot?

Sauce you bring up some good points about Jackson capturing some of Tolkien's themes. I think overall the 'friendship/bond' is there (excluding Frodo sending Sam away...I forget what Walsh and Boyens said about that scene I just remember I didn't like it). But, overall ya I definitely got that from the movies. As well as the smaller conquering 'bigger' odds (The Scouring would have shown this more!). But I do think that there are some things missing. What doesn't make sense to me is why does Aragorn stop Theoden from killing Grima in a fit a rage in TTT, but then in ROTK in a fit of rage himself Aragorn beheads the MoS? This creates continuity issues with Aragorn's character, plus misses the whole concept of the 'Rules of War' and the 'gentlemens war' which is in the books.

Also, I think some of these things start taking a back seat to Gimli's toilet humour, and the 'action fights' of the film. Not so much with FOTR (I thought that was well made movie that not only is fun to watch but captures the books the best...I honestly believe that was well done. Can't say I have that same feeling for TTT and ROTK though. Where the battles start replacing the story of the hobbits).

In some ways I can't blame Jackson because he's only making a movie that a lot of people want to see...we want to be entertained for the full length of the movie. That would be hard to do if there wasn't some slugfest that the audience was looking forward to. However, I will make the point that the books were already popular even before Jackson imagined making the movies. I think that as A Mr. Simon argued that the Lord of the Rings was so popular precisely because of the hobbits. The hobbits are most like your normal guy like you and me, and people want to feel a connection with themselves, they want to be able to identify with the characters. So, maybe making a film that focused more around the hobbits and their growth wouldn't have made such a bad unattractive movie at all? And maybe then will I feel that instead of watching an entertaining slugfest (speaking of TTT and ROTK...as I really thought FOTR was the best), I would also feel these movies were more accurate to the story.