NationStates Jolt Archive

Peter Jackson, aka that blaspheme son of an orc who dared to insult Tolkien.

Give free rein to your hate!

I mainly dislike him because he ruined the few good female characters that were in those books. Eowyn kicked so much ass in the books, and Jackson turned her into this mooning little twit.

He also totally ruined Faramir by adding in a totally unneeded embellishment on the story.

Pissed me off because Eowyn and Faramir were two of my favorite characters in the books, and became two of my least favorite in the movies.

Edit: Oh! I almost forgot one of the main things I didn't like about the movies! In the books, Aragorn is revealed to be the King when he heals Eowyn and Faramir. In the movies, it just sorta happens and *poof* he's King.

Tolkein's nothing special, but Peter Jackson somehow made the films seem even bloody longer than the books.

Also, King Kong would have been better trimmed by about a half-hour.

Tolkein's nothing special, but Peter Jackson somehow made the films seem even bloody longer than the books.

Never read Tolkien's books, but as much as I love the films, they are too long, I agree.

Also, King Kong would have been better trimmed by about a half-hour.

Agreed.

Never read Tolkien's books, but as much as I love the films, they are too long, I agree.

The third one has like 8 endings, too. In the theater I kept almost getting up because I assumed that NOW it was really over.

And, with all the drawn-out ending that made it feel hours longer than it needed to be, they STILL skipped over the best part of the last book, which was when the hobbits first return to the Shire.

I thought the movies were great. They were not the books though.

The only other Jackson film I've seen was Bad Taste, which was awesome.

Never read Tolkien's books, but as much as I love the films, they are too long, I agree.
The Hobbit is quite a good read, LOTR is pseudo-religious bollocks that's a couple of hundred words too long per book, and the Silmarillion is utter shite.

In my opinion.

The Hobbit is quite a good read, LOTR is pseudo-religious bollocks that's a couple of hundred words too long per book, and the Silmarillion is utter shite.

In my opinion.
I pretty much agree with that.

Now that I think about it, though, my favorite parts of the LOTR books all got cut out of the movies. I like when the Hobbits end up in the barrow-dens. I like the side-plot with Eowyn and Faramir that got mostly removed from the movies. I liked the hobbits returning to the Shire at the end and having to fight a whole new little "war," and I really liked how Saruman's plot got dealt with more.

Ah well. At least the movies had cave trolls.

The third one has like 8 endings, too. In the theater I kept almost getting up because I assumed that NOW it was really over.

And, with all the drawn-out ending that made it feel hours longer than it needed to be, they STILL skipped over the best part of the last book, which was when the hobbits first return to the Shire.

LOL, same here. Every time I assumed it was over, it would continue...on and on and on. I thought it'd never end! :D

The Hobbit is quite a good read, LOTR is pseudo-religious bollocks that's a couple of hundred words too long per book, and the Silmarillion is utter shite.

In my opinion.

I've heard similar things from other people.

I've heard similar things from other people.

I've seen people get lynched for voiced such (ultimately correct) opinions.

Tried reading Fellowship, slogged my way about 2/3 thru it before giving up. Had no interest in the movies at all.

I've seen people get lynched for voiced such (ultimately correct) opinions.
Quite. Aparantely I'm some kind of idiot for not liking them due to their pointless length, because as everyone knows, depth = padding shit out for ages, right?
Tried reading Fellowship, slogged my way about 2/3 thru it before giving up.
I read most of Fellowship, then got bored near the end.

Tried Two Towers, then got bored about halfway in.

Return of the King, got bored very quickly.
Had no interest in the movies at all.
They were nicely shot, but some of the acting was a bit subpar (although to be fair, they only had a melodramatic-as-hell script to work with), and they were too long.

I'd agree with the comment that RotK had about 8 different endings.

"Hey, they're getting married"
"Oh no, the ship"
"Err hobbits in there too"
"Not forgetting the fact that it could have been ended as soon as the Ring was destroyed, about 20 minutes ago now"

Quite. Aparantely I'm some kind of idiot for not liking them due to their pointless length, because as everyone knows, depth = padding shit out for ages, right?

Indeed. Try being an English major and having to deal with the obligatory professor that thinks that Tolkein is the god of fiction...

...and tell them that you're a bigger fan of Robert Jordan.


I read most of Fellowship, then got bored near the end.

Tried Two Towers, then got bored about halfway in.

Return of the King, got bored very quickly.

You're a stronger man than I. Even at the height of my geeky AD&D rules teenage years I couldn't get farther than 2/3 thru Fellowship. The dialogue was uninteresting, the action scenes unfulfilling, and the endless detail only served to weigh down everything.


They were nicely shot, but some of the acting was a bit subpar (although to be fair, they only had a melodramatic-as-hell script to work with), and they were too long.

I'd agree with the comment that RotK had about 8 different endings.

"Hey, they're getting married"
"Oh no, the ship"
"Err hobbits in there too"
"Not forgetting the fact that it could have been ended as soon as the Ring was destroyed, about 20 minutes ago now"

I always thought I'd see them when the idiotic fanboi-ism died down, now I think I'll just pass altogether.

peter jackson is a brilliant filmmaker whose accomplishment in turning a book that could not be made into a movie into 3 really good movies deserved 3 times as many oscars as he got for them

grow the fuck up. movies are not the same as books. movies have never been the same as books. to make a movie watchable and to fit it within a reasonable showing time, things need to be left out or rearranged. deal with it. if you can go to a movie and be transported to the world of the book you have a great movie.

peter jackson did that.

if you think tom bombadil should have been in the movie, or the scouring of the shire, or that faramir wasnt quite right, READ THE FUCKING BOOK. thats what its there for.

Indeed. Try being an English major and having to deal with the obligatory professor that thinks that Tolkein is the god of fiction...

...and tell them that you're a bigger fan of Robert Jordan.
.

You prefer Jordan and think Tolkien pads too much?

Tolkien also has to be given credit for being one of the fathers of the genre, particularly in modern times. Without him it's doubtful many other great fantasy books would be around today.

Indeed. Try being an English major and having to deal with the obligatory professor that thinks that Tolkein is the god of fiction...

...and tell them that you're a bigger fan of Robert Jordan.
I do an English Language course with such people. Fine, we don't cover much literature, but it's brought up now and then, and it's always the same utterly pretentious people who assume that because a book is long, it must be entertaining and and intellectual experience.

A couple of hundred words of Kafka are better stuff than tens of thousands of Tolkein's, that's for sure.
You're a stronger man than I. Even at the height of my geeky AD&D rules teenage years I couldn't get farther than 2/3 thru Fellowship. The dialogue was uninteresting, the action scenes unfulfilling, and the endless detail only served to weigh down everything.
Yes, quite.

"and he did up his boots, which were the third made by an apprentice who was also a part time baker, making the finest elven croissants (or as they're called in this language I somehow found the time to made up, moónb'readert), often served with butter made from the milk of a special type of cow, found only >1342ft above sea level, which is where..."

etc.
I always thought I'd see them when the idiotic fanboi-ism died down, now I think I'll just pass altogether.
They're not actually bad films in the main, and they are beautifully shot, they're just... like the books, but somehow dragged out a bit more, too.

Tolkien also has to be given credit for being one of the fathers of the genre, particularly in modern times. Without him it's doubtful many other great fantasy books would be around today.
Oh and oh what a shame the loss of most of the hackneyed shite that's been produced in the last 50 years in terms of 'fantasy' would be, eh?

Whether or not the film stays faithful to the book is irrelevant IMO. The film is a thoroughly brilliant one, I don't really give a shit about its accuracy.

to make a movie watchable and to fit it within a reasonable showing time, things need to be left out or rearranged.

Doesn't fly with me.

"Gosh, this movie just isn't long enough for the Scouring of the Shire." That's like having a movie about Jesus and saying, "Gosh, there just isn't enough time for the crucifixion. Oh well, that's what the book is for!"

And maybe you could tell me how having the scouring of the shire would make the movie "unwatchable?"


if you think tom bombadil should have been in the movie, or the scouring of the shire, or that faramir wasnt quite right, READ THE FUCKING BOOK. thats what its there for.

Well yeah. The book is there for the Lord of the Rings. The movies are there for Peter Jackson.

Quite. Aparantely I'm some kind of idiot for not liking them due to their pointless length, because as everyone knows, depth = padding shit out for ages, right?

Yawn. The same complaint any kid has about any book longer than a pad of Mad-Libs. Wah, it's too long. It should be shorter. Where's my Frito-Lay munchies. What was I just thinking about? Oh look, MTV.

:D

I read most of Fellowship, then got bored near the end.

Tried Two Towers, then got bored about halfway in.

Return of the King, got bored very quickly.

Meh, well not everyone has the stamina for reading things.

You prefer Jordan and think Tolkien pads too much?

Indeed. I'm full of amusing contradictions like that.


Tolkien also has to be given credit for being one of the fathers of the genre, particularly in modern times. Without him it's doubtful many other great fantasy books would be around today.

Exactly, but that's about all he deserves credit for. They may have started and/or popularized a genre, but the books are still over-hyped, padded more than a 13 year old's bra, and nearly unreadable.

I personally loved the LOTR movies, and think they were very close to Tolkien's spirit and world, even if a few details were different.

So no way for me to bash him !

peter jackson is a brilliant filmmaker whose accomplishment in turning a book that could not be made into a movie into 3 really good movies deserved 3 times as many oscars as he got for them

grow the fuck up. movies are not the same as books. movies have never been the same as books. to make a movie watchable and to fit it within a reasonable showing time, things need to be left out or rearranged. deal with it. if you can go to a movie and be transported to the world of the book you have a great movie.

peter jackson did that.

if you think tom bombadil should have been in the movie, or the scouring of the shire, or that faramir wasnt quite right, READ THE FUCKING BOOK. thats what its there for.Jackson changed the contents of LotR considerably. The book dwells on the secrecy about the One Ring. In the movies everybody in Middle-earth seems to know bout the Ring, even Sauron. But the point is that if Sauron had had any slightest idea where his Ring was, he would have come himself and the story would have been over pretty quick.

Doesn't fly with me.

"Gosh, this movie just isn't long enough for the Scouring of the Shire." That's like having a movie about Jesus and saying, "Gosh, there just isn't enough time for the crucifixion. Oh well, that's what the book is for!"

And maybe you could tell me how having the scouring of the shire would make the movie "unwatchable?"



Well yeah. The book is there for the Lord of the Rings. The movies are there for Peter Jackson.

gee i dont know, how much time do you think would have been needed to do justice to the scouring of the shire? another half an hour? an hour?

what should have been left out of the last movie to make room for that much time? as it was they didnt even have time to show what happened to eowyn after she killed the nasgul. they had to lump the coronation in with the wedding, they didnt have time to have theoden returned to rohan, they had to shorten how much they showed of frodo and sam in mordor, and other things that dont jump to mind right now.

a book can go on and on (as tolkien amply demonstrated) a movie has to end. it was bad enough that the 3rd movie had so many "endings" it just doesnt work to have a whole nother movie tacked onto the end of the war of the ring.

and no, i dont see the scouring of the shire as the equivalent of the crucifiction. its an excellent episode in an endless book but its not the most important thing in the book.

the movies are great. as movies. when you read the books, you get more of the story--as it should be. (if you can bear to read the books, i love them but i understand why many people find them a terrible read)

Whether or not the film stays faithful to the book is irrelevant IMO. The film is a thoroughly brilliant one, I don't really give a shit about its accuracy.

What he said.

Been too much drama over this...for over nearly a decade ago (counting pre-productions).

Jackson changed the contents of LotR considerably. The book dwells on the secrecy about the One Ring. In the movies everybody in Middle-earth seems to know bout the Ring, even Sauron.

Really ? The FOTR movie is quite clear about that: the Ring was lost. "history became legend, legend became myth" says the prologue. Even Gandalf doesn't recognize the Ring at first, and when he comes back from Gondor, he's not even sure. The movie shows clearly that Golum was tortured by Sauron to get informations about the Ring.

And except Aragorn, no one seems to think about the Ring when Frodo disappears in the inn, for example...

But the point is that if Sauron had had any slightest idea where his Ring was, he would have come himself and the story would have been over pretty quick.

Sauron could not really "come himself". He was defeated by Gandalf and Saruman not so long ago in Dol Guldur, and he was still recovering his strength. But as soon as he heard, from Golum, that the Ring was in the Shire, he sent his best servants - the Nazgul. That's the same in both the book and the movie.

Jackson changed the contents of LotR considerably. The book dwells on the secrecy about the One Ring. In the movies everybody in Middle-earth seems to know bout the Ring, even Sauron. But the point is that if Sauron had had any slightest idea where his Ring was, he would have come himself and the story would have been over pretty quick.

yeah i know.

doesnt matter.

he left out tons of episodes that i really like, he rearranged dialog and put it into the mouths of others, he had people go places they didnt go in the books, all sorts of things.

and he made a movie that transports you to middle earth. i found that knowing his "mistakes" didnt affect my enjoyment of what was onscreen. he did what no one thought could be done.

They were nicely shot, but some of the acting was a bit subpar (although to be fair, they only had a melodramatic-as-hell script to work with), and they were too long.

Too long ? No way ! The long version (director cut DVD) were much, much better than the original release.

I'd agree with the comment that RotK had about 8 different endings.

And that's normal. LOTR is the end of an age. There is a lot to tell, on its consequences. And there are 9 (well, 8, one died) members of the Fellowship that we would like to know their future. LOTR is all about the end. It's the end of Sauron, but also the end of the elves in midde earth. It was fundemantal to the movie to show all that. And they even left out many things, which would have been welcomed, if technical/commercial issues didn't force the movie to be so short...

[QUOTE]Indeed. Try being an English major and having to deal with the obligatory professor that thinks that Tolkein is the god of fiction...

Well, here's one English professor who doesn't think Tolkien is the god of fiction. My 11-year-old son, who is no slouch as a reader, asked me to start reading LOTR to him, I think because he gave up on reading it himself. Try reading Tolkien aloud, every word, and you'll realise how desperately he needed an editor: after a week I began to think, "Are they ever getting out of the effing Shire? I really didn't remember it being this long!" That, and the dialogue sometimes makes George Lucas look like Shakespeare.

We moved on the His Dark Materials, which is a delight to read aloud, and which provides far more fruitful and lively discussion than Tolkien ever could.

I actually liked the films, tho' I never saw them in the theatre, and think the DVD versions provide a better environment: when you get tired, you can switch off, and pick it up again later.

yeah i know.

doesnt matter.

he left out tons of episodes that i really like, he rearranged dialog and put it into the mouths of others, he had people go places they didnt go in the books, all sorts of things.

and he made a movie that transports you to middle earth. i found that knowing his "mistakes" didnt affect my enjoyment of what was onscreen. he did what no one thought could be done.I've seen all the documentaries that come with the extended DVD set. Nevertheless I believe that Jackson made changes that were unnecessary and that damaged the work of Tolkien. After all, the material was not his own.

peter jackson is a brilliant filmmaker whose accomplishment in turning a book that could not be made into a movie into 3 really good movies deserved 3 times as many oscars as he got for them

Like the Award for the Worst Manipulation of a Script, Award for the Kiss Between A Man And A Horse In A Topic Moment, Award for the Most Useless Actress In A I-Should-Be-An-Angelic-Woman-But-I-Get-To-Wield-A-Katana Part, Award for the Most Lousy Repetitive And Boring Music, etc...

grow the fuck up. movies are not the same as books. movies have never been the same as books.
Go watch some bloody rendition made by serious and competent filmmakers, like Tarkovskij's Solaris, or Moby Dick, just to quote two of them. pj's movies are even worse than the Conan movies - and coming from a better text, that's saying something.

to make a movie watchable and to fit it within a reasonable showing time, things need to be left out or rearranged.
Left out? Yes. "Rearranged", maybe.
Totally invented NEW scenes? I daresay not - since there was spaces for NEW scenes, pj could have left them out and stuck to the bloody text. No, he had to make "Lord of the Hack'em-Alls" and compete with "D&D-the movie".


deal with it. if you can go to a movie and be transported to the world of the book you have a great movie.
Which, of course, LotR movies aren't.



if you think tom bombadil should have been in the movie, or the scouring of the shire, or that faramir wasnt quite right, READ THE FUCKING BOOK. thats what its there for.

1.I've read the "FUCKING BOOK" in two different bloody languages, young man. The original English and the Italian translation. AND MORE THAN ONCE.

2.If you think that the first battle scene (rohan fugitives vs orcs) in the Two Towers are taken from the book, READ THE BOOK. Which, of course, you don't remember very well, to use an euphemism.

And maybe you could tell me how having the scouring of the shire would make the movie "unwatchable?"


Because there are no shootouts, I guess.

I think the book sucked... The films were much better.

gee i dont know, how much time do you think would have been needed to do justice to the scouring of the shire? another half an hour? an hour?

Not sure. But he didn't leave it out for timing reasons, but rather because he didn't think modern Americans could handle a movie where the good guys get their environment wrecked after defeating the bad guys.

No, that would be a meaningful point, hell that might even be the whole point of the damn trilogy - no matter who wins or loses, all the war destroys things and wounds everybody. Because that's what war does. But no! Can't have THAT! No, let's have Eowyn having a crush on studmuffin Aragorn! Let's have the dwarf fall off the horse, gosh that would be FUNNY.


a book can go on and on (as tolkien amply demonstrated) a movie has to end.

Um. Books have to end too.

The movie was quite long so there's not much harm in making it just a little longer in order to do justice to the source material. Do you honestly think people wouldn't have gone to see the last movie if it was longer? That the movie wouldn't make money? What?

it was bad enough that the 3rd movie had so many "endings" it just doesnt work to have a whole nother movie tacked onto the end of the war of the ring.

And the reason it had so many "endings" is because....?

Oh yeah, Peter Jackson decided to make it that way. Cuz he's a big fat turd.

and no, i dont see the scouring of the shire as the equivalent of the crucifiction. its an excellent episode in an endless book but its not the most important thing in the book.

That's arguable. In any case the situations are comparable. Slicing off the tip removes a lot of the good stuff. Ask any woman.

Like the Award for the Worst Manipulation of a Script, Award for the Kiss Between A Man And A Horse In A Topic Moment, Award for the Most Useless Actress In A I-Should-Be-An-Angelic-Woman-But-I-Get-To-Wield-A-Katana Part, Award for the Most Lousy Repetitive And Boring Music, etc...


Go watch some bloody rendition made by serious and competent filmmakers, like Tarkovskij's Solaris, or Moby Dick, just to quote two of them. pj's movies are even worse than the Conan movies - and coming from a better text, that's saying something.


Left out? Yes. "Rearranged", maybe.
Totally invented NEW scenes? I daresay not - since there was spaces for NEW scenes, pj could have left them out and stuck to the bloody text. No, he had to make "Lord of the Hack'em-Alls" and compete with "D&D-the movie".


Which, of course, LotR movies aren't.




1.I've read the "FUCKING BOOK" in two different bloody languages, young man. The original English and the Italian translation. AND MORE THAN ONCE.

2.If you think that the first battle scene (rohan fugitives vs orcs) in the Two Towers are taken from the book, READ THE BOOK. Which, of course, you don't remember very well, to use an euphemism.

then you should never go see a movie that was made from a book. you have no understanding of what it takes to make a good movie.

I thought this was about the other more important Peter Jackson but i find itsabout that PJ let hope he doesn't mess up the Dambusters remake

Wow. Good to see people can't appreciate writing when they see it. It takes a certain taste, perhaps, but because you dont have the patience its not a good book? Don't make me laugh.

As a lifelong Tolkien fan (and I do mean "lifelong" - my real first name is in Quenya) who has read LOTR enough times that she knows it backwards and forwards, I have to say: I don't hate Peter Jackson. I strongly disagree with some of the choices he made (drastically altering Faramir's character, cutting Eowyn's awesome speech to the Nazgul, making the Ents make snap decisions, and removing the Scouring of the Shire being some of my larger gripes), but overall, I was pretty happy with the movies, and at least some of the credit for that has to go to Jackson.

Oh, and to those of you whining about how LOTR is too long and dense to be good - Tolkien's strength, in my view, was not creating a story (although he did a rather good job of that, too), but creating a world. The wealth of detail in the books makes Middle Earth feel utterly real and believable, and that's what kept me in love with Tolkien's work all these years. (Further, anyone who complains that Tolkien isn't as good as the people who came after him seems unaware of just how profoundly influential Tolkien was. The foundation of a house may not be its prettiest part, but the rest of the house could never exist without it.)

Yawn. The same complaint any kid has about any book longer than a pad of Mad-Libs. Wah, it's too long. It should be shorter. Where's my Frito-Lay munchies. What was I just thinking about? Oh look, MTV.

:D
No really, it's effing dull.

If you think otherwise, then you're probably just deluding yourself that you're having fun.
Meh, well not everyone has the stamina for reading things.
It's not about stamina, they're just overrated shite.

Wow. Good to see people can't appreciate writing when they see it. It takes a certain taste, perhaps, but because you dont have the patience its not a good book? Don't make me laugh.
Patience is just a measure of how much utter crap you're willing to put up with. Running out of patience with something is just a sign that it's dull, bland and other such negative adjectives.

LOTR is pseudo-religious and hackneyed, and the films did a good job of portraying this well.

No really, it's effing dull.

If you think otherwise, then you're probably just deluding yourself that you're having fun.

Reading is not a fun activity in the first place. If you pick up a book expecting to have some sort of party, that explains why you're so disappointed with it.

It's not about stamina, they're just overrated shite.

Overrated perhaps, because of the movies and the attention and near-glorification they brought on. Shite? Hardly.

Patience is just a measure of how much utter crap you're willing to put up with. Running out of patience with something is just a sign that it's dull, bland and other such negative adjectives.

Patience is entirely subjective. Some people don't have the patience to read for more than five minutes. That doesn't mean reading is dull, bland, and everything else negative. It means they don't have the patience to cope with it. The stamina. ;)

I love the movies, and I heart Peter soooo much! :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:


*Flees*

What?! Why is everyone insulting Peter Jackson just because he was CHOSEN, not volunteered, to make three of the best made movies in the world? He won around twenty Academy Awards for that trilogy, and he damned well deserved them too! I don't see why anyone should hate the guy.
Maybe you just hate non-Americans...

:upyours:

What?! Why is everyone insulting Peter Jackson just because he was CHOSEN, not volunteered, to make three of the best made movies in the world? He won around twenty Academy Awards for that trilogy, and he damned well deserved them too! I don't see why anyone should hate the guy.
Maybe you just hate non-Americans...No. We just hate Tolkien-destroyers.
:upyours:

What?! Why is everyone insulting Peter Jackson just because he was CHOSEN, not volunteered, to make three of the best made movies in the world?
I suggest you start watching some more movies.

Even if you aren't offended by Jackson's vision of Middle Earth, ham acting, reliance on CG and some woefully cheesy dialogue should mark out the LotR trilogy as, at the best, above-average Hollywood schlock.

Hell, Jackson's earlier stuff -- Braindead, Bad Taste and Meet The Feebles -- is far superior. I'll take Kiwis attacking zombies with lawnmowers over Orlando Bloom failing to act any day.

This topic reminds me of "The Last Temptation of Christ".

What?! Why is everyone insulting Peter Jackson just because he was CHOSEN, not volunteered, to make three of the best made movies in the world? He won around twenty Academy Awards for that trilogy, and he damned well deserved them too! I don't see why anyone should hate the guy.
Maybe you just hate non-Americans...

:upyours:

You must be new to the internets. You might as well learn right out of the box: There's no pleasing fanboys. It's 'chapter and verse' or nothing, and frankly, they'd find a way to complain about that, too. It's best to just shrug it off.

Ill never knock Pete Jackson...the guy created Brain Dead...which lets be honest is the greatest Zombie movie ever...just because the nerd brigade doesnt like the fact he didnt translate Tolkiens book word for word doesnt mean he's not a great director...and im a brit...so you yanks have got no right to comment on Tolkiens works anyway ;)

gee i dont know, how much time do you think would have been needed to do justice to the scouring of the shire? another half an hour? an hour?

what should have been left out of the last movie to make room for that much time?

Arwen.

The side-plot with Faramir dragging Frodo out of his way.

Any of the other 8 endings to the movie.

Ta-da! And you have your half hour back. :D

Jackson added a bunch of random crap that wasn't in the books. Clearly, he found time to shove extraneous material in when it suited him. I'd just as soon have had all that left out and instead get the quality points of the original story.


a book can go on and on (as tolkien amply demonstrated) a movie has to end. it was bad enough that the 3rd movie had so many "endings" it just doesnt work to have a whole nother movie tacked onto the end of the war of the ring.

It's all personal opinion. I think the movie would have been stronger if other choices had been made about the content. You don't. That's fine.


and no, i dont see the scouring of the shire as the equivalent of the crucifiction. its an excellent episode in an endless book but its not the most important thing in the book.

I think it was an absolutely critical part of the books. Instead of one big battle magically solving everything, it showed how there was still a mess to be cleaned up. It also showed the hobbits applying everything they had learned in their travels. It was a major, major element, and I think the movie suffered tremendously when it was left out. It made the ending feel extremely weak and unsatisfying to me.


the movies are great. as movies. when you read the books, you get more of the story--as it should be.
I'm not debating that. When you make a movie from a book you have to pick and choose what goes in the film. I think Jackson made some spectacularly bad choices (along with some good ones, of course).

Reading is not a fun activity in the first place. If you pick up a book expecting to have some sort of party, that explains why you're so disappointed with it.
...

I do actually enjoy reading a decent book, you know. I'm not some kind of cretin...
Overrated perhaps, because of the movies and the attention and near-glorification they brought on. Shite? Hardly.
Yeah, I'd pretty much say shite.

The sheer amount of padding just adds to it all. Some call it 'building a world'. The point of reading for leisure isn't to have adjectives and sub-plots thrown at you, it's to read something challenging.

Padding crap out doesn't make it challenging, it just makes it tiresome.
Patience is entirely subjective. Some people don't have the patience to read for more than five minutes. That doesn't mean reading is dull, bland, and everything else negative. It means they don't have the patience to cope with it. The stamina. ;)
It's not reading that I can't stand, because I do it for bloody hours when I'm researching for my coursework. It's just that LOTR is crap.

What?! Why is everyone insulting Peter Jackson just because he was CHOSEN, not volunteered, to make three of the best made movies in the world?
I'm not insulting him for that, I'm insulting him because he doesn't know how to edit him films, nor pick a decent cast, it seems.

Three better films than LOTR -

Das Leben Der Anderen, which is Really Quite Good although nothing like LOTR at all. It's a bit overhyped due to receiving a whole ton of five-star reviews and awards, but it's a great film nonetheless.

Blade Runner, which is, again, Really Quite Good. Not the version with the voiceovers that Harrison Ford obviously couldn't be arsed with, mind (can't say I blame him).

La Haine, which is Very Spiffing. Because it is, really.

Reading is not a fun activity in the first place.
...