Lord of the Rings

[pcweb]

If you consider the style of Tolkien's writing, you can kind of see why the movie was presented in the fashion it was. Tolkien was a very descriptive writer. He would often take pages and pages to describe an image or a setting. I remember when viewing LOTR Part one for the first time, getting chills because their were certain scenes that appeared on the screen EXACTLY as I visualized them while reading the book.

The third book was a difficult book, in my opinion, to conclude in a three hour movie, retain Tolkien's descriptive presentation, while not loosing the viewer in all the was happening in that last book..........and a lot happened no doubt.

Yes, there were probably scenes that could have been left out, and perhaps the movie could have been reduced by 15 minutes or so but I'm not sure that the impact would have been as great. Consider, a lot happened to that merry bunch of friends over the course of just 13 months!!!

I read the series for the first time over 30 years ago and ever since that time, I hoped that someday Hollywood would produce a live action version. To me, the movies are the books...almost word for word.

I now hope that the entire series comes full circle with the Hobbit coming to the silver screen, assuming, of course, that Peter Jackson is involved.

[KualoDennis]

I couldn't agree with you more on your assessment. I think that Tolkein himself would approve of what Peter Jackson was able to accomplish on screen with his magnificent works.

As for the Hobbit, I too wait in great anticipation that it will come to fruition and with Jackson as the producer.

[delinear]

I think the movies were beautifully shot and the special effects amazing, it's hard to see how the battle scene in RotK could be surpassed anytime in the near future, it has to stand as one of the most breathtaking cinematic moments of all time.

Having said that, it's always the case when basing a movie upon a book that has a die-hard fanatic following that you're not going to please all of the people all of the time. I know there's a hell of a lot of stuff to fit in from each book, even with three hours of screentime to play with, but there were some pretty big omissions and plot changes that annoyed me (especially removing Tom from the first movie completely and the Hobbits returning home in RotK to find evil hadn't reached the Shire, completely at odds with the book's message that we should never be complacent otherwise evil can reach anywhere).

For that reason I think the movies are best viewed as a separate entity to the books, "based on" rather than real conversions. In that light they stand now and will always stand as some of the finest works of movie fantasy ever made, and they've made it moderately more tolerable to be into fantasy, RPG's et al which has to be a good thing :)