Come on, stop being so lame. I’d like to see any of you make better films.

… and just “The Hobbit.”

yo an if any o’ yis all is hatin, ive read the trilogy more than ten times the last couple years, and the hobbit even mor ther the best books out ther

It wasn’t the “industry” that:

1.paid homage to Ray Harryhausen by showing the “extended” vision of the troll in Moria (should have only really been the foot of the troll) and/or for that matter the “watcher in the water” (should have only been the tentacle of the watcher) – could have used the Balrog or maybe even Shelob to satisfy his “homage”.

2. made the “refugees” go from Edoras to Helm’s Deep – they should have gone to Dunharrow (Dunharrow was shown in the film(s) anyway)

3. required “the big build up of the fight” at Helm’s deep – this was not required as it was not even the “major battle” in the LOTR – a much bigger “build up” than what was shown for the battle on the Pelennor Fields would have been better – if in fact it was required at all.

4.had Elves at Helm’s deep (to “re-enforced” the bond between man and elves – should have been done at the Pelennor fields battle instead (though again incorrectly – but might have been more “acceptable” to purists).

5. Legolas sliding down a shield at Helm’s deep and /or for that matter later “climbing” up an Oliphaunt (not really required as the scenes that these occurred in were already shot with enough “excitment”).

6. Faramir, Golum, Frodo and Sam at Osgiliath at the same time (not necessary – could have re-enforced (even more so) the “change of Faramir’s attitude towards the ring and etc” by the ring-bearer party at Henneth Annun).

7. The battle (or confrontation) between Gandalf and The Witch King – really should have been just like in the book (and would have been much more dramatic) especially if one follows the passage as it was written in the books: “In rode the Lord of the Nazgul…..You cannot enter here…..” – would also have helped eliminate the need for the “ghosts” from the Paths of the Dead to enter Gondor.

and the list goes on and on.

“No, wake up guys! Listen to the director’s commentary on the “making of” on the extended versions of the films” to see why the changes where made.

Seriously however, what “annoys” most purists ultimately (and more importantly) about “Jackson’s” version of the LOTR films is that “Jackson” was in fact given the “resources” and “scope” “by the industry” to make the films in a way that would have allowed the films to be made closer to the books – than what he did (ok yes the films were close but again they still were not “acceptably” close enough). Granted, some of the changes he made were on the whole “industry driven”(the whole Arwen “factor” – to make the film appeal to both the sexes) but instead he chose to “over use” his “creative licence” in the making of the films and he made too many “major” changes (or deviations from the books) that were not “industry” driven as shown by the few (of the many) examples above.

As far as actors reading the books, I know that Chistopher Lee said that he reads the trilogy once a year.

I don’t think that they should bring in characters that weren’t in the Hobbit, but maybe it will make sense when we find more out about this mysterious second movie.

I’m just REALLY disappointed that Peter Jackson isn’t directing this movie.

But, perhaps the rest of the LOTR characters could be reprised for the mysterious second movie.

At the beginning of FOTR, it was obvious that quite a few people knew Aragorn. The elves of Rivendell, for example, including Elrond, Arwen, and the twins, and also the elves of Caras and Mirwood, including Legolas, Glofindel, and Haldir.

Gandalf, Theoden, and Theoden’s father also knew Aragorn.

So, these relationships and encounters could be depicted.

Or not.

I think that by being perfectly unknown to the audience the characters of LOTR were more intriguing and the movies were more interesting had we had a background of who each was.