[Lush]

lindil, my dear, I will try to be brief.<P>Basically, I want you to try and understand the fact that while other Tolkien readers and non-readers may respond to the movies in different ways, that does not necessarily make some "wrong" and some "right." In a debate like this, there are no winners and no losers, because it all comes down to personal issues that influence our reactions to Peter Jackson. The fact that you have read the books over twenty times should not give you some form of advantage in this debate, especially since you have not provided any concrete evidence that you understand Tolkien's vision better that Peter Jackson, his crew, Liv Tyler (well, Liv's understanding of Tolkien can easily be questioned, but she's just an actress anyway, judging from her interviews she does not appear to care a whole lot) and those of us who don't mind the morphing of her role in the least. <P>As far as I can tell, you are lamenting the mere fact that Arwen replaced Glorfindel, drew a sword, etc., etc. You have every right to do that, but I fail to see how your opinions should somehow matter more than those of Rindowen's, just because you've been reading the books since the 70's. If anything, I can understand where you're coming from, especially the emotional aspect of the issue, but I wish you would accept where people such as myself are coming from as well. <P>And, I want you to remember that, while we are all in here fuming, Peter Jackson & Co. are laughing all the way to the bank. It doesn't make them a bunch of bad people. They know how to make a buck, while most of us don't. And there is nothing morally wrong with that, as long as they're not going out of their way to hurt someone...Have the movies actually hurt you personally in any way? Hell, I felt pretty hurt when "Enemy at the Gates" portrayed the Russian offensive as a bunch of vodka guzzling dingbats, but I ended up laughing about it and moving on. Maybe you ought to do the same? I doubt that PJ made the movies just to "pi** off lindil." Or littleman, or Willie, or anyone else for that matter. He did the best he could while still keeping his paycheck (same goes for the people who made "Enemy at the Gates," though their storytelling talents did not match Jackson's in the least). He didn't owe anything to you guys personally, I think you're mature enough to acccept that, and stop troubling yourself so much. <P>Furthermore,<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Neither of us can prove either way our point defintively, but Cleopatra was not, i think the best rejoinder, because it had not previously been voted Book/Author of the Century and read by Millions of current Movie-goers when they were young.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's perfectly fine. What about "The Bonfire of the Vanities" then? Both versions of "Lolita" (4th on <I>some</I> list of the greatest works of literature of this century, that as far as I recall, didn't even have the LOTR in the top ten, but had <I>Ulysses</I> as number one, and that's saying a lot right there.)? "Anna Karenina" (surely you would agree that Leo Tolstoy is relavtively "decent" competition for Tolkien)? <P>And remember, the above films didn't have to have <I>half</I> the budget that the LOTR needed to look decent. <P>The point I am trying to make is that, once again, there are no guarantees, especially not in the movie business. Had Peter Jackson's films not delivered, and believe me, if they did not appeal to those who never read Tolkien, they wouldn't have, not on the same level that would have justified the project in the first place, New Line would have been in serious financial trouble, and a lot of talented people would have been in trouble as well. <P>Therefore, with all that, and my previous points in mind, I say to hell with going for each other's throats over Arwen's character, and to hell with judging Peter Jackson, a man none of us (as far as I know) have ever met.<P>[ February 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]<p>[ February 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]