[Boromir88]

Just as SpM has been a supporter of Jackson's films, I have been the harsh critic. Though, I will give Jackson credit, when I think credit is due, but to me Jackson made a lot of 'fatal' mistakes.

So what do I think of the movies? Well as movies are out to make money and 'entertain' I would say Jackson did an absolute stellar job. If I want to keep myself focused and entertained for a good 3+ hours I pop in one of them. For many different reasons, the cast, the battles, the music...etc all make the movies fun to watch. And so as films, I agree with Sauce they will stand the test of time.

However, as these films are 'based' off of JRR Tolkien's story, and Jackson, Walsh, Boyens...etc were propelling. LOTR was already an extremely popular book long before Jackson came up with an idea of making them into movies. 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.

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.

(As a disclaimer I'm going to say 'Jackson' a lot, to which I mean 'Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, Newline...the whole crew, because it gets burdensome to list everyone involved or just say 'Jackson in Company' all the time. It's very easy to blame the one person who is the figure head everyone knows and recognizes. Jackson is the director of the film, he is the man making the decisions, so he should take the praise, or the criticism. However, problems with the movies, may not solely be Jackson's fault - it may not even be his fault at all.

Newline controlled the purse, and those who control the money, often control the power. Newline was pumping money into the film, you better believe they wanted to see a lot of money in return. It's a business, that's what happens. Newline was funding the 'project,' if they weren't happy with it, funding's gone...plug pulled. So, you better believe Newline was going to get the film they wanted.

Therefor, when I say 'Jackson' I pretty mean everyone involved. I use Jackson's name because he is the director who put himself in the forefront. When things go right Jackson gets most the praise, so it's only fair that when things go wrong Jackson bears the brunt of the critism. Anyway that's my little side rant ).

Did the movies bring Middle-earth to life? For me, no, because Middle-earth was already brought to life by the books. I think Tolkien did an amazing job with the use of language and imagery that got me to imagine the characters, their motivations, the plot...etc just by using language. It was the books that brought Middle-earth to life. But, that's my own personal opinion, as I read them before watching the films. Maybe if you saw the films first it is different, I don't know. But, for me, the films didn't bring Middle-earth to life, because the books had already done that.

Are the films Tolkien's middle-earth? I agree with Elladan and say they're not. Yes characters are given the same name (although some are made up), and the same general plot happens...but many of the characters are changed, many things are added (and changed) therefor, I don't think it's a good representation of Tolkien's Middle-earth. It is a creation of Jackson.

I was asked if the books were 'unfilmable.' I mean they're so long, there's a lot of depth to them...etc. Can a good representation actually be made? I think so, depending upon the motives of those in charge. Since Hollywood is a business, sadly 'money' often takes over as the primary motive, and not really the 'purpose of the author' takes a back seat.

No one claims that a carbon copy has to be made to make a good representation of the books. Even the author himself in Letter 210 says the deletion of scenes is a necessity if a film is to be made off his books. However, he was so apprehensive about movies being made because often times (in Hollywood) what happens is directors 'change' things without considering the intent of the author or how that change effects the meaning of the story. There are a lot of things 'different,' a lot of characters 'different,' so what we end up with is a different story. Yes the same thing happens in the end, but it is still not 'Middle-earth.'

I'm not talking about here whether the changes Jackson made were better for a film, since it is a different medium. As the question I'm answering is 'are these good representations' completely different from 'does this change work for the movies?'

No you don't need a carbon copy to create an accurate representation of the story, all you need is a director who never loses site of what is important...and that is the authenticity of the story.

Paul Greengrass, who directed the recent 'Borne Ultimatum' (getting great reviews and I can't wait to see it) also made the controversial United 93. Greengrass was facing a lot of heat when he was making this film. Critics were saying he shouldn't be doing it, they were saying he was just trying to make money off of a tragedy. But Greengrass creates a great film...why? Because he never got dragged down by Hollywood and never lost focus of the authenticity of the event.

Before starting the film Greengrass went to the family members who lost love ones on that plane and first asked them 'Hey can I make this film?' And also if they were willing he asked them to describe their loved ones...how were they like? How did they look? Do you remember what they were wearing? Did you talk to them that day? What did you talk about? Greengrass never lost sight of the authenticity of what happened on that plane, and what we have is a finished product that is not only emotional, powerful, and outright stunning, but also...authentic.

I never got this same feeling from Jackson. Sure he spent years making the film, but he spent years making his own story, completely different from making an accurate story of Tolkien's world. Also Jackson (as well as Walsh and Boyens) showed an extreme disrespect - to the point of arrogance - with the 'I can do better' attitude. Ok, it's nice to have confidence, but let's be real. Tolkien was a man who C.S. Lewis said, was 'inside language.' Tolkien, maybe not as far as films go, but as far as 'creating a good story,' had far more knowledge than Jackson (and everyone involved) combined.

Some of the 'arrogant' remarks I was talking about. Tolkien said that The Scouring was an 'essential part of the plot.' When asked why Jackson left it out of the movies he said it was a 'no brainer.' Now, whether leaving out the Scouring was better for the films or not, isn't the issue. First off we don't know, because we don't really have something of the same sort to compare it to. Also, again I am talking about a representation of the story. Jackson decided leaving out the Scouring was a 'no brainer,' eventhough the author said it was an 'essential part of the plot.'

Also, Tolkien said that tomatoes did not belong in Middle-earth...Jackson found out this info and said 'that's silly.' What did he do? He put tomatoes in his story. May seem small and insignificant, but it shows a complete disregard and disrespect to the author. So, I never get the same feeling that Jackson cared about 'authenticity' in the way that Greengrass did when he made United 93.

I can live with many of Jackson's changes, because for the most part he has a reasonable explanation. He at least explains what he was trying to do for the film and how it works (most of the time). Therefor, I can live with Eomer saving the day instead of Erkenbrand and Arwen replacing Glorfindel. But, changes like the ones I mentioned a few paragraphs above is no excuse, that's just disrespect.

It's not that Tolkien's story is 'unfilmable.' (In fact an author has 1 medium to capture their audience...language...words. A director has several not only language - dialogue - but also through vision with sets and costumes, emotions through music...etc. It should be a lot easier for a director than!) It's not that a 100% carbon copy has to be made to create an accurate representation of Tolkien's books. It's the fact that Jackson (and everyone) was more concerned about other things than creating an authentic story, and so what we get is a bad representation of the story.