[Sir Kohran]

If you're making LotR as an action adventure movie like Star Wars then you're correct.

Let's face it - that's how the movies are viewed. What makes them so good is their ability to be more than just a CGI-filled mess of fight scenes. Unlike the cardboard acting in Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings movies managed to be moving and emotional on a level that most action adventure movies can't even attempt.

The moral/philosophical dimension of Tolkien's story was ignored in favour of producing a SFX heavy saga.

How many people left the cinema saying, 'Well, the acting and the special effects were great, but I don't think they got across the Catholic themes of temptation and redemption'?

Bottomline is this - audiences don't go to cinemas to see philosophy/half an hour of talking/singing men in yellow boots/exploration of Christian morality/discussions on the ethics of Eru destorying Numenor. These things just don't make for good movies.

And anyway, are you suggesting they shouldn't have used SFX/CGI? How else would you create Minas Tirith or the Oliphaunts or the Trolls? Without using such methods you'd end up with a movie that would completely fail to capture the visual majesty that Middle-Earth has.

A different director with a different approach to the material could have made Bombadil & the Council work.

But would the movie have been as good?

Jackson did not simply put Tolkien's story on the screen as it is in the book, he chose to focus on the battles & action, to the extent that they overwhelm the subtleties of Tolkien's creation.

Only in your opinion.

Those defending Jackson here seem to believe that either his approach to the story is the only possible one, or at least the best one.

No, but I believe it was a good one. Not perfect, but a good one given the pressure he was under. He could have made a wooden, bland, CGI-filled video game with bad acting (Eragon and Dungeons and Dragons come to mind) and yet he managed to deliver a trilogy that was both visually stunning and emotionally moving at the same time.

If the focus was to be on Frodo & his quest then there should have been less screen time given to Helm's Deep/Pelennor Fields & more on his journey through Mordor, & the Scouring of the Shire should have been included & given the emphasis it deserved - as should the events in the Barrow, which is his first real test against the Ring.

Admittedly a little too much focus was put on the human side of things in TTT, but I think ROTK gave a perfectly fine amount of time to the Hobbit's story - Minas Morgul, Shelob's Lair, Cirith Ungol, the trek across Gorgoroth, Frodo's agony under the Ring, Sam's carrying of Frodo up the mountainside, the final confrontation between them and Gollum - it's all in the movie. And don't forget the last scenes of the movie all concern the four Hobbits and what happens to them.

Now, I think a better approach to the story would have been to focus on Frodo's journey all through, including the Old Forest/Barrow Downs & including the Scouring,

Oh come on, countless reasons for the removal of all of these have been given - the biggest being that they just take up too much time.

with Helm's Deep/Pelennor Fields given the kind of minor (in terms of narrative time) treatment they receive in the book.

How were they given minor treatment? Half of TTT and half of ROTK don't even include Frodo and Sam. And how would you give characters like Eowyn, Faramir, Treebeard, Denethor, etc. proper development with so much time being given over to Frodo and Sam?



I think the real issue with you, davem, is that you want an exact replica of the books, with all other concerns being put second to recreating Tolkien's books to the letter. That may be perfectly fine in a small radio show but in the big world of cinema where movies have to appeal to millions to be successful, it simply doesn't happen. You should not expect it to.