[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Bill Clinton made headline when he said "it depends on what the meaning of is is".

I hope it doesn't come as a surprise to you that this was not a stellar moment for Mr. Clinton, as there is only one meaning of the word, "is".

So with this issue I guess it depends on what the meaning of IT is.

"IT" is Tolkien's themes and spirit, which PJ said he was trying to emulate.

Did Jackson get IT in the same way that so very much of the book purist community gets IT? Obviously not. Of course, I am sure that that same book purist community does not get IT referring to the process of making a motion picture that is successful and is seen by a wide audience.

If "purist" means "true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien", then I gladly accept the appellation. The point is that PJ said he was trying be true to the spirit and themes of Tolkien, and completely failed. I was actually cutting him slack by suggesting that he didn't really know what he was doing. LotR is not merely an "action/adventure" flick, even though PJ stamped it that way for millions of viewers. When the story Tolkien wrote didn't fit the genre clichés, PJ decided that Tolkien was wrong and "improved" the story. Frustrating.

I am sure that Jackson and his team will tell you that they most certainly did get IT and tried to portray IT as best as they could within the confines of a film. But like Clinton, its probable that the Jackson definition of IT is a whole lot different than the book purist community definition of IT.

You do not help your case by invoking Clinton's Saruman-like blandishment on truth and fact. And all I can say to your probability is, "more's the pity".

Lets face it - nobody ever really thinks they are wrong. Especially when the world seems to validate your efforts with money, critical praise and industry awards.

This does not speak highly of the world.

As to why Gollum looks like he does in the movies, PJ's original intention was to have him look like the classical representation from the books; but when Andy Serkis did such an amazing job of acting the part, PJ asked his animators to mix together Gollum with Serkis' own face. The result was to create a face from Gollum that reminded Serkis of his own grandfather.

Funny, I found the "cat coughing up a hairball" speaking technique for Gollum in the movie to be difficult to understand, distracting, and unfortunate. Ah well. Minor issue.

"Cute!?!" What a shame. No, I cannot accept that the medium alone explains all the differences as "necessary". There are too many movies made that are too well done for that to explain the entirety of why (not if) the movies are inferior to the books.