Jackson Purists Deplore Tolkien Changes

Having seen Jackson's masterwork--a stunning, staggering trilogy of epic proportions--I can only shake my head at the folly of this Tolkien fellow in trying to claim ownership of the idea for the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien seems to think that he can invent new characters and gloss over others at will--where, as many of you cried, is that sexy blond elf-prince? surely not the singing, hair-color-unknown pansy that accompanies the fellowship and squeals like a little girl at the sight of a wingless Balrog! I can only hope that Tolkien recognises his astounding folly in setting himself against PJ before he makes a complete and utter chump of himself.
Rumormongering, I have heard that PJ's idea for the name of that sexy blond elf came from a phrase said elf said often to admirers: "Let go, lass!" shortened to "Leggo, lass!" until it became "Legolas!" This Tolkien fellow's names could use such brilliant sources of inspiration. I mean, "Gamling"! Honestly! The man seems to think he's invented new languages or something!

People have to understand the vast differences of PJ's and Tolkien's media of choice: the movie and the book. Movies don't have nearly the complexity of books--there go the many more minor characters of the book, the many subplots that Tolkien was able to explore in depth. Movies need to introduce distinct main characters that the audience can quickly grasp and identify (that blond sexy elf; that old guy in a hat; the guy with the round shield and a chip on his shoulder; et cetera). The pacing must be relatively quick to get through the whole book (there go even more subplots, along with various favorite scenes, some of which make it into the extended edition). Books, on the other hand, have much more space to them (especially books for an adult audience; until relatively recently, young adult books were pretty much capped at about 220 pages; thanks to Harry Potter and others, that cap has been blown off and authors have much more freedom). Books, by their very nature, don't really have 'previews' that readers can look at (especially with new authors; where would you put a preview? in someone else's book?); they draw their target audience in a much different way than movies do. A person might flip through a book for a taster, or rely on previous works by the author, or read the reviews of the book (movie watchers can do this, too, of course). The worlds are vastly different.

In the writer/producer commentary for LotR, PJ explains why he cut some scenes and put others in different order than they were in the book (Shelob's Lair, for example, is in Book IV (tTT) but appears in RotK because, chronologically, that is when it happens). The huge change in Faramir's character was written because if he just ferried Frodo and Sam straight into Mordor, Shelob's lair would be in tTT, leaving pretty much nothing for RotK but Sam and Frodo trekking across the Plains of Gorgoroth (which would likely bore most audiences to tears).

While I don't particularly like some of PJ's decisions, I can at least try to understand why he made them.

[MatthewM]

lolol

[The Might]

This Tolkien fellow doesn't really seem to be a good writer anyway. In fact, he isn't even able to make up a good ending for some of his stories, so he decided to call them the Unfinished Tales. Nothing compared to PJ's completed grand master-piece. And the worst thing of them all I hard of...NO ELVES AT HELM'S DEEP! Who does this guy think he is to get rid of such beautifully made deus-ex-machina, of such a tragic and touching story of immortals fighting side by side with mortals.
And Gimli...he's not even half as funny as he is in the movies, the jokes in the book are no fun.