-
F
O
R
U
M

The LOTR Movies -- An Artist's Take
Robert B. (e-mail here)

I have heard from many people who wish to say just how upset about the LOTR Trilogy they are; people are up in arms about every aspect of the movies, which can only be expected from the general populace of LOTR lovers, but we must ask ourselves, just what is a movie? A movie based upon a book is not simply the book put into live animation, but rather an artist's take upon the movie, and often those characters which he/she sees as least important are cut. The director (in this case Peter Jackson) is making something that is the property of those who worked on the film, and in no way reflects Tolkien's ability to write. They are making a movie which is based upon a book, but only BASED on the books, they are not the books reincarnated in movie form. The movie trilogy will be a whole new piece of art, a piece of art that is in no true way connected to the LOTR Books. Contrary to this, many people have been up in arms at Peter Jackson's so called "hacking" of Tolkien's story--he is merely putting his view on the story onto the big screen, and we should be thankful that someone has finally striven to take on such a massive production (I would hardly call Bashki's incomplete cartoon massive).

On a second point, many people literally WORSHIP Tolkien. He was merely a very talented author, not a deity, and the world that he made, however tremendous, was fiction, and to change around that story would not be blasphemy and would not be the end of the world. So what if Peter Jackson cuts Tom Bombadil? Yes, I love the character, but that is all he is: a character. Tom Bombadil does NOT and never has existed, and surely you all can see this.

And finally, I have one last statement, and it goes as such: If anyone feels so strongly about Peter Jackson's changing of the story, SHUT UP and stop whining and go read the books.

Just my two very long cents.