April 6, 2003

Repre-what?
Foolofatook

Burnet, although I sometimes find your Compton dialect a little hard to understand, I think SOME of your points(if I understood right) were well thought out. But I think your missing the point a little when you think only of the movie working as a movie. Just as an example, the movie might work fine if PJ killed off Frodo in the second movie and had Sam go the distance to Mount Doom with the thought of being loyal to his master. That would probably work, if it was done well, BUT IT'S NOT THE WAY IT WAS. To change things that need changing, like editing because of time/money/technology/book to film restraints is acceptable. But Peter Jackson going through this story changing whatever little bit he wants, thinking he knows better is not acceptable. If he wants to make his own story, he should put a new title on it, rather than stealing someone else's loyal fans, only for them to find out after they've seen it that it's a different story. Sure it might work to have Galadriel absent, but what's the real point? Tolkien wanted to have her there and the elves didn't steal the show in the book. They merely showed that the new King of Gondor had wonderful friends. Aragorn is almost more central than Frodo, thus far in the movie, and nothing is going to show him up at his wedding. Certainly not Galadriel. But I guess we'll never get to see for sure, because instead of getting the Lord of the Rings adapted into movies, we get Peter Jackson's Adventure somewhat resembling the Lord of the Rings. As for the absence of Glorfindel and Gildor making a difference, that just goes to show that Jackson's dug himself a whole and plans on digging deeper in order to get out the bottom.

As for Pippin dying, (I'm sure your joking)you really shouldn't say such things, because Jackson could read whats on this site and you might inspire him.

I'll be interested to hear you 'rap' a response, but maybe ask Peter Jackson for permission first.