Good, Better, Best . . .

[Cassius]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Your opinions don't mean **** to me.

Hmm, I would say the same thing, but I am not the Lucifer of sweatpants and have a small amount of class and articulation. As to who I am, i MIGHT tell you if i thought that you wouldn't try and lynch me for having my own opinions! geez man.

as to the IP adress, thranduil is a classmate of mine and we log on from the school IP, which has only one. if that isn't good enough for you than I am truly sorry that your skull is too thick to accept the truth.

And I thought YOU were an adult...

[Rosie Gamgee]

The books are the true master piece. The books are the 'Bible' of the whole thing. Tolkien's work is the main focal point.
In order to make such a great, wonderful work into a film, some changes have to be made. Peter Jackson and his co-writers made many changes- some, I will most heartily declare, were unneeded, and, IMO, stupid. However, if I was to make the movies myself, and cut things that needed to be cut and added things that I felt needed to be added, you all would probably be putting my work down for its major deviations from Tolkien. But a book can be read in many different ways by many different people, and interpreted from at least 6 billon points of view. And for Jackson to have gotten, on film, so close to Tolkien's work that at times one can feel like they can reach out and touch it, right there, on the television screen, that is an amazing thing.
I can think of a lot of things that Jackson could have done to the films, as well as New Line. But thankfully, these films really compliment the books for the most part, and if they provoke people to read the books and get back to the 'Bible' of the matter, good!
I like the books better than the movie, because they are the real McCoy. The movies are like looking through a dusty window, through which one can see the real thing, but can't fully grasp the greatness of it for PJ's dirt staining the glass.
Bottom line (IMO):
The books are the masterpiece.
The films are an interpretation of a master's art by a master of another type of art- film.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Cassius
Hmm, I would say the same thing, but I am not the Lucifer of sweatpants and have a small amount of class and articulation. As to who I am, i MIGHT tell you if i thought that you wouldn't try and lynch me for having my own opinions! geez man.

as to the IP adress, thranduil is a classmate of mine and we log on from the school IP, which has only one. if that isn't good enough for you than I am truly sorry that your skull is too thick to accept the truth.

And I thought YOU were an adult...

Okay, we're going to have this as the last word on the subject, because it is frankly, silly and is conjesting every current thread in this forum, which I would hate to have to close because of such ridiculous arguing. But it will happen to every thread if this continues.

Everyone, get back on and stay on topic.

[Cassius]

Sorry, I'm just frustrated...

As to the subject. Yes the books are better and I love what Mrs. Gamgee said, since I have pretty much the same opinion. The books are the masterpiece, and the movies did a good job.

Lets put it in the artist's point of view. When an artist tries to depict writing, he can't see what the author can see, he can just interpret what he sees in his head. EX: Some people interpret dragons as having slim bodies, dragonfly wings, scales, and teeth. Not everyone believes that but that is how the artist interprets what he reads.

That is my point

[Anadriewen]

I think the books are terrific, but if the movies hadn't been made, there wouldn't be nearly as many ppl who love lotr. Im 1 of those ppl. My sis bought the movie, i watched, got hooked, and now i love the books better.