Some opinions needed here...

[Elessar_elfstone]

Are you guys out there confident about the movie?

I kind of wonder how is the movie going to cram the 3 thick, detailed books while not skipping too many scenes and making the action as thrilling as described in the books?

I mean I watched Dungeons and Dragons and man...

[Churl]

That's a tough one. From trailers I've seen, Jackson/et. al. seem to have captured the "look and feel" that I always imagined while reading the books. Inevitably, though, I think we have to go in with reasonable, but realistic, expectations.

Of course there will be omissions (much discussed here) and alterations (discussed even more), and like everyone else, I'll form my own opinions on which were tolerable and which "crossed the line."

I don't envy the filmmakers' task of trying to balance faithfulness to the books with mass-market expectations and traditional cinematic structure. We obsessives can dismiss the latter considerations as crass and irrelevant, but you can bet that the trilogy wouldn't have been bankrolled if non-fans were ignored.

Some of the major changes were imposed to keep each film to a manageable length and to provide each with a satisfying conclusion. (Think about it: only The Two Towers ended with a dual "big finish" — Orthanc and Shelob — suitable for a major motion picture. Fellowship's scattering of the company above Rauros and Return's scouring of the Shire would seem anticlimactic following Moria and the war/destruction of the Ring, respectively.)

Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't change a word of the books. The scouring of the Shire was especially powerful because it underscored the war's blight on the home front and the growth of the heroes. Structurally, however, I can understand that these changes were advisable for the films. Altering, adding, or deleting characters bothers me more.

Above all, we can't expect the movies to fully translate the power and poetry of the books. The songs, the tales, the vast sense of history, and the little scenes and dialogues which would never survive a movie's final cut are what make The Lord of the Rings what it is, every bit as much as the "big" (i.e., exciting, cinematic) scenes.

Look on the bright side: if nothing else, the films will prompt many to read the books.

OK, enough rambling from me.

[Reverie]

I must admit after watching the D&D movie I also had some of the same concerns for LOTR!
I agree with Churl, that even if some of the more subtle points were to make the final cut, they prolly wouldn't translate well and your average movie-goer would miss them anyway! Gasp!
Case in point, the last movie I went to the guy sitting next to me asked me what the movie was going to be about! He said he just "picks 'em out of a hat!"

Anyway, after the D&D disapointment I'm not going to allow myself to many expectations - it is what it is!

[samwise of the shire]

Personally I think that with all the money going into this movie it should be really good technically, and the technical stuff has been modified by PJ for two years, I mean he was working on the technology for years. The only problems would be the acting stunk, they use too much CGs(which I dont think they will), or some little thing happened with the cameras or some little thing happened with the costumes(during one take while the Hobbits were running from orcs or something like that their feet flew off)or if they took too much out of the movie. I dont think there'll be a problem.
Sam