PJ needs more credit

Peter Jackson doesn't get enough credit from the people who post on this site. I started reading the books after I saw FOTR. Some of the changes he made might be questionable, but there are some things that PJ improves on the book. In my opinion Tolkien was weak in describing some of the actually details of battles and events. The two movies so far have been excellent cinema. I don't mind the changes at all. Opinions????

[eleanor_niphredil]

Aww, we dont mean it. If he didnt intend us to rip his movies apart piece by piece then he would have done it really sketchy and boring. He probably enjoys driving us crazy with his minor gliches.<BR> <p>[ January 12, 2003: Message edited by: eleanor_niphredil ]

[maikafanawen]

Mmm, allright Eleanor I guess your right. Besides he couldn't have put all of Tolkien's spectacular literary art into a little visual trilogy. But there is soo much they (the scriptwriters) had to change and take out. However, FOTR wasn't as bad as TTT. Half way through TTT, one was thinking, "Did PJ *read* that book?"

[HCIsland]

I agree that PJ doesn't get enough credit, though I would certainly hesitate in saying the movies are an improvement. I honestly think people are expecting too much when they want a true interpretation of the book and a great movie. The two are mutually exclusive in many ways.<P>PJ's first job was to make great films, and he accomplished that. Both films are three hours long and feel like half that. He did it based on material that has been widely said to be unfilmable, and that comment has little to do with the needed special effects. Although some aspects of character and plot (and even geography) have been changed, the heart and soul of the books are there, and that is more important.<P>I think if one of us were to make the films, even Tolkien fans would be checking their watches before it was half over. I also get the same feeling that the same people that are trashing TTT were trashing Fellowship a year ago and will be trashing RotK a year from now saying, "I can't believe he butchered the book so much when he did such great job with the previous two movies".<P>Give yourselves a chance to get used to the changes and why they are in there.<P>H.C.

[Gorwingel]

I think he gets a lot of credit. But if any of us were in his position than we would understand how hard it is to make something that pleases the average moviegoer, and the Tolkien Purist.<P>He made amazing films that will stand the test of time, and be seen by generation after generation (the only thing he could have done better is Faramir, but that is another thread )

[Elven-Maiden]

*sniff* A post after my heart! *sniff*<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In my opinion Tolkien was weak in describing some of the actually details of battles and events. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That is one of the reasons I am here, typing a reply to your post when I should be sleeping! His description of the battles were effective enough to get the point across, but not vivid enough to turn me off. But naturally, PJ couldn't just show our heroes facing off the enemies and fade to black with a voice-over saying who won and the number of casualties... That would be ridiculous!

[lindil]

just wish to politely disagree.<P>PJ is getting kudo's from allover the world.<P>The Barrow Downs is however a forum dedicated to the work of JRR Tolkien.<P>So of course the criticisms will be frequent, biting and prominent. That is as long as he strays from the path of the story.<P>Hopefever posted: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I started reading the books after I saw FOTR. Some of the changes he made might be questionable, but there are some things that PJ improves on the book. In my opinion Tolkien was weak in describing some of the actually details of battles and events. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This is the very thing I feared [ and posted about] before the movies came out. That some souls would somehow see the movies as normative or better than the original creation. I hope you are still here Hopefever after you have read the books a dozen or so times, because i would be very interested in seeing if you still feel the same way then.<P>as regards the battle scenes, of course showing a battle will be be more graphic than reading about it, but please believe me when I say that the battles are really not the heart of the story, and would of course be the easiest thing to make come alive.<P>Now all that being said, i do think it is possible for a movie to be better than the books!<P>How is that some may ask?<P>By doing 3 things:<BR> <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>following the dialog and characterizations of the book<LI>reproducing the atmosphere and 'spirit' of the books<LI>adding details [ such as clothing, music, weapons] that are left to the imagination and doing it in such away that one feels tha books have come to life.</UL><P>Now in all fairness PJ does well on points 2 and 3 most of the time. Occasionally hitting a bullseye [ Rivendell for instance, and much of Moria].<P>But he often fails on #1. <P>I still enjoy the movies, but they are for me very good [ a B] instead of absolutely awesome [ and A+] because PJ thought he could do better by changing some of the things that JRRT had so carefully crafted over 12 [!!!] years.<P>Sorry, PJ's farmair is no improvement.<P>Nor is his Aragorn character changes [ refusing to seek the throne, etc].<P>Etc. <P>For those who have seen the Movie first and then have come to the books, I hope you drink deeply and are able to see through the images etched so deeply into your psyche.

[Dimannûnien]

I have read LOTR once, twenty years ago, when I was at school. For me, the aspects of the books that I remember from then were all there in both movies, especially in terms of the characters I related to the most. What seeing the films, and especially TTT , has done to me is to want to see the films again, and more importantly to reread not just LOTR but even tackle other texts by Tolkien,as well as learn Elvish. Who knows, I might even take up traditional archery, as well as the Olympic style I already take part in.<P>Peter Jackson had an immense budget at his disposal. Consequently he had to make films that would recoup that money. I suspect that some of the literal aspects of the texts may have been less effective than PJ's version and resulted in less accessible films. As it is, I suspect that for many viewers who had waited the year between FOTR and TTT there were still some things that puzzled them, in spite of the reduction of characters and plot alterations. <P>I wonder too, whether some of the 'ommissions' from TTT will appear in ROTK. It can be really effective to use such techniques as flashback, dream sequences and so on, and what better way to gel the three films into a whole.<P>Every film that is adapted from a well-known literary work is subject to criticism, and the director knows that his interpretation is going to be subject to probable criticism by somebody. Must be fine line to tread to keep everybody happy! <P>

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I'm not even going to start....

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I'm not even going to start.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I mean I'm not going to start on why I disagree. I am difinately not saying he deserves more credit. Just clarifying what I said.

[LOTR_know-it-all55]

Unfortunately, a movie is not going to be exactly word-for-word like the book.(Unless the words are scrolling across the screen.) There are going to have to be changes, some to clarify it for people who haven't read the books but are watching the movie. I think that is done very effectively. And just because this site is for J.R.R. Tolkien doesn't mean you have to insult Peter Jackson.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

lindil, you beat me to it.<P>Hopefever. PJ "improves on" the book? Are you being serious? Now, I am constantly praising Peter Jackson and the whole crew who made the films. I think they are masterpieces of cinema, flawed masterpieces. I remember when Boyens (I think it was her) argued that the film version of 'The Departure of Boromir' was an improvement on the book. I almost cried.<P>Please, if you read this again, reconsider that post, and reply to us on this thread with a more in-depth view of how the film's battles were an improvement.

[HCIsland]

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying Eomer. Whether you cried about the departure of Boromir because of the scene or because you were enraged at the comment?<P><BR>***HC dives behind cover and squeeks out the following***<P>I thought the breaking of the fellowship was better in the film then in the book.<P>DUCK!!!!<P>H.C.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

But.........how?

[HCIsland]

Mostly because we don't get Boromir's fight in the book. Two Towers starts with Aragorn just finding him. Merry and Pippin distracting the orcs was also great. Almost everyone got to be heroic. It was an incredible sequence and, IMHO, more powerful then the book.<P>Sean Bean was incredible.<P>H.C.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

It did happen in the book though. Boromir did fight and die in the book, we only saw the aftermath though.<P>In the book, the whole mood is different. Aragorn is in despair, etc. The film-makers just wanted a happy Hollywood-style ending. In effect, they changed what happened, and are in no position to claim that it was better, because the two situations were different.

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> and are in no position to claim that it was better, because the two situations were different. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yet folks can claim the book is better?<P>Of course they can claim it's better, especially considering that this was the single opinion of one person. I like apples more then bananas and you are not in a position to argue with me.<P>It's about personal opinion and taste. Surely I can claim that scene was more powerful in the movie. You can claim otherwise. I'm cool with that, as should you be.<P>H.C.

[aragornreborn]

No matter much I disagree with some things PJ had done, over all he's made two REALLY good movies so far. So I can overlook any mistakes he's made and just read the books again if I get disillusioned with PJ's changes.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Whatever floats your boat...<P>Yes, H.C., everybody is entitled to their opinion, and even though I disagee with you, I still respect the fact that you think differently. I don't think that PJ improved on the books at all, and I don't think he deserves more credit than he has. I actually think he has more than he deserves. I mean, if he pays more attention to his criticisms than his praises, then what does that say?...Well, it means he knows he did worse and could have been better, but that's just what I think...<P>And by the by...Calvin and Hobbes is my favorite cartoon of all time.<P>"Have a good night's sleep. Tomorrow's another big day!," Calvin's mom<BR>"...Sighhhhhh...," Calvin

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

While I agree that everyone has their own opinion (and should) it doesn't make one better than the other. I am not arguing that the book's ending is better than the film's. (If I did post exactly that earlier then I will look really stupid right now! But if I did then I didn't mean to.)<P>The point is that Tolkien wrote the book. He decided what happens. His was the story. The film-makers have changed the story slightly and should not say that their Boromir death scene was better than Tolkien's. It is arrogant, highly dubious, and disrespectful as well.<P>No offence to you and others like you H.C. If you prefer the films ending then I totally have no problem with that.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The film-makers just wanted a happy Hollywood-style ending.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This my main objection to the film adaptations. They're good films, taken as films without any connection with J.R.R. Tolkien or <I>The Lord of the Rings</I>, but as adaptations they're terrible. The film-makers consistently show their contempt for Tolkien's dialogue, characterisation and dramatic flair by changing the plot; the personalities and motivations of characters and the emphasis of scenes. It's the sheer arrogance implicit in doing this that annoys me. Not only have these people assumed that the public is too stupid to understand Tolkien's plot but they've also assumed that their stock scenes and characters are more engaging than the originals. Well, let's face it, Tolkien did only spend more than a decade writing them: they're bound to lack some polish.<P>Now I'm not blind to the difficulties of telling the story of <I>The Lord of the Rings</I> visually. Some aspects of the books must be cut if your aim is to make three three-hour films. What I object to are the changes that are not motivated by time constraints or the demands of a visual medium, but solely by an opinion that the films should be typical, clichéd, formulaic Hollywood drama. Of course the king will be unsure about taking on the great burden; of course Faramir will be tempted by the Ring. We can't have people being too perfect, because that doesn't suit our mission statement or our demographic. Strip out all the dialogue and replace it, because no-one likes all that old-fashioned rubbish. Oh, and we'd better jazz up some of those scenes. Important scenes have to be full of loud noises and people shouting each other's names in slow motion so that even Billy the pigswill delivery boy can understand what's happening.<P>Now this is not the director's fault alone. All of these changes have the look and feel of having been dreamed up in a board room somewhere by a group of fat businessmen, whose reading for the past ten years had consisted entirely of corporate motivational literature; the sort of people, in fact, who would have been financing the whole enterprise. That's the problem, you see: those who paid for the project are a bunch of money-grubbing cretins, so the film had to be one that a money-grubbing cretin would imagine to be obscenely profitable. Unfortunately the original material was articulate, thought-provoking and intelligent, which are three things that the average executive will immediately write off as too risky for investment.<P>As for claiming that the revised version of a scene was better, that's simply irrelevant. The fact is that in an adaptation, where the object is to reproduce as closely as possible the experience of the original story, changing elements of the plot around to make scenes more interesting is detrimental to the overall aim. If Tolkien wrote a scene in a certain way we can be sure that he did so for a reason: he wasn't some bumbling amateur writing for a pulp magazine. Each scene has its own tone, which contributes to the fulfillment of its purpose within the narrative as a whole. If that scene is altered then the author's intended message is lost or distorted, which is a failure on the part of those doing the adapting. If they did this through arrogance that's bad enough, but if they did it just because the backers demanded it their integrity is as much in question as their humility. Fair enough, Peter Jackson might deserve more credit in a general sense, but in the particular case of his Tolkien films he's already had a lot more than he really deserves for his very average effort. I know that a lot of people are saying that we wouldn't have a film at all if certain sacrifices hadn't been made, but did we really need a film? Since the books are there for me to pick up and read whenever I like, I don't really think so. Certainly it would be nice to have some sort of visual version, but I'd rather have nothing at all than something that fails to live up to the books.<P>[ January 23, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]<p>[ January 23, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

[Laialthriel]

I want to thank the one who started this post. We all have to admit there has been a lot of negative feedback on the downs about the two movies so this is a nice break. <P>quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> PJ's first job was to make great films, and he accomplished that. Both films are three hours long and feel like half that. He did it based on material that has been widely said to be unfilmable, and that comment has little to do with the needed special effects. Although some aspects of character and plot (and even geography) have been changed, the heart and soul of the books are there, and that is more important.<BR>I think if one of us were to make the films, even Tolkien fans would be checking their watches before it was half over.<P>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>HC, I couldn't have said it better. <P>Squatter of Amon Rudh~<P><BR>quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>The film-makers consistently show their contempt for Tolkien's dialogue, characterisation and dramatic flair by changing the plot; the personalities and motivations of characters and the emphasis of scenes.<P>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>I do see where you are coming from, but I believe this is an unfair statement. I fail to see how someone, anyone, could spend five years of their lives on a project so demanding and taxing as this, and have 'contempt' for it. These people have put their hearts and souls and lives into these films and I highly doubt they would just trash it.<P><BR>quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> Some aspects of the books must be cut if your aim is to make three three-hour films. What I object to are the changes that are not motivated by time constraints or the demands of a visual medium, but solely by the demand that the films should be typical, clichéd, formulaic Hollywood drama. <BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>I agree. But I do not agree that this is what has happened to <I>these</I> movies. We do not know why PJ changed Faramir, or anything else you would like to name, but we can take educated guesses. Peter can see all ends to his films because <I>he is the director</I>. We cannot because we are the audience. He has reasons why he changed the things he did, and I believe we will be seeing the fruits of them in RotK. Yes, some things were changed, some for the better and some maybe for not...we don't know for sure. I for one, hated the change in Faramir, but I'm learning to live with it because I know PJ and his crew are doing their best and it'll all work out. It may not be <I>exactly</I> like the book, but it should not be expected to. The <I>essence of Tolkien</I> has been captured in these films and <I>that</I> is what is important. <P>PJ & Co. have made two amazing movies and they deserve some praise for that. It is not a task taken lightly and I for one am glad that someone like Peter Jackson got ahold of the project before someone with less dedication and love for the books did. <P>~*Laialthriel*~

[Laialthriel]

I apologize for the double post. The first one, as you can see, did not get completely on the thread, so I had to redo it. And for some strange reason it won't let me delete my first post....

[akhtene]

Credit??? Here is my credit <BR>PJ rose in his greatness to the hight of Melkor, taking a fair creation of Professor Tolkien and mutilating it to the miserable state of Orc-like cheap spectacle. This is related entirely to TTT. Though... Perhaps it was just 'test of the pen'?

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The fact is that in an adaptation, where the object is to reproduce as closely as possible the experience of the original story <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I think you got to the heart of the differences of opinion expressed in this thread, and indeed throughout this board. I couldn't agree less with this statement, and as such the changes do not bother me. If you agree with the above statement, you will object to any changes that have to do with anything besides time restrictions.<P>I think it's as simple as that.<P>H.C.

[The Saucepan Man]

I've said my piece (at interminable length) on other threads, so I won't bore everyone again here. Suffice it to say that I have been an enormous fan of LotR (the book) for many years <B>and</B> I like the films. Not mutually exclusive.<P>But, one point, Squatter:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Now this is not the director's fault alone. All of these changes have the look and feel of having been dreamed up in a board room somewhere by a group of fat businessmen, whose reading for the past ten years had consisted entirely of corporate motivational literature; the sort of people, in fact, who would have been financing the whole enterprise. That's the problem, you see: those who paid for the project are a bunch of money-grubbing cretins, so the film had to be one that a money-grubbing cretin would imagine to be obscenely profitable. Unfortunately the original material was articulate, thought-provoking and intelligent, which are three things that the average executive will immediately write off as too risky for investment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>My understanding is that they had great difficulty persuading the investors to go with one film, let alone three. I think that it was originally to be made with one film company, but when they insisted on only one, or at most two, films, one of the executives insisted that three were needed and set up a new film company to make it.<P>Now, I'm no apologist for "fat cat" businessmen, but of course they will be concerned about not making a risky investments. That's their job. And a good many great films would not have been made without them.<P>In fact, those who invested in this film were taking quite a (calculated, maybe) risk. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there had been a blockbuster film in the fantasy genre previously (a few minor hits, maybe, but nothing really big). And yet they invested huge amounts of money in not one film, but three films all to be made at once and without really knowing what the audience reaction would be. Maybe they anticipated the success of the Harry Potter film that was then in production, but it was still a risk.<P>And I don't think that this is a "lowest common denominator" film. Yes, the characters and story were adapted for a modern audience, and of course the screenplay pales in comparison with the original words, but there are a lot less "intelligent" fantasy and sci-fi films out there). <P>So, personally, I'd much rather have these films than nothing at all ... and then go back and read the books (which is precisely what I did after watching FotR.<P>Oops - slightly more than one point, so I'll leave it there. <P>[ January 23, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]<p>[ January 23, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[HCIsland]

Just on the pitching to the studios line:<P>I believe Jackson's original pitch was two films to be made by Miramax. Miramax wanted one and Jackson refused. They then went to New Line and they asked, "why would anyone want to make two films from this ... it should be three films." Of course Jackson and company were estatic.<P>I always wondered what his treatment was when he was planning on two films. Where would he have ended the first one? The animated film ends at Helm's Deep, do you think Jackson would have done much the same?<P>I think we're lucky we got what we got.<P>H.C.

[Laialthriel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think we're lucky we got what we got. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So true. Can you imagine what might have happened if someone other than PJ decided to do these films? It scares me to think of it. It could have been really bad...or maybe better, who knows. I can only say 'Thank you PJ'. *hopes people don't think she's crazy for saying that*<P>Laialthriel

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>in an adaptation, where the object is to reproduce as closely as possible the experience of the original story<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I couldn't agree less with this statement, and as such the changes do not bother me. If you agree with the above statement, you will object to any changes that have to do with anything besides time restrictions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What is the purpose of an adaptation? To release something that has the same name and is roughly identifiable as the same material? Why not just write an original screenplay and enjoy complete freedom of artistic expression? Actually I don't dislike the changes that have been made to characterisation and plot just because they represent a departure from the original material. I object to them because they are clumsy alterations that seem to imply a completely unfounded attitude that the writers of the screenplay knew better than Tolkien how to tell Tolkien's story. Truth to tell it's specifically <I>The Two Towers</I> that inspired this feeling: I quite liked <I>Fellowship</I>, minor irritations notwithstanding, although it's not exactly the best film I've ever seen; but most of the adapted scenes in the latest film are just lame when compared to the original versions. <P>This is what I meant in my earlier post when I said that the films have been made with contempt for Tolkien's abilities as a storyteller. Characters speak trite film lines that Tolkien would have cut off his hands rather than use; emphasis falls on unimportant scenes to the detriment of more pivotal moments; scenes that are in the novels are cut to make room for completely new scenes that just appear to waste space, and scenes that are retained are rewritten badly. They even threw away that gift of a cliffhanger that was already written for them, which will mean that a space has to be found in the next film, already pretty action-packed anyway, to make room for Cirith Ungol.<P>I take your point, Saucepan Man, but I'm afraid I never was much of a realist. I know that the requirement for financial backing places limitations on film makers, but that doesn't mean that I like or accept it. I think I'm upset because the films, especially the latest, could have been much more than they are. Yes, they're better than other sword-and-sorcery films, but that was a foregone conclusion, given the original material. I'm also not quite so certain that the success of the venture was so much in question. All one has to do is to look at the sales record of the books to see that it's a story that interests people. Several films have come out recently based on comics with a much smaller circulation, and the only reason there hadn't been a real fantasy blockbuster was because nobody had given one the budget and writers it needed.<P>There you have my main objection: rewritten material that can't stand up to what it replaces, and which demonstrates by the fact of the substitution a misguided belief in the author's superiority over Tolkien. As long as the story's originator is treated like a silly old duffer who couldn't write for a popular audience I shall continue to be offended by the results.

[Rimbaud]

I concur with Squatter, as usual, and would also add my support for the viewpoint that disregarding the source material's filmworthiness, discarding it as unfilmable (as has been done) is foolish. The book always struck me as eminently filmable; this explains my vast disappointment when it appeared that those entrusted with bringing it to the screen did not seem to think it could be done.

[Laialthriel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>emphasis falls on unimportant scenes to the detriment of more pivotal moments; scenes that are in the novels are cut to make room for completely new scenes that just appear to waste space, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I know I've already said my say here, but hear me out one more time. I agree with the above quote. I too, was disappointed in areas where part of Tolkien's work was cut <I>and then</I> replaced by a seemingly meaningless new scene. I have Aragorn's swimming scene and his extra scene with Arwen in mind when I say this. It was not necessary and it could have/should have been avoided. But just because I did not agree with the director in a few areas of this movie, I am not going to deprive myself of the enjoyment of the other great aspects of it. The character selection and developement, save for Faramir, has been no less than exceptional, the battle scenes above any and all reproach, in a more detailed sense the costume/make up department has been of very very high quality, and the script was <I>based on</I> an already amazing plot and storyline. I say <I>based on</I> because that is exactly what it is. It says so in the credits of the movie(s). <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>There you have my main objection: rewritten material that can't stand up to what it replaces, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>But it is not replacing the book(s), these films are based upon the novel(s) of J.R.R. Tolkien, not an exact representation of, as much as we would like them to be. Nothing will ever give to me exactly what Tolkien has given to me. When I read his work I am immersed completely in a new world and I never want to stop reading. But these films have come close to this level of entertainment for me, which is saying a lot for a movie. <P>Not everyone has to like these movies and no one should ever say they have to. But I really do enjoy them and I think they, like the books, are also great works of art. In a different way. But Tolkien gave the world something that can never be replaced or represented in another form, and that's what I love about them.<P>Laialthriel<p>[ January 24, 2003: Message edited by: Laialthriel ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Laialthriel, may I echo your sentiments. You have managed to capture very succintly my thoughts and feelings about these films.<P>But, going back to the original question on this thread: "Does PJ need more credit" - I think that the answer is no.<P>These films have been received to general critical acclaim. I have not read a bad review and every "non-Tolkienite" that I know who has seen them has enjoyed them immensely. Views on this site obviously vary, and quite rightly so, but almost all appear to recognise that he deserves at least some measure of credit (even if it is just for the visualisation).<P>There will always be those who dislike the films, Tolkienites and non-Tolkienites alike, many, in my view, for very well-expressed and understandable reasons.<P>So, I do not think it can be said that Jackson and co <B>need</B> more credit. They already have it by the bucketload. <p>[ January 24, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]

[HCIsland]

Funny, I took the question as just on this board.<P>You're right, in general the films could not have been better received.<P>H.C.

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, you're right HC, the original question does just refer to this site.<P>But, since the films were made for everyone, and not just us Tolkien-loons, I think that any analysis of whether he has been given sufficient credit must reflect the films' broader audience.<P>In any event, I think that Jackson has been given sufficient credit on this site throughout the various threads on this topic - certainly no more than he could expect.

I totaly agree with the title!<BR>PJ is awsome!<BR>I think Lotr shuld have won the best motion picture of the year last year!<BR>I wouldnt think that if PJ hadnt of made it!<p>[ January 24, 2003: Message edited by: Kimmy Baggins ]