[djsFlames]

As a follow up on the LOTR debate

Not liking jacksons trilogy because it was in your mind a looser adaptation of the novels and not an accurate portrayal or faithful to the source material is one thing but denying the delivery of the scope of those movies for the story they did present on a level that helped them about sweep the Oscar awards is another.

You can be an old school Tolkien fan and still appreciate what Jackson accomplished with his own vision of middle earth accepting that its not the easiest story to adapt and for the purposes of making it easier to follow and not become overly convoluted on screen for today's audiences some things need to be omitted and scaled back to help make a cohesive story arc over three 3 hour films.

The story the trilogy did present was executed extraordinarily well and the real testament to that is how well they hold up decades later. You can't tell me that Helm's Deep and Minas Turith were not thrilling sequences that to this day may still be head and shoulders above the rest in the history of film battles.

My dad was all about the whole middle earth series of books and was all about the Jackson films.

Hearing what they did to create the forced perspective that made ian McKellen appear to tower over the hobbit actors despite being in the same frame is crazy and impressive. Some of it i didn't know the details of until recently. Can't help but be in awe at what all those people put together in such a short time, from make up to sets to locations, to amazing portrayals of the characters we still love and refer back to today.

Needing source material accuracy to enjoy something must have robbed you of much of the joy the rest of us experienced taking in those masterpieces, and for that I don't envy you. But I guess you're entitled to your take on it.

Being a loose adaptation doesn't mean it wasn't really, really good. At least put your devout OG fandom aside enough to admit as much is what I'm saying.