10 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Dr Linda's avatar

They are. However I was more determined to read the nuisances in the books after the movies. I did enjoy the movies. They were stunning. I also thought the acting was top notch.

Expand full comment
jotolo's avatar

The movie people should have faithfully followed the book text. No need to change anything.

Expand full comment
Scuba Cat's avatar

IMO, some things wouldn't work with the medium. Like the 17 years that pass between Bilbo's party and when Frodo finally leaves the Shire. And the first book spends a ton of time in the old forest (with the evil trees, Tom Bombadil, the Barrow weights, etc.). I think the first movie would have been eight hours long.

Expand full comment
jotolo's avatar

IMO, there is nothing wrong with turning one book into several movies. In retrospect, they could have extended the series and made billions more dollars.

Expand full comment
Katherine's avatar

Which would have been even better!!

Expand full comment
Bootsorourke's avatar

this latest was these Hollywood idiots "improving" a classic

Expand full comment
Adrienne's avatar

Are you kidding? I adore the books but their structure is bizarre and and would never have worked in the medium of film. I have issues with a few of the creative and casting choices that were made, but overall it’s hard to imagine a more successful adaptation.

That said, the Hobbit movies actually are an unmitigated disaster.

Expand full comment
Bootsorourke's avatar

are you talking about the Jackson LotR or the recent woke one?

Expand full comment
Adrienne's avatar

I never watched the Amazon one. It looked like garbage and better to pretend it doesn’t exist.

Expand full comment
Bootsorourke's avatar

I know, right?

Seems a lot of us people did that.

Expand full comment