I hear you dog. Now hear me.

Was a Tolkien nerd from age of 12, when I came across the Hobbit. By the end of high school (that is, senior high - in my country, high school is 6 years), I had read LOTR probably 6 or 7 times, had reviewed on the appendices heaps, and worked on my Elvish (both Quenya and Sindarin). Digested all I could find, from the Silmarillion, to Father Giles of Ham, Leaf by Niggle, etc.

When I went to university, I studied linguistics. After I began this study, I became more and more cognizant of the fact that JRRT as a linguistics professor, and my learning in linguistics gave me an even deeper appreciation of where and how Tolkien develop the languages, why, etc.

I lived overseas for around 16 years, and returned to the country of my birth around the start of 2000, just in time for the release of Jackson's Fellowship. Had 2 little kids at the time, and my wife wasn't a nerd like me, so I went by myself on the day after Christmas to watch Fellowship at a 10pm screening. I'd been looking forward to this for at least 5 years, as I'd followed the development of the project from early on.

It wasn't easy. Even though I'd been away from LOTR for 20 years (long story) I was thoroughly steeped in LOTR canon. Some of the things in Fellowship left me gobsmacked. "How could he do that???" Because I had been such a close aficionado of the original work, it was hard to digest certain film modifications. At first, anyway. (spoiler: In the film, Glorfindel is not the one who carries Frodo across the Ford of Bruinen - don't ask me who does <faceplam>). It was a glorious film, but not easy to digest some of the heavier differences Jackson had inserted. However, with subsequent viewings, I came to appreciate more and more the amazing feat Jackson't team had accomplished.

Fast forward - I ended up raising a family of nerds, one of whom has inherited the Tolkien Nerd mantle, and we have all watched the whole series (extended versions) many, many times.

Jackson approached the work in the right way. He engaged in in-depth consultation with Tolkien fans all during the years prior to developing and actually filming the work. His team understood amazingly that brining a work like LOTR to the screen is not about reproduction, but about translation.

The more I watched the films, the more I came to appreciate Jacksons LOTR as a masterpiece. The films could have been done so badly. But he translated the work of Tolkien from the written mode to a film work that indeed, captures the essence and spirit of the work in amazing ways. Curiously, they actually stand on their own as films. One (and many have) can totally appreciate and love the films even without knowing the books. That's the mark of success in filmmaking.

As long as one can appreciate that FILM is not and can never be the same as WRITTEN work, that they are two mediums that require different approaches, I think one can naturally appreciate what Jackson's team accomplished.

The 'inaccuracies' were never invested for convenience or laziness, but rather in mindfulness that film pace, drama and emotion requires different things, and for the overall whole thing to work, one needs to focus on the spirit and power, not on the infinite details that a book of some 500,000 words can indulge in and describe.

If you watch, you might try reading about Jackson first, his approach, and watch some interviews about what they were thinking. You'll probably appreciate the films better. Either way, Jackson's LOTR is a masterpiece work, imo.

Dude, if you love Tolkien and respect his work, you should totally got for it.

I hear you dog. Now here me.

Was a Tolkien nerd from age of 12, when I came across the Hobbit. By the end of high school (that is, senior high - in my country, high school is 6 years), I had read LOTR probably 6 or 7 times, had reviewed on the appendices heaps, and worked on my Elvish (both Quenya and Sindarin). Digested all I could find, from the Silmarillion, to Father Giles of Ham, Leaf by Niggle, etc.

When I went to university, I studied linguistics. After I began this study, I became more and more cognizant of the fact that JRRT as a linguistics professor, and my learning in linguistics gave me an even deeper appreciation of where and how Tolkien develop the languages, why, etc.

I lived overseas for around 16 years, and returned to the country of my birth around the start of 2000, just in time for the release of Jackson's Fellowship. Had 2 little kids at the time, and my wife wasn't a nerd like me, so I went by myself on the day after Christmas to watch Fellowship at a 10pm screening. I'd been looking forward to this for at least 5 years, as I'd followed the development of the project from early on.

It wasn't easy. Even though I'd been away from LOTR for 20 years (long story) I was thoroughly steeped in LOTR canon. Some of the things in Fellowship left me gobsmacked. "How could he do that???" Because I had been such a close aficionado of the original work, it was hard to digest certain film modifications. At first, anyway. (spoiler: In the film, Glorfindel is not the one who carries Frodo across the Ford of Bruinen - don't ask me who does <faceplam>). It was a glorious film, but not easy to digest some of the heavier differences Jackson had inserted. However, with subsequent viewings, I came to appreciate more and more the amazing feat Jackson't team had accomplished.

Fast forward - I ended up raising a family of nerds, one of whom has inherited the Tolkien Nerd mantle, and we have all watched the whole series (extended versions) many, many times.

Jackson approached the work in the right way. He engaged in in-depth consultation with Tolkien fans all during the years prior to developing and actually filming the work. His team understood amazingly that brining a work like LOTR to the screen is not about reproduction, but about translation.

The more I watched the films, the more I came to appreciate Jacksons LOTR as a masterpiece. The films could have been done so badly. But he translated the work of Tolkien from the written mode to a film work that indeed, captures the essence and spirit of the work in amazing ways. Curiously, they actually stand on their own as films. One (and many have) can totally appreciate and love the films even without knowing the books. That's the mark of success in filmmaking.

As long as one can appreciate that FILM is not and can never be the same as WRITTEN work, that they are two mediums that require different approaches, I think one can naturally appreciate what Jackson's team accomplished.

The 'inaccuracies' were never invested for convenience or laziness, but rather in mindfulness that film pace, drama and emotion requires different things, and for the overall whole thing to work, one needs to focus on the spirit and power, not on the infinite details that a book of some 500,000 words can indulge in and describe.

If you watch, you might try reading about Jackson first, his approach, and watch some interviews about what they were thinking. You'll probably appreciate the films better. Either way, Jackson's LOTR is a masterpiece work, imo.

Dude, if you love Tolkien and respect his work, you should totally got for it.

I hear you dog. Now here me.

Was a Tolkien nerd from age of 12, when I came across the Hobbit. By the end of high school (that is, senior high - in my country, high school is 6 years), I had read LOTR probably 6 or 7 times, had reviewed on the appendices heaps, and worked on my Elvish (both Quenya and Sindarin). Digested all I could find, from the Silmarillion, to Father Giles of Ham, Leaf by Niggle, etc.

When I went to university, I studied linguistics. After I began this study, I became more and more cognizant of the fact that JRRT as a linguistics professor, and my learning in linguistics gave me an even deeper appreciation of where and how Tolkien develop the languages, why, etc.

I lived overseas for around 16 years, and returned to the country of my birth around the start of 2000, just in time for the release of Jackson's Fellowship. Had 2 little kids at the time, and my wife wasn't a nerd like me, so I went by myself on the day after Christmas to watch Fellowship at a 10pm screening. I'd been looking forward to this for at least 5 years, as I'd followed the development of the project from early on.

It wasn't easy. Even though I'd been away from LOTR for 20 years (long story) I was thoroughly steeped in LOTR canon. Some of the things in Fellowship left me gobsmacked. "How could he do that???" Because I had been such a close aficionado of the original work, it was hard to digest certain film modifications. At first, anyway. (spoiler: In the film, Glorfindel is not the one who carries Frodo across the Ford of Bruinen - don't ask me who does <faceplam>). It was a glorious film, but not easy to digest some of the heavier differences Jackson had inserted. However, with subsequent viewings, I came to appreciate more and more the amazing feat Jackson't team had accomplished.

Fast forward - I ended up raising a family of nerds, one of whom has inherited the Tolkien Nerd mantle, and we have all watched the whole series (extended versions) many, many times.

Jackson approached the work in the right way. He engaged in in-depth consultation with Tolkien fans all during the years prior to developing and actually filming the work. His team understood amazingly that brining a work like LOTR to the screen is not about reproduction, but about translation.

The more I watched the films, the more I came to appreciate Jacksons LOTR as a masterpiece. The films could have been done so badly. But he translated the work of Tolkien from the written mode to a film work that indeed, captures the essence and spirit of the work in amazing ways. Curiously, they actually stand on their own as films. One (and many have) can totally appreciate and love the films even without knowing the books. That's the mark of success in filmmaking.

As long as one can appreciate that FILM is not and can never be the same as WRITTEN work, that they are two mediums that require different approaches, I think one can naturally appreciate what Jackson's team accomplished.

The 'inaccuracies' were never invested for convenience or laziness, but rather in mindfulness that film pace, drama and emotion requires different things, and for the overall whole thing to work, one needs to focus on the spirit and power, not on the infinite details that a book of some 500,000 words can indulge in and describe.

If you watch, I suggest reading about Jackson first, his approach, and watch some interviews about what they were thinking. You'll probably appreciate the films better. Either way, Jackson's LOTR is a masterpiece work, imo.

I hear you dog. Now here me.

Was a Tolkien nerd from age of 12, when I came across the Hobbit. By the end of high school (that is, senior high - in my country, high school is 6 years), I had read LOTR probably 6 or 7 times, had reviewed on the appendices heaps, and worked on my Elvish (both Quenya and Sindarin). Digested all I could find, from the Silmarillion, to Father Giles of Ham, Leaf by Niggle, etc.

When I went to university, I studied linguistics. After I began this study, I became more and more cognizant of the fact that JRRT as a linguistics professor, and my learning in linguistics gave me an even deeper appreciation of where and how Tolkien develop the languages, why, etc.

I lived overseas for around 16 years, and returned to the country of my birth around the start of 2000, just in time for the release of Jackson's Fellowship. Had 2 little kids at the time, and my wife wasn't a nerd like me, so I went by myself on the day after Christmas to watch Fellowship at a 10pm screening. I'd been looking forward to this for at least 5 years, as I'd followed the development of the project from early on.

It wasn't easy. Even though I'd been away from LOTR for 20 years (long story) I was thoroughly steeped in LOTR canon. Some of the things in Fellowship made me feel outrage. It was hard to digest (spoiler: In the film, Glorfindel is not the one who carries Frodo across the Ford of Bruinen). It was a glorious film, but not easy to digest some of the heavier differences Jackson had inserted.

Fast forward - I ended up raising a family of nerds, one of whom has inherited the Tolkien Nerd mantle, and we have all watched the whole series (extended versions) many, many times.

Jackson approached the work in the right way. He engaged in in-depth consultation with Tolkien fans all during the years prior to developing and actually filming the work. His team understood amazingly that brining a work like LOTR to the screen is not about reproduction, but about translation.

The more I watched the films, the more I came to appreciate Jacksons LOTR as a masterpiece. The films could have been done so badly. But he translated the work of Tolkien in the written mode to a film work that indeed, captures the essence and spirit of the work.

As long as one can appreciate that FILM is not and can never be the same as WRITTEN work, that they are two mediums that require different approaches, I think one can naturally appreciate what Jackson's team accomplished.

The 'inaccuracies' were never invested for convenience or laziness, but rather in mindfulness that film pace, drama and emotion requires different things, and for the overall whole thing to work, one needs to focus on the spirit and power, not on the infinite details that a book of some 500,000 words can indulge in and describe.

If you watch, I suggest reading about Jackson first, his approach, and watch some interviews about what they were thinking. You'll probably appreciate the films better. Either way, Jackson's LOTR is a masterpiece work, imo.

I hear you dog. Now here me.

Was a Tolkien nerd from age of 12, when I came across the Hobbit. By the end of high school (that is, senior high - in my country, high school is 6 years), I had read LOTR probably 6 or 7 times, had reviewed on the appendices heaps, and worked on my Elvish (both Quenya and Sindarin). Digested all I could find, from the Silmarillion, to Father Giles of Ham, Leaf by Niggle, etc.

When I went to university, I studied linguistics. After I began this study, I became more and more cognizant of the fact that JRRT as a linguistics professor, and my learning in linguistics gave me an even deeper appreciation of where and how Tolkien develop the languages, why, etc.

I lived overseas for around 16 years, and returned to the country of my birth around the start of 2000, just in time for the release of Jackson's Fellowship. Had 2 little kids at the time, and my wife wasn't a nerd like me, so I went on the day after Christmas to watch Fellowship at a 10pm screening.

It wasn't easy. Even though I'd been away from LOTR for 20 years (long story) I was thoroughly steeped in LOTR canon. Some of the things in Fellowship made me feel outrage. It was hard to digest (spoiler: In the film, Glorfindel is not the one who carries Frodo across the Ford of Bruinen). It was a glorious film, but not easy to digest some of the heavier differences Jackson had inserted.

Fast forward - I ended up raising a family of nerds, one of whom has inherited the Tolkien Nerd mantle, and we have all watched the whole series (extended versions) many, many times.

Jackson approached the work in the right way. He engaged in in-depth consultation with Tolkien fans all during the years prior to developing and actually filming the work. His team understood amazingly that brining a work like LOTR to the screen is not about reproduction, but about translation.

The more I watched the films, the more I came to appreciate Jacksons LOTR as a masterpiece. The films could have been done so badly. But he translated the work of Tolkien in the written mode to a film work that indeed, captures the essence and spirit of the work.

As long as one can appreciate that FILM is not and can never be the same as WRITTEN work, that they are two mediums that require different approaches, I think one can naturally appreciate what Jackson's team accomplished.

The 'inaccuracies' were never invested for convenience or laziness, but rather in mindfulness that film pace, drama and emotion requires different things, and for the overall whole thing to work, one needs to focus on the spirit and power, not on the infinite details that a book of some 500,000 words can indulge in and describe.

If you watch, I suggest reading about Jackson first, his approach, and watch some interviews about what they were thinking. You'll probably appreciate the films better. Either way, Jackson's LOTR is a masterpiece work, imo.