What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[Curufin]

Interestingly, the best predictor I've found (admittedly anecdotally) of whether a person will say the movies work or don't work is the depth of his or her investment, emotionally, in the Tolkien cannon.

Well, I would agree with you on this and also say that I think this should be obvious. For those who don't care about Tolkien's works, or Tolkien's intentions, or the themes and ideals that his legendarium was created to express, a Hollywood-ized, cardboard, over-CGI'd, low-brow action movie that retains nothing of the original magic and beauty of Tolkien's world would be just fine. For those of us who respect Tolkien and the 50+ years that he put into the creation of his world, seeing it so ruthlessly exploited by PJ and company is a bit vomit-inducing.

The reason people who see the movies only typically enjoy them and don't react like you to them, Cur, is precisely because they take the movies on their own terms ... under which they work quite well.

For Fellowship, I would agree with this. I disagree that the last two films, especially The Two Towers, which I thought was a terrible movie on its own terms. What did that warg attack add to the film? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It was corny, cheesy, ridiculous, and a waste of ten minutes that would have been better spent portraying Faramir as he was supposed to be. Why the Elves at Helm's Deep, in direct contradiction to Tolkien's theme? Helm's Deep was the first battle in which men triumphed. The first indication that the power of men was finally overcoming the power of the elves, and further indication of Elven fading. The Last Alliance was called the Last Alliance for a reason.

And why should Lord of the Rings be taken on its own terms? It's an adaptation - which by definition is based on another work. A comparison with that original work should be an integral part of its definition.