As an amusing point tom, you ctually justified my lotr statement by referring to the 2nd film as "the twin towers"

Because of shear bad luck the film came out only a couple of years after september the eleventh, and a lot of americans were irritated at the title "the two towers" even though it had nothing to do with the world trade center (I remember reading one artical at the time where one extremely angry American crytic asked "who is this tolkien guy anyway, ---- you'd think he wasn't even american!" ;D).

This is why, though the title of the film wasn't changed, in a lot of promotional material, interviews etc they referd to it as "the twin towers" which is not correct according to what tolkien wrote back in the 1940's at all.

As to It and harry potter I totally agree.

The only potter film I thought came even close to the book is Prisoner of Ascaban, and that was more because of it's dark, gothic atmosphere which replaced Cris Columbus' shiny, happy directing that just didn't fit the Potter world at all, ---- even aside from plot manglings.

with lotr though for me the situation is worse. As The encyclopedia of Arda said, Tolkien himself didn't think of what he did as writing fantasy, he thought of it as writing history which just happened to be untrue.

thus, Lotr is a historical novel set around the bakcground of a fully documented and well accounted war. As such, monkeying with the events is not just a case of hollywood dumming down things for the public and sticking in lots of extra action scenes for no good reason, it's actually more like having a novel about the second world war and suddenly deciding to stick in lots of holywoodisms, extra battles, more heroic characters etc.

Beware the Grue!


Gamers mailing list __
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to

Reply via email to