: I'm really looking forward to the film and I am beyond the point of caring about how close it will be with the novel, as long as I have fun. It doesn't really matter how good or bad the film is, the novel will always be there and will never change.

: That's the end of my rant for the day, thanx for reading this far. ;^)

I've read all the post (up to now), and I agree with points on both sides of the issue. But a word about why no film adaptation of any novel will be exactly like the book. One little item is dialogue. First, how was the line delivered? Second, what looks good on paper sounds unnatural when spoken. And Tolkien uses some beautiful dialogue, but whether or not it will "play" when used in a film remains to be seen. And yet the words used by the characters is a very charming aspect of the books. But more importantly is the fact that we (any newsgroup, BBS, or WEB page of Tolkien fans) have never completely agreed on several points in the book. How then can all of us be completely happy with ANY adaptation? This is especially true for those of us who are purists. By purist do you mean the Balrog in Moria had wings or not? By purist do you mean the Elves have pointed ears or not? By purist do you mean that Merry's sword "killed" the Witch King or that he merely provided a feint so that Eowyn could deliver the fatal blow? Ian McKellan has already pinpointed a problem with character interpretation in his role as Gandalf. He mentions that Gandalf's beard was long, how long is long? Aragorn was tall - how tall is tall? There is so much room for interpretation that each of us has a slightly differing view of each of the characters. What a "rascally" look, and how rascally should he look? It seems to me that some scenes in the film will be just perfect for some of us, and just awful for others. And yet there is hope. There is hope that there will be more scenes that all of us agree with. From a visual standpoint, the pictures of Hobbiton appear to be very good, but even there a few dissenters have had a different perception of what a Hobbit Hole should look like. If the look of Middle-Earth isn't medieval, (I agree that it isn't) then what is the look? It pre-dates Greece and Rome and Egypt, so the armor and weapons must be unique, yet plausible. By plausible I mean "usable/functional", not ornate fantasy weapons that look "cool" but would be useless in a real battle. But in the end a sword is a sword and an arrow is an arrow. I suppose I could criticise the fact that Tolkien seems to be using steel weapons prior to the Bronze Age, but it is after all a fantasy. And the idea of advanced lost civilizations with lost arts (such as the making of steel) is a common subject, Tolkien is not really out of bounds here.

So if your hoping to make the perfect adaptation of LOTR, expect to be criticised no matter what you do.