I don’t always find special effects so painfully dull. The Alien series is a great example of good use, where an entire, believeable world is created with a script strong enough to support it, and the spectaculars are limited enough to have a huge impact when they arrive. I liked the first Matrix and the Terminator movies for the same reasons. But here I felt a) Jackson was reusing shots all the time—another city in peril, ho hum—and b) the special effects were so thick and fast it might as well have been Jerry Bruckheimer. Gasp at the Oliphaunts! Cower before the armies of the dead! (Yawn at the eighth ending…)

It didn’t help that there wasn’t a shred of humour in the whole thing, unless you count the dwarf’s lumbering Arnie-style one-liners. But that’s Tolkien.

If this hadn’t been a sacred book, the whole thing would have been edited down to five hours, maybe three, and the philistines would have enjoyed it more. Dunno if that would be desirable, as I’m glad the real enthusiasts got to enjoy it.

I take Dervala’s point on some of the Oliphant stuff, and agree that special effects do not ruin a movie if you are NOT thinking through the movie that the effects are good. Peter Bogdanovich’s commentary on my Citizen Kane DVD mentions that by the standards of it’s day , and even now, it is riddled with special effects. I had not noticed any on first viewing.

In this I think Jackson is mostly successful; Dervala mentions thinking the Oliphant’s were obstrusive, but nothing else. But Helm’s Deep does not exist, nor does Minis Tirith, nor did any of those battle’s take place, nor does Golum exist somewhere. These effects segued naturally into the movie.

For example, the mere sight of Anduril drives Orcs gibbering in fear, not because of what it looks like but because of intangible connotations such as who made it, how old it is, where it has been and what it has done; its very history has a physical weight that affects those who behold it or wield it. That’s hard to convey visually without coming across as kinda goofy, so in the movie it’s just a shiny sword like any other.

When Frodo commands Gollum not to betray them, Sam is shocked to see the power of the ring working through Frodo, turning him into a taller, dark figure of shadowy menace holding a burning wheel of fire. Which is a very powerful mental image, but it isn’t going to work in a movie, and they didn’t try — though I did notice that they tampered with Frodo’s voice occasionally when he was commanding Gollum, but it wasn’t very significant.

A last example from the Return of the King: the flying Nazgul. In the movie they are basically big birds that pick people up and drop them. That’s nasty, but conventional. In the book the Nazgul aren’t even seen, they fly above the clouds over the battlefield, and their mere presence is enough to drive the defenders to despair, while their shrill cries cause men to drop their weapons and flee blindly. Again, this is quite terrifying, but it doesn’t work in a movie.

I do enjoy the movies for many reasons, but they don’t and can’t ever replace the book.

I know it’s sacrilege, but I’m a philistine. I don’t think many people can successfully come to LOTR as adults. :(

I believe that the battle at Helm’s Deep was more impressive, and immersive, without being overdone. I did like the charge of the Rohirrim though, before they reached the Mighty Tusked Ones.

Seriously though, the rampaging elephants really bugged me. Over the top, and pointless noise for the sake of it. The beacons flaring up over the mountains was the emotional high point of the whole movie, I thought. Quite beautiful.