What did you think of Peter Jackson's adaptation of the "Lord of the Rings?

I loved them so much I sat in the theaters for the special "Return of the King" showing where they ran the special edition versions of all the movies back-to-back at the theaters. It was 9 hours of butt-in-seat beauty. To my unprofessional eye, there was essentially nothing that could have been done to improve upon these movie adaptations.

I'm very excited to see The Hobbit Movie.

I thought the adaptation was fantastic. I'm not a huge fan of the books, but I think even the biggest fan would admit that they needed to be cut and trimmed to work on film. Jackson and his writing partners did this very well, keeping the spirit but making an exciting movie at the same time.

I am a huge fan of the books, and I loved the movies. I thought they were very true adaptations that enhanced Tolkein's vision.

The film series Lord of the Rings will go down as one of most epic and well adapted series in the history of film and literature. The craftsmanship and the performances in this film are brilliant. The fact that they disregarded the standard length of films was a great choice.

Wikipedia says the trilogy's extended edition is 683 minutes. Ummm... correct me if I'm wrong but that's 11 hours and 23 minutes for THREE films. An average of almost four hours *per* film.

Look at the 30 nominations--and 17 won--Academy Awards: The Fellowship of the Ring — Nominations: 13, Wins: 4 The Two Towers — Nominations: 6, Wins: 2 The Return of the King — Nominations: 11,Wins: 11 That speaks volumes...

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.