Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Extended Edition) Amazon

So, let's have a look at the Extended Edition of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, available at Amazon. With my own notations, of course.

Why doesn't nobody in the entire World (They do. On Amazon) say anything bad about these films!!!? (Well, thank God, brave soldier. Fighting the good fight for us all. And THREE exclamation marks to one question mark? Nice ratio)

It'sThey're awful! Sure, the CGI is good(I'll tell Peter Jackson). But it's about some dwarfs(Oh, they're Hobbits. Come on, how did you not gather that?) running about with a ring. It's basically midget wrestling, which is far more entertaining anyway (Well, adaptations of epic classics aren't for everyone, I suppose).
Why do people love it? Because it's an epic with great fight scenes and wonderful music and even better costumes (Those are certainly some of the features. Do you really dislike these films, or are you pulling our collective legs).
The story is a rip of of Dracula(erm... No. They're so very different), you don't care about any of the characters (I do, actually), because it's all abotu about the scenery really.(Again, erm... I'm sure there was some sort of story there. About a ring, you mentioned it earlier.)
Give me midget wrestling any day! (Yup, because it features characters you care about)

You demand MORE? Well, I oblige:

This man is evil. He WILL eat your babies.
Image via Wikipedia

Peter Jackson's self-described "adaptation" (Yes. It's a quote, apparently. Presumably a direct quote from Mr. Jackson self-describing his self-described adaptation) of The Lord of the Rings is basically an example of fan-fiction, the genre in which professed fans of a particular writer carry on the story after the end of the book: for example, Mr Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett's life together after they got married.(Thanks. Helpful AND not patronizing! Ironically, this definition clearly illustrates that Jackson's adaptation was just that - an adaptation of Lord of the Rings, not a piece of fan-fiction based in Middle-Earth) Why I describe Jackson's effort as "presumptuous" (You haven't actually done that before) is because he decided it was OK to rewrite the original work itself (Words don't always translate into pictures. So I hear), to "fix it up" in accordance with his own tasteless "aesthetic" and pop psychology. (What a wanker Peter Jackson is. I hope a herd of cats lick him without mercy) It's "mediocre" simply because, as film critic John Marriott said of George Lucas, the trouble with Peter Jackson is that "he can't write and he can't direct" (But he said that about someone else. You can't use quotes that way. And Jackson can direct, I've heard). His alterations are neither minor nor necessary: they grotesquely distort the arc of the story at every turn and render most of the leading characters unrecognisable (No. They're recognisable. They had the same names and basic appearances. You could argue for virtual unrecognisablessity, if you wanted. Or use real words). That's fine if the alternative is valid but it is far from that. Like Jolene, Jackson "took" LOTR "just because he could". (Is that a relevant quote? Really?) (Anyone wanting a far more extended and insightful analysis of why these films are a grotesque travesty should check out David Bratman's wonderful essay in the book Tolkien on Film.) (No. They were films. Perhaps you didn't like them, I suspect so. But they weren't a "grotesque travesty". They weren't the holocaust. No-one died.)