Oh I wasn't questioning your opinion. I disagree but you're perfectly entitled to feel the way you do. I merely found the part I quoted quite strange.
Can you only like the films if you're already a fanboy? Or does liking the films make you a fanboy? Seems to me being a fanboy requires you to like something by definition so it's also a bit like saying "I'm sure snow is cold though".
In any case most fanboys hated the films.
Maybe I'm just being dumb using the incorrect term of fanboy.
It came across to me that many people who read the books rated the trilogy on how great it was as a port over of the books. Reading the reviews on IMDB suggests so. This bothers me because it meant all 3 got in the top 30 of all time greatest films based heavily on that fact, much higher than many films that were much more imaginative, original and just better. LOTR was lazy script and screen writing. Characters did things for no reason that you couldn't understand (unless you read the book). It relied heavily on wow graphics and sets. Neither film could stand on it's own either, even Star wars you could watch either episode alone and be done with that. The fellowship, at 3 hours long was just a 3rd of a story from a book, that isn't a movie to me. Granted the casting was good but for someone who didn't read the books I found it dull and disappointing. A film shouldn't rely on a book to make it. A film should stand on it's own as a film and a story, particularly if it means it's going to come in so highly on a rating table of other films.
The hobbit is just ONE book, yet they're stretching that over 9 hours too!! So what are they screen writers going to do with that? If they make stuff up and deviate from the book they will be thrown to the lions by the masses of fans of the book so instead they are going to drag it all out when it should have just been one film.
Sorry, not a rant. Just disappointed because I thought it could have been better/different.
