> You have a point there. And, true, The Two
>Towers was a weaker movie than Fellowship. On a
>tangent, I disagree that the *book* was the
>weakest (for the books, Fellowship is my least
>favorite -- an overlong first half, and an
>overlong stay at Rivendell [coupled with badly
>paced storytelling] don't leave much), but my
>favorite stuff in the book is all that follows
>Faramir, which isn't *in* the movie.

Blah. I just recently completed an audio book "reading" of both Fellowship and Two Towers (I'm hoping Return of the King came in today, as I hate listening to the radio on the way to and from work now!) and I have to say that, although the first half of Fellowship is slow and ends up having almost nothing at all to do with the plot, it can't friggin hold a candle to the second half of Two Towers for sheer BOREDOM. There is exactly one part of the whole second half of TTT that I liked, and it's the very very end when Shelob whacks Frodo and Sam has to decide whether to go on or stay with him, and the resulting capture by the orcs. It got my psyched up for RotK. That's IT. The rest was typical Tolkien travel garbage.

> Maybe the Academy thinks Peter Jackson hired
>actual hobbits and Uruk-Hai and did not require
>the use of make-up.

He didn't?

-- Dave