And then click on the horses.

I watched the new extended edition of The Fellowship Of The Ring last night. Is it better than the original theatrical release? I would have to say yes, purely because it includes more information that will be of importance later on in the trilogy.

And for the disgruntled purists among you, y'all can kiss my hairy butt. The film may not be the book, but it is a wonderful film in it's own right. I never did understand why people are so obsessed with comparing films to books. They are two entirely different mediums, requiring very different story-telling techniques.

I do believe it is possible to make a bad film from a good book. Absolutely it is. But the reasons people give for saying that a cinematic adaptation isn't "as good as the book" usually involve something like, "The scene where Frodo visits Tom Bombadil was missing".

Now, truthfully, does this make the film adaptation of The Fellowship Of The Ring bad? No, people, I think you'll find not. Perhaps you loved that scene to bits. Perhaps you thought Tom Bombadil was the best character in the whole of the Tolkien universe. But in the interests of maintaining a vaguely reasonable running time for the film, was he entirely essential?

I think you get my point. Books can be returned to and are meant to be read over potentially vast periods of time. Films, on the whole, are not. If you are going to say that one version of the story, told in an entirely different medium, is better than the other, at least try to be properly critical about it.