> Why then, do we get so excited when we hear that one of our favorite stories is going to be made into a movie?

An excellent question. The same general answer as the reason we get excited about sequels. We read a book that we really enjoy and want to experience more of that, because it was that good. This is why filmmakers adapt books in the first place -- it sells. This is why adapting weak or flawed books isn't done as often, even though it's a sounder venture.

> I hold up as an example the new Lord of the Rings movies that are currently being filmed.

This same principle applies to the above, but I think the LotR movies have some wonderful potential that many book adaptations do not. One reason is that the books could *benefit* with some judicious chopping. Tolkien made the decision to flesh out his world at the expense of his story. This is not a criticism, because the greatness of his accomplishments speak for themselves -- but it's not a decision that necessarily pleases everyone. Dave, as he has discussed here before, would have preferred more solid storytelling than the periodic deviations LotR makes in touring the vast world of Middle Earth, not all of which is strictly pertinent to the immediate story. I have yet to survive to the other side of The Two Towers, and it's because my preferences lean in this direction too. My favorite film director was notoriously (no pun intended) ruthless when it came to chopping out irrelevant asides in order to keep the main story moving along. If he ever read it, I can't imagine Alfred Hitchcock would have liked LotR. At the very least, he would not have filmed it faithfully.

From what I can tell, one movie per volume in LotR sounds like exactly the right degree of condensation the story needs. One movie for the whole thing would have been disastrous, yet I think some judicious condensation would be a great effect of reinventing the work for the screen. Some novels are shattered by condensation; LotR can benefit if it's done right.

Another reason is that the LotR story is the type of visual story that can really come to life, rather than being dampened in impact, on the big screen. Why? LotR is written in a subdued tone. It reads like an objective history rather than a dramatic novel. The movies will almost certainly be told in a more dramatic manner. They won't duplicate or replace the books' reputation for being great works of literature, but it will make the movies possess a type of fun and excitement that is wholly different from what the books provide. The same phenomenon can be observed in adaptations of the Bible. The Ten Commandments is a much more visceral experience than reading the book of Exodus. The movie may not be as good as the book, but that doesn't stop the movie from being an enduring favorite of multiple generations.

The third and final reason is that the swords and sorcery genre has THRIVED in novels, and there are a great many wonderful fantasy books out there. In movies, Hollywood has yet to understand the genre, failing in nearly every attempt. I could do a whole new long post about how Hollywood misunderstands the fantasy genre and screws it up all the time -- maybe I already have -- but the short of it is that with source material as great as LotR, most of the pitfalls are bypassed already.

The fourth and final final reason is that the director is a geeky looking guy with a beard. Any guy that looks like a UNIX system administrator automatically has the frame of mind necessary to adapt LotR. Even better, he's a complete nutcase. Peter Jackson is allegedly from New Zealand but more likely from some planet with a comical name like "Zoink." So not only is he working outside the Hollywood Studio of Bland Lowest Common Denominator Films, he's sure not to bore us with the same old cliches and artifice that overruns terrestrial entertainment.

The only reason I can see for not putting a lot of hope into the upcoming LotR films is because doing so is bound to lead to disappointment even if they are end up being really good.