Quoted: Quoted: Without question, yes.  The books are 10x better than the movies.  And the movies are damn good. +1

+1000

Quoted: Quoted: I chuckle when I see people write that the films were epic. I felt they were rushed, and that the book gave a much greater sense of time than the film did. As someone posted earlier, a number of years passed between Bilbo's departure and Frodo's. And yet the movie turns it into a short chase sequence, compared to the longer pursuit that took place in the book. And why is changing that a bad thing?  I think, rather than feeling "rushed" it gave the story a sense of urgency, which the books sorely lacked.  The films were definitely epic and gave much more of an epic feel than the books did.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

The movies had none of the epic scope and depth of the books. The movies were contrived hollow shadows of the story in the books with none of their heart or depth... prefect for MTV kiddies.

Stryfe,

No sir, I assure you we are legion


jthuang,

Thanks for posting that sir, I appreciate it.

Cant believe this was thrown away, if favor of the further dumbing down of the movie.

Pete totally forgot, or never knew, that you NEVER talk down to an audience. When you cause them to use their brain, it brings a whole new level to the film. This films pre-made audience is FAR from the brain dead that revel in more mind numbing entertainment and actually LIKE to think.

THAT is the failure of this movie. Mind numbing. Brain dead. Modernised speech patterns. Modern THOUGHT ie the pussification of Aragorn, the weak spirit of man doomed to fail... all that shyte that could ONLY come from the pen of an estrogen soaked female or an outright limp wristed liberal moon calf.

THAT is what sickens me about this movie. They made it into a limp wristed caricature of the heroic tale that it is and remains.

OF COURSE Isildur was weak in the face of the ring, it came right off the hand of Sauron himself and was laden with his evil willpower, his actual spirit was invested in that ring. Isildur was one of the mightiest men to live in that age and had already proven so on numerous occasions. Do we wonder that a Maia, Sauron, could NOT control a mere mortal or ensnare his will? He took it as an heirloom of his house, not as an instrument of power for domination of the will of other people.

So this buuuulshyte of weakness of men is so insulting to Aragorn and his forefathers. How utterly base and worthless he made the house of Elendil the Tall, the Faithful. Elendil and his heirs had the very power to utter the name of Eru Iluvatar, God in this story, and cause ground to become holy and inviolate. Under no circumstances was any allowed to, nor inclined in the least to say that dread name. It was the strict prerogitive of the High King alone to do so.

That is who Pete shat on, that to me is just not the same as excising Tom Bombadil whom Tolkien himself did not know how he showed up in the story, nor how he fit into it.

Dram

Read the books.  Jackson freely admits that he could not follow the book simply because of the sweeping nature of the trilogy.  The love story is not much in the book.  There were no Elves at the battle of Helms Deep etc.  This was dome to show that the Elves did help the humans in many ways.  This movie could not have been made even 10 years ago.  there is no econimical way they could not have been made without computer graphics.  

Whole sections are not in the movies.  The trek through the Barrows etc.  There was simply no way to be true to the books without making a 24 hour film.  one of the best parts of the book is the 100 or so pages after the ring is destroyed.  Follows the Hobbits back to a ruined Shire and wraps up the story in a nice way.  It also shows the real death of Sauranom?  Also the appendix which details the "history of the earth", lineages of kings etc.  

I have a one volume paperback version.  The story was originally written as a single volume and broken up into three separate books.  Tolkein had a heck of a time with the editors constantly trying to rewrite sections of the story.

To me the real hero of the story is Sam.  Frodo's faithful friend who was there to aid and rescue him through thick and thin.  It was Sam who always made things right so the journey could continue.  In fact he was so good at it that he was granted the gift of growth and now aids Jack Bauer on 24.  

The movies are great in themselves.  They do catch the theme of the story.  Originally Peter Jackson was farming the story out as two movies.  After a visit to the executives they came back and told him to make three movies.   This resolved a major problem of how to edit the book down toe two movies.  The added features in the extended versions talk a lot about how all this came about.  It also details how close the actors and crew became during the three years of filming.  

The final battle ws filmed in a location that had to be dry and dusty to look like the area in fornt of the Black Gates.  The only area in New Zealand that fit the bill was the artillary range used by the New Zealand Army.   An area was swept and cleared and New Zealand army troops were used as warriors.    While fimling the battle scenes occasional parts of shells would be kicked up and the filming ws stopped so they could be cleared.   Also, many of the "Riders of Rohan" were women.  there were just not enough skilled "horsemen" available so women were added to the mix.  

Not many studios would have the patience to pay for three years of shooting and editing and I think they did a great job.  If the movies are a 10, the book is a 15.

Joey:  "Well, why do you call him Gandalf?"

Ross: "Gandalf the Wizard. Hello! Didn't you read Lord of the Rings in high school?"

Joey: "No, I had sex in high school!"





(Loved the books as a child, loved the movies as an adult.  One more vote for "READ THE BOOKS!" )

Read the books. IMO they are some of the best written in any genre.

I never thought anybody could pull the movie off, but they did.

As good as the movies were, the books are on another level.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I chuckle when I see people write that the films were epic. I felt they were rushed, and that the book gave a much greater sense of time than the film did. As someone posted earlier, a number of years passed between Bilbo's departure and Frodo's. And yet the movie turns it into a short chase sequence, compared to the longer pursuit that took place in the book. And why is changing that a bad thing?  I think, rather than feeling "rushed" it gave the story a sense of urgency, which the books sorely lacked.  The films were definitely epic and gave much more of an epic feel than the books did.   NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO The movies had none of the epic scope and depth of the books. The movies were contrived hollow shadows of the story in the books with none of their heart or depth... prefect for MTV kiddies.

Nope, I would totally disagree with that interpretation. IMHO the movies had more heart and depth than the books.  

Quoted: no scourging of the shire in the movies.

Thank God...this movie did not need another 30 minute long denouement.

Quoted: Read the books.  Jackson freely admits that he could not follow the book simply because of the sweeping nature of the trilogy.

You know, I think that thing that really killed it for me was all of the hype about how Jackson was so devoted to the books and wanted to get everything right. And then he goes and reorders the story, quickens the pace, and talks down to the audience.

I understand that the whole story couldn't make it into the film. And I think Tom Bombadil and the barrows, as well as the sacking of the Shire were good places to "trim fat."

I hate the treatment that Merry and Pippin received. They and Gimli, were made into complete jackasses for the sake of comic relief.

Quoted: Nope, I would totally disagree with that interpretation. IMHO the movies had more heart and depth than the books.

AGH! ! ! !

Truly, the movie is a pale shadow of the depth in the books (notice the plural there).  

I would guess that you would change your mind if you went to the forums at Council of Elrond and had them open your eyes about the depth that is LOTR.  They certainly did mine, and I was already a fanatic.  

Council of Elrond

Ever read any of the other books: Silmarrilion, HoME, Tolkien Letters? Letters is a good one.  It publishes selected correspondence between Tolkien and his readers wherein they ask questions about background, character motivation, ethics, ... you name it.  One popular question is, did Frodo fail?  Another is, was Gollum truly evil?  You really need to read Tolkien's perspective.  

Saruman meets a VERY different end in the books, as does Sauron.  In these two instances, I vastly prefer the book over the movie (even the extended version, thereof).

Read the books.

What did Gandalf mean when, on the Bridge At Khazad Dum, facing the Balrog's fury, he stated, "I am the wielder of the secret fire, keeper of the flame of Anor.  The dark powers shall not avail you."  The Balrog was taken aback by that in the movie, remember?  What was the Balrog, anyway?

Weathertop was once a tower mightier than Saruman's Orthanc.  Weathertop is where the Nazgul attacked the hobbits at night, Frodo is stabbed in the shoulder and only Aragorn's efforts save them.  If you rememeber, the Ents could not even scratch Orthanc's walls.  What happened to it to reduce it to a pile of rubble?  

My wife enjoys the movies - but LOVES the books. They are more detailed and very wll written. I need to check them out!

Quoted: Quoted: Nope, I would totally disagree with that interpretation. IMHO the movies had more heart and depth than the books. AGH! ! ! ! Truly, the movie is a pale shadow of the depth in the books (notice the plural there).   I would guess that you would change your mind if you went to the forums at Council of Elrond and had them open your eyes about the depth that is LOTR.  They certainly did mine, and I was already a fanatic.

Naw, I've been to all the fan sites.  I first read the books when I was 10 and have read them many times since.  But not once have I felt the sort of "falling into it" that I have with other books.  I didn't feel as if the characters "lived" for me.  Not until I saw the movies.

I had never even heard of LOTR until I was in college, and then I dismissed the movies as being gay, primarily because of the Burger King commercial showing a small, plastic "Frodo the Hobbit!"  Talk of wizards and Hobbits sounded utterly retarded.  Damn, was I wrong.  My girlfriend eventually got me to watch FOTR and TT right before ROTK came out, and I've been obsessed since then.  I truly wish I had had the opportunity to read the books first, but I'm so grateful that I've discovered Tokien.  It's the only fiction that has ever completely captured my attention.  The genius of Tokein cannot be put into words.  I plan on re-reading all of the books on a regular basis until the day I die.

ETA:  For me, the LOTR movie trilogy surpasses The Godfather, which I never thought could happen.  Yes, the books are better

I read The Hobbit and the LOTR the first time back in the mid 70's [ thanks to my wife ].  Even on the second or third read I would become immersed in the story and become a hobbit  [ 6'1" hobbit ].  The movies of course can't suck you in like that.

I wish they would do The Hobbit.  Even that would require hours. The trolls that were going to eat Bilbo and the dwarfs, the 'Bura-Hobbit' and the dragon,  the shape changer.  The dark forrest. Tremendous scope in all the books.

rj

books are the best if done right the movies effects can be awwesome, ala LOTRs

Quoted: Nope, I would totally disagree with that interpretation. IMHO the movies had more heart and depth than the books.

While the movies were great, they really don't hold a candle to the books.  The movies suffered from a lot of fluff which Peter Jackson added (was forced to add?) to make the movies more palatable to the general public.

Example:  Gimli, Merry and Pippin were generally relegated to comic relief roles.  Legolas (thru Orlando Bloom's character) was more of the skater bad-boy guy.

The books are of such quality that they didn't NEED comic relief ... they stand on their own.  To most Tolkien purists, the addition of comic relief characters was particularly distasteful.

Quoted: The books are of such quality that they didn't NEED comic relief ... they stand on their own.  To most Tolkien purists, the addition of comic relief characters was particularly distasteful.

But I am not a Tolkien purist.  While I found the the books fascinating in the depth of the history that Tolkien created, I didn't find them compelling on a personal level.  I DID find the movies compelling.

Quoted: Quoted: The books are of such quality that they didn't NEED comic relief ... they stand on their own.  To most Tolkien purists, the addition of comic relief characters was particularly distasteful. But I am not a Tolkien purist.  While I found the the books fascinating in the depth of the history that Tolkien created, I didn't find them compelling on a personal level.  I DID find the movies compelling.

That's fine ... you don't have to be a purist to appreciate the books (or the movies, for that matter).  I just found the books much more compelling and forceful (without the need for comedy).  

Quoted: Quoted: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO The movies had none of the epic scope and depth of the books. The movies were contrived hollow shadows of the story in the books with none of their heart or depth... prefect for MTV kiddies. Nope, I would totally disagree with that interpretation. IMHO the movies had more heart and depth than the books.

Yep.

I first read the books in the fourth grade, and I found the movies much more compelling.

Or read the Sillmarillion first, then the Hobbit, then the Lord of the Rings series

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Without question, yes.  The books are 10x better than the movies.  And the movies are damn good. +1 +2 Read The Hobbit first and tack The Silmarillion on the end.

Quoted: Quoted: Nope, I would totally disagree with that interpretation. IMHO the movies had more heart and depth than the books.   While the movies were great, they really don't hold a candle to the books.  The movies suffered from a lot of fluff which Peter Jackson added (was forced to add?) to make the movies more palatable to the general public. Example:  Gimli, Merry and Pippin were generally relegated to comic relief roles.  Legolas (thru Orlando Bloom's character) was more of the skater bad-boy guy. The books are of such quality that they didn't NEED comic relief ... they stand on their own.  To most Tolkien purists, the addition of comic relief characters was particularly distasteful.

Yep...

The movies had little to no depth…

Jackson stripped the heart out of the story, gutted the main characters, and turned the story in to a comic book version for those with short attention spans. Jackson turned main characters in to shallow conflicted shadows or stupid clowns.

Jackson gave us:

Gimli… the clown dwarf.
Legolas… the dude.
Merry and Pippin… the idiot hobbits.
Aragon… the borderline metrosexual Ranger.
Elrod… the sulking father.
And on and on…

I contend Jackson made many of the changes unnecessarily and many of his changes were not only unnecessary but counterproductive and just wasted time that could have been used to give more context to the movies.

The movies succeeded on some level as entertainment but failed to be true to the original intent.

Jackson turned Lord of the Rings in to Die Hard with swords.

Quoted: Quoted: Nope, I would totally disagree with that interpretation. IMHO the movies had more heart and depth than the books. AGH! ! ! ! Truly, the movie is a pale shadow of the depth in the books (notice the plural there).   I would guess that you would change your mind if you went to the forums at Council of Elrond and had them open your eyes about the depth that is LOTR.  They certainly did mine, and I was already a fanatic.   Council of Elrond Ever read any of the other books: Silmarrilion, HoME, Tolkien Letters? Letters is a good one.  It publishes selected correspondence between Tolkien and his readers wherein they ask questions about background, character motivation, ethics, ... you name it.  One popular question is, did Frodo fail?  Another is, was Gollum truly evil?  You really need to read Tolkien's perspective.   Saruman meets a VERY different end in the books, as does Sauron.  In these two instances, I vastly prefer the book over the movie (even the extended version, thereof). Read the books. What did Gandalf mean when, on the Bridge At Khazad Dum, facing the Balrog's fury, he stated, "I am the wielder of the secret fire, keeper of the flame of Anor.  The dark powers shall not avail you."  The Balrog was taken aback by that in the movie, remember? What was the Balrog, anyway? Weathertop was once a tower mightier than Saruman's Orthanc.  Weathertop is where the Nazgul attacked the hobbits at night, Frodo is stabbed in the shoulder and only Aragorn's efforts save them.  If you rememeber, the Ents could not even scratch Orthanc's walls.  What happened to it to reduce it to a pile of rubble?

I'm pretty sure it has to do with Gandalf wearing one of the great rings.  Galladriel had one as well

Quoted: The movie are cool. The books are art. The guy created entire languages for them. You'll be amazed at how incredibly deep they are. He basically created entire mythologies, cultures, history, etc. It's not just a story.

Yep, created several languages, he was a genious.

Well worth the read IMO.

I injured my back last year so I read a book a day while laying around .


I watched the DVDs then read the books then watched the DVDs again, then read the books again, then watched the DVDs again (Bought DVDs and Books).

Needless to say I got the full picture.

Read "The Hobbit" first if you like, it clears some things up.


Yes I enjoyed LOTRs.

Quoted:

Why continue to 'contribute' to the thread? Everyone else has been offering support for their opinion, and you keep saying the same thing over and over.

We get it, the movie pulls you in, and the books don't hold your attention. That's cool. Nothing wrong with it. But why stick around if you have no intention of expounding on your thoughts?

Quoted: Quoted: Do you remember the part in the Fellowship with the Pony as they are about to enter the caves (the one with the enchanted door and the octopus monster in the lake)?  Well the pony had a bigger part in the books.  Also the movies don't mention Tom Bombadil.  There are so many parts that the movies had to cut out that it would be a sin not to read the books. I really cant figure out where Tolkein was going with Bombadil, they show up at his place, spend a long time there, then suddenly just one day depart as if he lost his train of thought on that sub-plot. I was glad they finally departed his place, I was seriously considering putting the book down with how boring those ~50 pages were. Kharn

The books were written in stages and there is a pretty clear change in tone that occurs at around that point where Tolkien stopped writing a children's book and began writing a serious epic.  Tom Bombadil was a relic of the children's book that Tolkien couldn't see his way clear to getting rid of.    Bombadil holds no clear place in Tolkien's cosmology either.  He is not Maiar, Nor Valar, nor is he Illuvatar himself.  He is no Elf or Wizard (Maiar).  He simply is Tom Bombadil, some incarnate spirit of the land.

That subplot was entirely  dispensable for the purposes of the movies.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nope, I would totally disagree with that interpretation. IMHO the movies had more heart and depth than the books. What did Gandalf mean when, on the Bridge At Khazad Dum, facing the Balrog's fury, he stated, "I am the wielder of the secret fire, keeper of the flame of Anor.  The dark powers shall not avail you."  The Balrog was taken aback by that in the movie, remember? What was the Balrog, anyway? Weathertop was once a tower mightier than Saruman's Orthanc.  Weathertop is where the Nazgul attacked the hobbits at night, Frodo is stabbed in the shoulder and only Aragorn's efforts save them.  If you rememeber, the Ents could not even scratch Orthanc's walls.  What happened to it to reduce it to a pile of rubble?   I'm pretty sure it has to do with Gandalf wearing one of the great rings.  Galladriel had one as well

Has NOTHING to do with the ring.  The Secret Fire is the fire of creation.  Gandalf is a Maiar, the second order of angelic beings created by Eru Iluvatar to work his will in the universe.  More than that, Gandalf is the Wise, the chiefest of all the Maiar in the eyes of the Valar, though that very wisdom prevents him from putting himself forward as such.  He was AT LEAST an equal of the Balrog in raw power, though more constrained by the limitations placed on him when he took human form to come to Middle Earth.   This was required, as the last time the Maiar and Valar came forth in full power to combat Morgoth and Sauron they shattered half the continent.  


This is what pisses me off so bad about the treatment Jackson gave the meeting between The Witch King of Angmar and Gandalf the White.  He used the dialogue pretty much word for word, but he completely switched the tone.   Gandalf stopped the Witch King COLD at the gates.  He forbid him passage right there and then.  He commanded the Witch King.  The Witch King then withdrew because he had the Rohirrim coming up on his back and a Maiar to his front...better to face the Rohirrim than the angel.  

If it had come to a fight, the Witch King would have been destroyed.  The ring he wore and the power Sauron invested in him would not be enough to take on even a voluntarily weakened Maiar of Gandalf's stature.

Quoted: Quoted: Why continue to 'contribute' to the thread? Everyone else has been offering support for their opinion, and you keep saying the same thing over and over. We get it, the movie pulls you in, and the books don't hold your attention. That's cool. Nothing wrong with it. But why stick around if you have no intention of expounding on your thoughts?

You're asking the wrong person.  I made a couple comments and people keep responding to me, telling me I am nuts, some sort of heretic.

I cant believe I am saying this but:

Rik is apparently a major photo buff and it is obvious that his medium is visual more so than literary. He is moved by the visuality of the movie it seems.

Which is just fine.

Many many people enjoy the movies.

Which is great.

For the purists among us, the movie just happens to be offensively dumbed down to levels that are pretty low.

Real low.

But, to each his own at the end of the day.

Dram

Quoted: If it had come to a fight, the Witch King would have been destroyed.  The ring he wore and the power Sauron invested in him would not be enough to take on even a voluntarily weakened Maiar of Gandalf's stature.

Well, I was just trying to entice the poster to read more and understand the books have depth not even hinted at in the movies.  I was not actually looking for an answer.

Anyway, I think I caught you on the one point highlighted above.  As I recall, the Ring Wraiths no longer wore or had their rings.  It was Saron's possession of their Rings that enslaved the Wraiths to him.  The thing is, I cannot remember in which book I read so much more about the Ring Wraiths and their adventures which are not captured in LoTR.

Any comments on the super duper extended DVD version, from those who've seen it? I read the novels (Hobbit, LOTR) about 28 years ago. I agree that Tolkien invented a genre, and was probably more obsessive about his literary creation than anyone outside of James Joyce.

GL

Quoted: Any comments on the super duper extended DVD version, from those who've seen it? I read the novels (Hobbit, LOTR) about 28 years ago. I agree that Tolkien invented a genre, and was probably more obsessive about his literary creation than anyone outside of James Joyce. GL

I have the extended DVD versions. I haven't seen the regular version since it was in the theaters, but I don't recall there being much if anything of importance added to the extended versions.

Quoted: Quoted: Any comments on the super duper extended DVD version, from those who've seen it? I read the novels (Hobbit, LOTR) about 28 years ago. I agree that Tolkien invented a genre, and was probably more obsessive about his literary creation than anyone outside of James Joyce. GL I have the extended DVD versions. I haven't seen the regular version since it was in the theaters, but I don't recall there being much if anything of importance added to the extended versions.

There is.  It's just about mandatory to have the extended versions of The Two Towers and Return of the King.  They include material that really fleshes out things even more, and adds even more depth to the story.  I highly reccommend getting the extended editions.

Quoted: I cant believe I am saying this but: Rik is apparently a major photo buff and it is obvious that his medium is visual more so than literary. He is moved by the visuality of the movie it seems. Which is just fine. Many many people enjoy the movies. Which is great. For the purists among us, the movie just happens to be offensively dumbed down to levels that are pretty low. Real low.

I don't know if I'd say I was more visual than I am literary...I just appreciate literature that draws a vivid mental picture.  Most of the time when I see a movie based on a book I've read, it's a different picture than the one I've drawn in my head, and I am disappointed.  With LOTR, it was not only very close to the pictures in my head, it was BETTER.  I find that amazing and enchanting.  And I don't feel it was "dumbed down" at all...it's simply a different medium with different ways of telling a story.

Ditto:  I don't even look at the theatrical release versions anymore.

If you want to understand ANYTHING about Faramir's troubles with his father you need the extended version.

Want to know more about the Ents?  You need the extended version.

How did Saruman's story get resolved?  

If you are looking for depth, you need to see the extended versions.





P.S. - the thing is, even the extended versions do not answer a few fundamental questions such as, Why was Lord Denethor, Boromir & Faramir's father,  such a total LOONEY TUNE ? ? ? ? ?  

The books answer this.

You're going to get much more detail in the books.  Also, I remember when watching the first movie, there were (at least) three small changes from the book (which I immediately verified by rereading the relevant sections).  I don't remember what they were now, unfortunately.

I wasn't nearly as interested in the second and third movies.  The special effects for the ents in the second were just a little too cartoonish for my tastes, and kinda wrecked it for me.  I caught the third as an in-flight movie.

Quoted: the special effects in the books suck

You must have been reading the children's editions.

Quoted: Quoted: My wife got hardcore into the books, she went out and bought all of them.. I for some reason, Dont see the pitcure... I cant get into books about wizzards and such...? The books are about far more fundamental things than “wizzards and such”…

They weren't written on Microsoft Windows, so I'm surprised you would tolerate their existence in your universe.

Quoted: Quoted: The books are of such quality that they didn't NEED comic relief ... they stand on their own.  To most Tolkien purists, the addition of comic relief characters was particularly distasteful. But I am not a Tolkien purist.  While I found the the books fascinating in the depth of the history that Tolkien created, I didn't find them compelling on a personal level.  I DID find the movies compelling.

I am surprised that no one has steered you toward the alternative press edition, "Bored of the Rings".  Frito Bugger was a most courageous boggie.  And Tim Benzedrine rocks.

Quoted: Quoted: the special effects in the books suck You must have been reading the children's editions. Quoted: Quoted: My wife got hardcore into the books, she went out and bought all of them.. I for some reason, Dont see the pitcure... I cant get into books about wizzards and such...? The books are about far more fundamental things than “wizzards and such”… They weren't written on Microsoft Windows, so I'm surprised you would tolerate their existence in your universe.

I am surprised you could be bother with such a trivial matter as a book… Did you run out of terrorist scum to apologize and make excuses for today?

Quoted: I have seen all 3 of the movies and they are fantastic, maybe my favorite movies of all time. Question is should I bother reading the Lord of the Rings books? I know sometimes the books are better and sometimes they are not? Opinions? If they are worth reading even though I've seen the movies, does it apply to all 3 books?

The movies were good, and I own all 3 now........BUT, the books have way more detail and adventure.....If Peter Jackson would've included EVERYTHING from the books, then the movies would've been 8 hours long each instead of 3.....still good viewing though, if you like those kinds of movies.....(which I do)

Quoted: I don't know if I'd say I was more visual than I am literary...I just appreciate literature that draws a vivid mental picture.

I think where you and I might find common ground is Master and Commander. After seeing the movie I read the first book in the series. I felt like I was driving nails with my forehead trying to keep straight in my mind what was happening.

And I don't feel it was "dumbed down" at all...it's simply a different medium with different ways of telling a story.

It might almost be worth watching Fellowship again, just to remember what scene it was that had me clutching my armrests and thinking, "why that condecending foreign jackass! We could've figured that out on our own, you didn't have to spell it out for us 'stupid Americans.'"