movies and seemingly contradictory phrases

i woke up with b at 5 this morning. usually, i try to hustle in to work... i love the novelty of being the only person somewhere at the beginning of a day. this morning i took my time and read like crazy. i had much time to think...too much time, maybe. and when having too much time, i often have conversations with myself. [don't have me committed, okay] today's conversation centered around movies--whether or not the Lord of the Rings trilogy will be my favorite movie(s) ever. i don't know why this is important...but there you are. up until the Matrix, Glory (with Denzel, Morgan Freeman, Matthew Broderick, and Cary Elwes) was the undisputed favorite. after i'd seen Matrix 2349081275 times, i think it began to dawn on me that there were significant pieces missing that were there in Glory. so Glory remains at the top. it has to be the most well-casted movie i've seen. and the ending is the best/worst thing ever. plus it came out in 1989, before all the Braveheart-esque flicks appeared, and that must mean it was innovative or something. but back to LoR. i did a book report on the Hobbit in 3rd grade. at a Baptist school. my parent's should have known better. and the paddling i received for bringing up the dangerous topics of dragons and wizards only spurred me on to read more of this "banned" Tolkien stuff. i found Fellowship when i was 11, Two Towers at 12, and then read the whole 1400-page, one-volume monstrosity cover-to-cover--including the appendices--over a five-day vacation when i was 13. i don't think i slept or ate the whole time. i was absolutely enthralled with Tolkien. i read the Silmarillion at 14, then the Lost Tales 1 and 2. and on and on. so i guess i'd have good reason to either love or hate the movies--which i do. probably for the same reason everyone else loves/hates them--they take the images in our heads and commit them to a particular director's interpretation. it will be next to impossible for me to envision the Balrog any other way than as a giant, flaming Red Bull with wings. i'll never be able to think of Saruman without thinking of Christopher Lee's spooky horror-movie voice. and--this is the part that actually does make me sad--i'll probably always remember Shelob's layer and Minas Morgul and the Saruman/Gandalf confrontation at Orthanc as being part of Return of the King. [at this point, all three of you that read this are probably thinking "get over it, Tolkien snob"--which is why i wanted to give you a little history of my obsession to begin with so you can share my pain] somehow this gallimaufry of thoughts settled on the term "adaptation" as in "these movies are an adaptation of Tolkien's work". what a freaking loaded term! as if by becoming placed on film, the written word adapts into new media where it transcends the barriers of having to be read and then interpreted through the brain of the reader. here are some other terms or axioms that trouble me because they seem almost--but not quite--contradictory when you really think about them. "this will hurt me more than it hurts you;" "closest facsimile;" "based on a true story;" "hippodrome;" "it must have been love, but it's over now;" "the bottom line is satisfaction for a job well-done;" "waste not, want not;" "please stand by;" "customer service;" "now with more great taste;" "luxury--because you deserve it;" "The Neverending Story Part 3;" "the Christmas rush;" "Christian pop superstar; "erik, you're a danger to yourself and others...put down that dynamite." anyone else have any?