: Hm. Well, I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed Jar Jar Binks. However, if there is NO comic relief, the movie would not seem very much like the book (which has plenty). Tolkien's comic relief is somewhat underscored, however. I wouldn't call it subtle, and he often uses it to lead into more serious stuff.

: But then, people are already alarmed about the fact that the movies are NOT going to be faithful to the book. I don't think it should matter one way or the other, as long as the audience enjoys whatever it sees. For me, the biggest shame is the heavy emphasis on medievality in architecture and (apparently) horse saddles. I fear the weapons and armor will also be too medieval in look and feel, and the clothing as well. I did have some input on swords, but we only discussed Anduril and Elvish weapons.

: [snip]

: : Such things are what I am scared of might happen in the
: : LOTR-movie too; that they feel they need to make Gollum very
: : "funny", or put in silly scenes to give the audience cheap
: : laughs. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against using
: : humour in films; but it needs to come naturally, not be forced
: : in merely for its own sake.

: I doubt there will be much humor associated with Gollum. Based on all I've read and heard, Peter Jackson considers Gollum to be a very painful, tragic figure, and I believe he will try to portray Gollum that way.

Are these people going down the well-trodden road to silly-swordery? Fantasy swords in film and illustration are, in general, dire. Historical swords were the shape they were because they were efficient for their purpose. A man holding a sword had two lives in his hands, his own and his opponent's, swords had to work well.

Most of the swords produced for fantasy films would have been grossly unbalanced, weak in the blade due to odd shaping, and the hilts would have seriously damaged the wrists of anyone foolish enough to wield one.