: : On the other hand, having thought this over, Jackson may be right. My justification is this. The scene would be very difficult to portray without making it pathetic. The beauty of the scene lies in Tolkien's writing. On screen, it might just look like a cheap Wagner cliche. This is also a cliche to Macbeth, with the prophesy that no man can kill the Lord of the Nazgul in direct comparison to Macduff not being "born of woman" because he was born by caesarian. According to Shippey, this cliche was intended by Tolkien, who also felt he could make better use of Macbeth's "till great Burnham Wood to Dunsinane shall come against thee", and introduced the Ents, which put Shakespear's men carrying branches to shame. Tolkien never had special liking for Shakespeare, and was trying to do undo some of the wrongs which had been done.

: : Sorry for the rant, but the point I am trying to make, is that it's pretty close to impossible to get this message across in a movie. Maybe Jackson is right in not burning his fingers?

: I too think the scene in the book is very powerful, and as you say it could be mishandled on film and turn into a Stereotypical set piece of Xena type action. You didn't describe it that way, but I can see how the scene could be used as either high drama or adolescent hack and slash. Worst, I can imagine the non-Tolkien audience snickering at lines like "Begone foul dwimmerlaik" if it isn't delivered in just the right way. I love that line myself, but I can see possible problems. So basically I'd like to see the scene remain, but only if done with care and dignity.

Agree.

Is it just me, or is PJ literally butchering this story?

First, IMHO, I think that they're giving Arwen too big a part. I mean, all she does in the book is stand by her father's chair at the Council of Elrond (wihout saying a word), and she gets marreied to Aragorn at the end. And why have her meet the Hobbits in the Trollshaws when Glorfindel did in the book? And the still have Glorfindel fight at the Ford? They're making the story much more confusing than it has to be. If PJ is worried about feminists complaining about Arwen's small pant, why not just point out Eowyn's part? Or if he's worried about displeasing Ms. Tyler, why not give her Eowyn's part and give Arwen's to another actress? And going into battle...?! Even if she's only shooting a few Orcs with a bow, it's a really bad idea (IMHO).

Then there's the matter of Gimli: he's been reduced to comic relief! I know Dwarves look cute, but that's no excuse for what PJ is doing. I mean, if Legolas comments just once on his beard, he's trying to chop razor ears' head off!

Speaking of the Elf, why does Legolas having blond hair? If PJ was paying attetion, he would know that Legolas was Sindarin, probably with some Silvan blood, and only the Vanyar and the house of Finarfin had blond hair, and that Legolas should have gray, silver, or black hair (without pointed ears!!!).

And green and scaly Orcs?!?! Tolkien said that Orcs had brown or black skin, depending on tribe.

Then he left out all of those great scenes: Bombadil, the Downs, even the Scouring of the Shire. I know that there are time restrictions, but come on, PJ, you're missing the poin completely!

If the Administrators believe that I am flaming against Mister Jackson, may they feel free to delete this post.