Jackson commits two rather large sins, in my mind.

1) He constantly minimizes the good and emphasizes the evil in numerous minor characters. You note Butterbur, but this holds true throughout -- Strider becomes unsure of himself; Elrond becomes a malevolent, man-hating prick; Treebeard and the Ents initially opt for neutrality; Theoden's retreat to Helms Deep is a cowardly retreat; and Faramir opts to take Frodo as a prisoner to Osgiliath -- and on, and on. Instead of moral actors arriving at the correct decision, these characters ultimately have to be shamed into doing the right thing by bigger characters. One of the things I liked about hte Lord of the Rings is that Tolkien presents the fight against evil as a decision every person, at some level, has to confront -- many people choose, in the book, to oppose Sauron for their own moral reasons. Jackson instead opts to make the Hobbits and Gandalf the consciences of Middle Earth. If slander against fictional characters were a crime, then Jackson is guilty of numerous counts of it.

2) He not only cuts scenes -- we all knew that had to happen for the movies to be made -- but in some places, he ADDS scenes that never occurred -- the more gratuitous of these being the Warg battle/stunned Aragorn bit, and the Elvish archers at Helms Deep. In both scenes, I said "WTF?". Both were completely unnecessary, and they also took away from time he could have used to give us stuff that was actually in the book.

What angered me about it was that he presumed himself a better narrator than Tolkien -- we get 10 minutes of Peter Jackson's crappy writing in place of 10 minutes of Tolkien.

That being said, he did get a lot right in Middle Earth -- the art direction, sets, costumes, locations, etc. are top notch. The computer work is groundbreaking. I'm not going to give him a blanket condemnation for the movies -- but I think he also made some serious mistakes along the way.

Dude! Did you steal all that from one of my prior posts? That's EXACTLY what I've been on about all this time. And it's the addition of things - another example being Gandalf and Pippin sneaking off to light the warning beacons of Gondor - that particularly gets my goat and undercuts the argument about how things had to be cut in order to make the books small enough to fit on the screen. But I'm trying to keep pace with Gary's narrative.

Robert/Colossus. All valid arguments against PJ's interpretation of a timeless classic.

However, I would make one point as it regards filmmaking. In every example listed above (with the exception of Elrond, the prick) we see over two or three films the kind of character development that is not necessary in Tolkien's books. Remember that the films were made primarily for the fans but Jackson also intended that they appeal to a wider audience. Without the kind of character arcs that these followed - Aragorn's overcoming self-doubt, Treebeard and the Ents' decision to take a stand against evil after being too passive, Theoden's finally achieving the heroism that make him (in his mind) worthy of his ancestors and Faramir's desire to please his father v. his better instincts - many non-fans who paid good money to see the films would not have enjoyed them as much.

Perhaps Jackson's actions seem to reduce the characters to the level of a bad soap-opera and I'm sure you'd both say to the non-fans, F 'em. But Jackson's presentation of Tolkien's vision didn't gross over a billion dollars because his cinematic instincts sucked.

The books are the books and the film will never take away from that. But ponder this: how many new fans of the books are there today BECAUSE of the films?

I don't hear the Tolkien estate or Houghton Mifflin complaining.

Sorry, guys. Had to jump in on this one.

Colossus, your fist point is spot on, but I would like to give credit to Jackson for one thing - if it werent for him I would have probably never read Tolkien.

But I still think this sort of complaining is useless, books and movies are different media that can only inspire each other, perfect transitions between them, perfect adaptations are an utopia. Dont get me wrong, I understand your complaints. But lets not over-do it.

Overdo? Moi?

Let's also be careful not to go the other way with the It's-Jackson's-Movie-And-He-Can-Do-What-He-Wants line. There has to be a compromise, a willingness to accept that there are always going to be differences inherent to the different mediums but that there also must be restraint and respect on the part of the latter artist for the former's work. I'm willing to admit that a lot of what I do here is just cranky nit-picking in this sense, done largely for my own amusement and also as an exercise in thinking more closely about the books, but I won't back down on my assertion that Jackson also made some mistakes not so easily dismissed.

I'll throw you a bone, Robbo. The whole Arwen thing bugs me and is blatantly nothing more than fodder for the females that geeks like us dragged to see these movies.

But I mostly blame Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh for all that.

The books are the books and the film will never take away from that. But ponder this: how many new fans of the books are there today BECAUSE of the films?

*raises hand*

Me, me, me!

Although, I can see where Robert, et al make excellent points about the adaptation from book to film.

As for the Arwen argument by Gary above, I disagree that her inflation in the films was for the females. I would have been happy with less Arwen. I would have been happier with more Eowyn.

I think Jen's right. There was this whole Liv Tyler-As-Xena thing working there. My guess is that it was aimed more at the guys than the gals.

I think PJ had a valid point of his treatment of Faramir and the ring. In addition to his desire to gain Denetor's approval, how is it that he is not even tempted by the ring when he has Frodo and Sam captured and powerless?

I loved the scene at the end of FOTR where Aragorn finds Frodo just before the orcs attack. When he sees the ring, you can hear it whispering to him.

The ring corrupted Boromir and was a serious temptation to Galadriel and Aragorn. What makes Faramir unusually resistant to its power?

Well, better be back to the day job....