[doug*platypus]

Good point, appeasement of bookpeople is not the only reasoning. The use of excerpts such as the chapter titles also lends credibility to the film. In the same way, if you write a fan fiction, you might introduce a cameo by one of Tolkien's characters, or descent from them, or reference to one of the places, to bring your story in line with Tolkien's. Or if you were really clever and subtle (as the three-headed PJ/PB/FW writing team is not), you would use similar tones of narrative, and Tolkieny words like "doom", "smote", "beheld", etc. and just leave it at that. If the filmmakers had taken the same approach to dialogue as they had to costumes (using minute detail to build up a complete picture) the films would have been better off for it.<P>Honestly, yes, the Chapter Title ploy bothers me. Don't get me wrong, that shot of Gandalf in front of the fireplace is brilliant, even if he is a bit too wasted. And Riddles in the Dark is probably the example of chapter title use that works the best. But it seems to me like a token effort, and it is used too blatantly and too often. Shortcut to Mushrooms, Strider (although very neatly done and almost imperceptible), Knife in the Dark, A Long-Expected Party, The Bridge of Khazad-Dûm... they're all just soundbites. This is NOT the way to write good dialogue. I appreciate the chapter titles on the DVD more (such as A Knife in the Dark), and I'd rather see them referred to subtly rather than blatantly. Such as the shot of the sign of the prancing pony - much better than if Merry had said, "Well, here we are AT THE SIGN OF THE PRANCING PONY," which is what most of the other references amount to.