[The Saucepan Man]

Arwen at the River, I think was Glorifindel in the book..

You’ve got a lot of people that join you there...but if you only “think” it was Glorfindal...!

Actually, it wasn't Glorfindel in the book either. Frodo was on his own. Glorfindel simply lent him his horse.

I thought that was a bit of a bad move. I understand that many complained of “too many endings”, but from the behind-the-scenes stuff, PJ explains that he pretty much never intended to do the scouring, pretty much because he didn’t like it. I think that wasn’t a good reason, but for others, it will pass.

Actually, I think that Jackson is on record as saying that this is one of his favourite chapters. He left it out for cinematographical reasons, which stand up pretty well to scrutiny in my book. The destruction of the Ring and defeat of Sauron is the climax of the film, indeed the trilogy of films. It simply wouldn't have worked to have another mini-climax following that. Quite apart from the timing issue. There is a prevalent view among reviews that I have seen (presumably by critics who have not read the books) that the ending was 15 minutes too long. By all standard film-making conventions, RotK should have ended with Aragorn's coronation, Arwen's appearance and the honouring of the Hobbits. So let's be thankful we at least had the Grey Havens.

And a lady by the name of Megan Bashem (spelling?) wrote an article about how the whole big picture of the general Good vs. Evil theme was overlooked (intentionally, Basham believes, and I agree) to keep the cast, crew, and audience more comfortable with their worldview that there is no such thing as a true, concrete sense of Right and Wrong. (Such a thing would mandate a Creator of Right and Wrong, which they don’t believe in, and really don’t want to)

Sorry, in what way was the Good v Evil theme not covered? The free peoples are good, and they are fighting a war against Sauron, who is evil. Seems pretty straightforward to me. In fact, I have read a number of articles complaining that the films are too simplistic in their portrayal of good and evil (elves and hobbits: good; orcs: evil) and that it therefore has nothing relevant to tell us about the complex world in which we live. Yes, the films are not overtly religious in their portrayal of good v evil (and rightly so, in my view), but then neither is the book. Nevertheless, many of the values which Tolkien held dear (which were influenced by his relious beliefs), and which are espoused in the book, seem to me to be present in the films.

And a lot of run-of-the-mill movie goers don’t want to have to think about what they watch. For them, it’s mindless entertainment. PJ knew he had to target those people while still remaining as true as he could to us fans.

I do think that you may make a good point here. There is far more emotional investment in a book than in a film. Most films demand no more than 3 hours of someone's time, whereas a book will demand a lot more. So I think that it's understandable that people expect far less "thought-provoking" content from films, particularly big budget productions aimed at the mass market, than they do from books. Books also require less in terms of sales to recoup their production costs than films, certainly those requiring the kind of investment necessary to bring Middle-earth to life. So, again, I think that it's understandable that those involved in making the LotR films aimed for mass, rather than specialist, appeal.