[Bêthberry]

This is turning into the kind of argument which hinges on whether we were happy or displeased with the movies, which I think misses the most interesting of the possibilities of this discussion. I am quite happy to recognise that many people enjoyed the movies. I don't think, however, that one's response to the movies hinges entirely on whether one is a dedicated Tolkien book reader or just someone who reads 'Tolkien lite.' I am not in particular a big fan of TheSilm. And for me, RotK was disappointing, in part, because it had so many 'concluding' scenes or climaxes. Aesthetically or emotionally, it was, for me, a mishmash. This does not lessen the enjoyment of many others. It merely reflects the different way I have of reading movies. Nor do I presume that there is one essential way of reading LotR, which Jackson missed. He is entitled, as are we all, to have his own particular interpretation.

SaucepanMan's argument is that most people do not read The Silm and so will not understand the theme from that point of view. This derives from Son of Numenor's first point which quotes from The Silm. However, I don't think the argument needs to be referred to The Silm at all. I think the question of the nature of evil can be analysed in LotR alone.

That said, I think it is quite legitimate to compare the theme of evil as portrayed in the movies with that in LotR. What are the differences in tone between the ending of the book and the ending of the movies? Rather than simply argue them away as deriving from some format of movie requirement, why don't we explore the different depictions of tragedy and of evil?