What you actually liked about PJ's interpretation

[The Saucepan Man]

Actually, I wouldn't describe the films as Jackson's "interpretation" of the books, since an interpretation would involve presenting the story as originally told, but with the interpreter's 'spin'. For example, in a production of a Shakespeare play, certain characters or themes might be emphasised but the words remain the same.<P>But, as we all know, Jackson took certain .. er, how shall I put it ... liberties with the story. Not something that I have a major problem with, since I can enjoy the films as distinct from the books (which, great though the films are in my view, undoubtedly remain the superior works of art). So, I would describe the films as <I>adaptations</I> rather than interpretations.<P>As to the question, well all I will say is that I liked far more about the films than I disliked. It would be simpler to list my dislikes than my likes, but since I have addressed these exhaustively on other threads, I will refrain from doing so here (other than to irritably mutter my wholehearted disapproval of those hyena-lemming-stuffed teddybear things .)<P>Actually, I will say one thing, since, contrary to what many have said on this thread, I liked the film's idea of Lothlorien. Admittedly, it was not the Golden Wood presented in the book, but I do not think that it would have worked well in film terms for the mood to have been lightened up too much here since this would have broken up the tension created in the previous scenes. So, I think that the idea of a dark, mysterious and slightly-disconcerting Lothlorien works well on film. Having said that, however, I don't think that the execution of the idea worked too well, since it seemed far too "film set-ish" and therefore, for me, lacked realism.