Book Clue for PJackson's Favor, or Still Maddening?

[Gilthalion]

I guess it is important to remember that the film team felt that they were creating a cinematic <I>interpretation</I> of LORD OF THE RINGS. As many here have noted many times it is simply not possible to do other wise, that is if you actually want a studio to have any interest in forking out the money to make it!<P>It thus being a necessity to cut scenes, merge characters, and rework subplots, we are left with discussions along the lines of: "Why did they do it this way when <I><B>I</B></I> would rather have seen it done this way because <B>my</B>[/i] way is more consistent with Tolkien's text?"<P>And I can't argue with that! Most of us have a real sense regarding Arwen that it was <I>possible</I> to have given her more scenes in the movie without compromising the vision Tolkien gave us. Even so, in TTT I think that we actually got closer to Tolkien's vision than Arwen/Glorfindel in the first movie. Not that I'm complaining.<P>To be fair to Jackson & Co., we should be mindful of their intent, rather than what we may or may not prefer to see done. In regards to that, on balance they have done a far better job than I expected and even surpassed my hopes. So much remains of Tolkien's great tale, characters, and vision that it is (if I may be so bold) a pedantic flaw in ourselves rather than in the film if our enjoyment is quenched because of divergences in the interpretation. <P>I speak from experience, because I've (successfully I hope) had to stifle the "demon-nerd-within" who pipes up now and again to whisper, "THAT'S NOT HOW IT WAS IN THE BOOK!"