Oh, he definitely captured the overall feel, but then there was The Two Towers which was a extended fight scene and mostly had nothing to do with the books at all. Even the ending of the big battle whose name I've forgotten was changed. That's a pretty major change.

Fair point. As much as I enjoyed the second book, I didn't even pick up on those differences. I've already noted my slight annoyance with him moving the Spider Queen to the third movie and totally omitting Gandalf's return to Isengard from the theatrical releases (in extended movie of third). Like I said, while not totally faithful, most of the changes improved it as a film in my eyes.

Yeah, moving the spider stuff to the third movie on its own was fine, but it helped make the second movie seem even more like filler.

My only major beefs with the films are the leaving out of Gandalf's complete kicking of Saruman's ass and the omission of the hobbits' return to the Shire and their subsequent discovery that Saruman had turned it into a kind of Little People Nazi state.

I think the themes of Saruman reduced to petty vengeance and manipulation on a scale as small as a hobbit village and of the hobbit travellers coming back in no mood to be fucked with are important to the wind-up of the novels, even if others think those scenes are anticlimatic. I don't.

Other than those and some minor things like not spending much time on the orc jailers, I thought Jackson did a good a job as anyone could ever do.

I think I'm being misunderstood a bit. I think Jackson, overall, did a very good job. But I don't see him as indispensable.

Sweet Jebus, where's Ogre when ya need him?!?!?

At robotboy's place watching all three extended versions. He's a nerd too, remember...

I've been thinking of posting this since the 2nd post in this thread.

Gar minds think alike