[Rembrandt_fan]

I guess I'm a decided minority, but I thought Jackson butchered the Ring Trilogy--specifically the ending, where--in the novel--the Hobbits defeat the fallen wizard Saruman in a final battle and liberate the Shire. By eliminating the genuine ending, Jackson glossed over one of the central points of the trilogy--or so it seemed to me. The Shire is untouched by all that has gone on, at least in the film version, while in the book, the evil has permeated even that gentle place. The war came home, affecting everyone. It was important to Tolkien, and since those books were so important to my childhood, it was important to me.

What I saw on the screen, while entertaining, was not a faithful adaptation. The books had real moral weight. The film was a long-winded ordeal.

And in spite of a budget bigger than the GNP of most of the countries in the world, Shelob, the giant spider, was the lamest screen monster since those guys in zippered rubber suits walked around the back lot in 'Horror at Party Beach'.

[Jezebelle]

I think the movies demonstrated the moral weight of Tolkien's work in terms of good vs. evil.