[Robert A Cook PE]

Building up Tyler's screen time, then.

His ride (to safety across the river) was solo in the book also, right? (In the movie, he was carried by Tyler's character.)

[HairOfTheDog]

Yes, in the book he (Frodo) rode alone... Arwen took him on the flight to the ford in the film... Not the way I would have done that part... but a minor quibble in the grand scheme of things... The movie was done beautifully, and a very complex story was crammed into less than three hours. PJ did a fabulous job, all things considered!

Are you going to see it?

[Illbay]

Arwen didn't even show up in the first book until (briefly) in Rivendell, and then she had no more role to play until the very end of Return of the King, when she becomes queen to King Elendil (Aragorn).

I was thinking about this the other day, how painstakingly accurate the Harry Potter film of the first book was last year. In fact, the only criticism about it that I heard was that it was TOO much exactly like the book, there wasn't really anything new or surprising.

Now, I know that the Conventional Wisdom has been that you just couldn't film "Rings" that way, but I now think that's hogwash. Harry Potter is every bit as detailed and exacting as the Tolkien works (please, no stupid flames, I'm talking about TECHNICALLY; don't let's get into some dumb-*ss debate over the relative artistic merits). I now wish they'd been more accurate with "Fellowship."

Sorry, but the thing with Arwen taking Frodo across the river still chaps my bum.