[Mamzelle]

As far as being disappointed at a film of a book--I was not at all disappointed in the LOTR movie. (Thought HP movie a little dull, really.)

Delightful! My husband is reading LOTR for the first time, and I think it will help him keep some of the details straight. He, like many, believes that dumping Bombadil was a good move.

I do have a little gripe with how they elevated Arwen to a "player"--she was supposed to be Mysterious and Unattainable--Aragorn's eventual trophy bride. But, I can see the need for a little romance and another female character.

The landscape was breathtaking, many of the characters an exact match for my imagination (Bilbo, for instance, and Legolas)

[Overtaxed]

I do have a little gripe with how they elevated Arwen to a "player"--she was supposed to be Mysterious and Unattainable--Aragorn's eventual trophy bride. But, I can see the need for a little romance and another female character.

Arwen has to have a bigger part so Aragorn won't look like a total jerk in that Eowyn business.

[BibChr]

On Arwen: had you noticed that one of Tolkien's appendices is devoted to Arwen, and her romance with Aragorn? Forgive me if you had. But having this pointed out to me put me somewhat at rest with Jackson "fleshing out" her character. I still find her mysterious and somehow both within and above the events. I really like your word: "incandescent."

Poor Glorfindel. Bakshi, as I recall, replaced him with Legolas, and now Jackson with Arwen. Ah well, the life of a minor character.

And this last thought: thank God at least that Jackson rejected the (noisome, noxious) suggestion that he "make" one of the Fellowship a woman, just to "update" things.

Dan