Those are good examples, Gregoshi. I agree that Jackson was probably the person best able to pull off what he did finally achieve. He was great; but not perfect.
It seemed to me that Jackson added the warg attack in Rohan because he left out the warg attack prior to Moria. It was just a thought that came to me when I finally saw the warg attack on the way to Helm's Deep.
I wasn't pleased with Jackson leaving out whole sections of the returning to the Shire of the hobbits. He killed off Saruman; so I guess he couldn't then have Saruman as Sharky. But that whole part of the books was as important as the grand epic war. It showed how the war came to the Shire as much as the rest of Middle Earth. Instead, the hobbits returned to an unaffected and unconcerned Shire.
I also was annoyed with the time spent showing Saruman as somehow the instigator of their problems at the pass of Caradhras. Gandalf clearly states that perhaps it was instigated by Saruman, but instead points out that there are many powers and evils in the world that predate both Saruman and Sauron. In the end, it cheapened the whole segment.
The need to elevate Arwen to a major character also cheesed me off. Too much time was spent in the movie dealing with Arwen in scenes that were sheer invention. That time could have been better spent doing the return to the Shire properly or even doing Tom Bombadil.
I would have liked to see the gathering of Gondor's forces, arriving to help in the fight. The procession with the arrival of armies from the south and Prince Imrahil and the Swan Knights of Dol Amroth for example.
However, the scenes that annoyed me most of all were the ones involving Faramir and Frodo. The changes there were far too aggressive and unnecessary, to my mind. Faramir didn't decide to bring the hobbits back to his father. He certainly didn't take them to Osgiliath. Unneeded and pointless.
He nailed the Balrog though, and Gandalf's fight with it. I can forgive a lot just for giving me that visual.![]()
Bookmarks