Faults in Peter Jackson's Interpretation

[Lord of Angmar]

I have seen many topics about all the things that people hated about Peter Jackson's works. And I do not mean just a few topics. I mean dozens, and that is just since I came to the site about two months ago. You would be hard-pressed to find a discussion in the movies forum that does not have at least one criticism (ambiguous or blatant) about Mr. Jackson's work. I would like to make a short list of things that I disliked in the movied that <I>could</I> have been done differently. I am not going to say that it was a terrible rendition, as I know there were obviously time restraints and mass audiences to think about. This will not be a thread that *****es and moans about not having Tom Bombadil, since, quite frankly, I am glad that he is still left to my imagination, and I hope it will not degrade into a bashing session of PJ's movies.<P>There are several things that I found wrong with the movie that could have been changed and not taken away from the movies' mass appeal.<P>First off, the time lapse. It should have been shown, as it completely throws off the timescale (something that vexes me greatly as a Tolkienite).<P>Secondly, there is the matter of Gandalf and Saruman. I think it really took away from Gandalf's character and from the credibility of the movie that Gandalf openly and fully disclosed his knowledge of the whereabouts of the Ring to Saruman. Above all other things, this made me angry with the first film. It was compeletely the opposite of what Gandalf would do in such a situation. <P>While we are on the topic of Saruman, I must say that I still struggle to believe why Saruman openly gave his services to Sauron, and did not try to stop the Nazgul. If the Nazgul had gotten the Ring, Saruman would have been out of the loop. His only chances of gaining power was to get the Ring first. He was working <I>against</I> Sauron in the books, but in the movie he joins forces with him more openly.<P>In the second movie, and this has been discussed countless times (probably more than all other aspects), I strongly disliked the portrayal of Faramir. No ifs, ands or buts, Peter Jackson changed his character completely, and the series of events that led to his change of heart made absolutely no sense (why would he finally allow Frodo and Sam to go off to Mordor alone when he had just seen Frodo offer up the Ring to a chieftain of the Enemy?). This was in my mind the absolute worst change by Peter Jackson.<P>I thought Eowyn's character was changed for the worst too. Eowyn is less cold and distant in the movies. In fact, she is cheery at several points, and she rarely shows the blend of toughness, sadness and conviction that made her character great in the movies.<P>That all said, I have to say I still enjoy Peter Jackson's movies, and there are many traps that he could have fallen into but didn't. The Elves were made with proper mysticism and beauty, never venturing into the absurdness and childishness of other Tolkien movies. Although Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire are some of my favorite parts of the books (particularly Bombadil), I think it would have cheapened the books <I>and</I> the movies if he had chosen to include them. I for one would never want to imagine Bombadil other than I do now.<P>Please comment on or debate any of the above points. I feel like everyone's opinions are too jumbled, so this is the place to get them all clearly and intelligently (please not anti-PJ ranting) out once and for all.<P>Cheers!<BR>-Angmar