Film vs. Novel
Erik T.

In all the debate about casting, omissions, etc., few seem to keep in mind just how different the media of film and novel are. Many things in the novel simply would not work on film, and many of the compromises that Peter Jackson made for a better film. If the absence of the Glorfindel character draws ire from the idiots who call themselves "true fans," then I am glad they were not sitting behind me in the theater. I read someone who criticized Jackson for not having Frodo wear the ring as he slips away at the Falls of Rauros Is it not just bloody obvious why it's more interesting in a visual medium to NOT have Frodo wear the ring?

Of course there were many changes to characters and events - that is inevitable. I think the increased role of Saruman will be a great set-up for an arch villain in the second film. Not everyone has read the books, or will.

I think the root of many debates is whether the FOTR should be a stand alone film for the unitiated, or an exact playing out of the novel. I think, personally, that Jackson has managed to aim right down the middle and execute perfectly.

If Tom Bombadil not appearing at your local cinema causes you to condemn the films as "tripe," then I pity you for not being able to enjoy a film for what it is- an entertainment.