Grond- first off, just after writing my long post I saw your post in the 'movie poll' thread, and saw that you have many good things to say about the movie as well as criticisms. I didn't come back and edit my post because I think a lot of my points still apply to posters on this thread, if not so much to you. I especially feel that Merry and Pippin in the movie were very closely related to their characters in the book.
Regarding unneccessary departures from the book, here's my take. I think that many of the departures were different from what was written in the book, but were in the spirit of the book. Was it Arwen who rescued Frodo in the book? No. From what Tolkien has written about Arwen, was it in her character to do these sorts of things? Yes- in the narrative Arwen is often compared to Luthien, in Letters Tolkien writes that Arwen is very like Luthien in character. Arwen is not all that stay at home- several times in the Third Age she travels between Lorien and Rivendell. In the books Elrond sends out several riders to find Frodo & co. In the books it is Glorfindel who finds the Hobbits. By having a different Rivendell Elf in the movie PJ is departing from the books, but he is not departing from the spirit of the books (an opinion call on my part). By having that Elf be Arwen he is also departing from the books, but staying within the spirit. The character of Luthien was not remarkable for the fact that she stayed in Doriath most of her life, her character was remarkable because of her efforts in recovering the Silmaril from Morgoth. If Tolkien says that Arwen had a similar character, then why not have her leave Rivendell at least once in the movie before her wedding?
I wonder very much what effect the Tolkien Estate's lack of support had on PJ's decision making in the movie. Remember, PJ is making what will doubtlessly be the crowning achievement of his career an homage to Tolkien. At the same time, the Tolkien Estate would not even let PJ place Tolkien's name in the movie. From all accounts that I've heard, this decision took place before a script was written, so it couldn't have been in response to departures from the book. The Tolkien Estate snubbed PJ and belittled his ability as director/writer/producer by not allowing him to put Tolkien's name in the movie. It would not surprise me at all if PJ made some of his departures as a childish response to the TE's snubbing. What I find altogether wonderful is that many of the departures from the narrative reflect what Tolkien actually wrote about Middle-Earth. Tolkien said that Arwen shared the character of the pre-eminent adventuring Elf-maiden in all the history of Middle-Earth. PJ decided to explore the adventure-some side of Arwen's character. Tolkien wrote that the Dunedain of Cardolan and Arthedain were defeated at Weathertop in TA 1409, and that the Prince of the Dunedain of Cardolan was subsequently slain on the Barrow-Downs (Tyrn Gorthad) and burried in the same mound as the one which the Ringbearer was later trapped in. In the books the Hobbits get their swords from this mound, in the movie the Hobbits get their swords from a Dunedain fortress that was destroyed in the same military engagement. Maybe PJ didn't even realize this, but I tend to think of it as subtle film-making rather than blind luck.
Again I reiterate that changes from the text are not automatically bad (I guess that's why nobody's ever labeled me a purist). In a re-telling of the Lord of the Rings PJ is free to explore alternatives to what the author wrote in the book, especially since he was not allowed to use that author's name in the movie. I actually enjoyed most of the stuff that people complain about. I liked Elrond's stern-ness, he was an ancient Elf that had seen all of the plans of the Free-Peoples come to nothing. Arwen's expanded role reminds me that she had the character of Luthien (when I miss Glorfindel I can always read the books). The perceived coldness of Galadriel helps me understand why Eomer and Boromir were so afraid of the Wood and openly critical of the lady within. None of this stuff was explicitly written in the books, but from what Tolkien did write this material was certainly in the spirit of the books. And, as I've said before, the differences from the narrative have added to my LotR experience, where a direct word-for-word translation would not have.
Regarding unneccessary departures from the book, here's my take. I think that many of the departures were different from what was written in the book, but were in the spirit of the book. Was it Arwen who rescued Frodo in the book? No. From what Tolkien has written about Arwen, was it in her character to do these sorts of things? Yes- in the narrative Arwen is often compared to Luthien, in Letters Tolkien writes that Arwen is very like Luthien in character. Arwen is not all that stay at home- several times in the Third Age she travels between Lorien and Rivendell. In the books Elrond sends out several riders to find Frodo & co. In the books it is Glorfindel who finds the Hobbits. By having a different Rivendell Elf in the movie PJ is departing from the books, but he is not departing from the spirit of the books (an opinion call on my part). By having that Elf be Arwen he is also departing from the books, but staying within the spirit. The character of Luthien was not remarkable for the fact that she stayed in Doriath most of her life, her character was remarkable because of her efforts in recovering the Silmaril from Morgoth. If Tolkien says that Arwen had a similar character, then why not have her leave Rivendell at least once in the movie before her wedding?
I wonder very much what effect the Tolkien Estate's lack of support had on PJ's decision making in the movie. Remember, PJ is making what will doubtlessly be the crowning achievement of his career an homage to Tolkien. At the same time, the Tolkien Estate would not even let PJ place Tolkien's name in the movie. From all accounts that I've heard, this decision took place before a script was written, so it couldn't have been in response to departures from the book. The Tolkien Estate snubbed PJ and belittled his ability as director/writer/producer by not allowing him to put Tolkien's name in the movie. It would not surprise me at all if PJ made some of his departures as a childish response to the TE's snubbing. What I find altogether wonderful is that many of the departures from the narrative reflect what Tolkien actually wrote about Middle-Earth. Tolkien said that Arwen shared the character of the pre-eminent adventuring Elf-maiden in all the history of Middle-Earth. PJ decided to explore the adventure-some side of Arwen's character. Tolkien wrote that the Dunedain of Cardolan and Arthedain were defeated at Weathertop in TA 1409, and that the Prince of the Dunedain of Cardolan was subsequently slain on the Barrow-Downs (Tyrn Gorthad) and burried in the same mound as the one which the Ringbearer was later trapped in. In the books the Hobbits get their swords from this mound, in the movie the Hobbits get their swords from a Dunedain fortress that was destroyed in the same military engagement. Maybe PJ didn't even realize this, but I tend to think of it as subtle film-making rather than blind luck.
Again I reiterate that changes from the text are not automatically bad (I guess that's why nobody's ever labeled me a purist). In a re-telling of the Lord of the Rings PJ is free to explore alternatives to what the author wrote in the book, especially since he was not allowed to use that author's name in the movie. I actually enjoyed most of the stuff that people complain about. I liked Elrond's stern-ness, he was an ancient Elf that had seen all of the plans of the Free-Peoples come to nothing. Arwen's expanded role reminds me that she had the character of Luthien (when I miss Glorfindel I can always read the books). The perceived coldness of Galadriel helps me understand why Eomer and Boromir were so afraid of the Wood and openly critical of the lady within. None of this stuff was explicitly written in the books, but from what Tolkien did write this material was certainly in the spirit of the books. And, as I've said before, the differences from the narrative have added to my LotR experience, where a direct word-for-word translation would not have.