[the phantom]

Really phantom! Such blatant selective quoting does not become an intelligent debater such as yourself!

Oh, fine. I'll quote the whole thing you said and explain why I left out the parts I did.

Many more have seen the films and not felt such reservations - whether that be because they have not read the book, because they have read the book but don't have such strong feelings about it, or because they have strong feelings about it but (like me) are content to have their cake and eat it.

I left the following groups out of my quote last time-
Group 2- Read the book and don't have strong feelings about it.
Group 3- Read the book and have strong feelings about it but don't have reservations about the movie.

Why did I leave them out? Because I was focusing on individuals who had not read the book. I couldn't stand to see this group mentioned even one more time in someone's post. The whole point of that last post I made was this- of course non-bookers don't have reservations about changes that were made! They can't see the changes! Their opinion has no place in this debate because they DON'T HAVE one.

I found it absurd that you included them on your list of people without reservations. They have no weight in this matter.

Now I guess I'll go ahead and give some thoughts on groups 2 and 3.

Group 2- If they read LOTR and don't have strong feelings about it then are they going to care that much if the movie sticks to the book or not? No. They won't care either way.

Group 3- Honestly, how many people are there who really care a lot about the book and don't have reservations about changes to the film? How many book fans honestly have no problem with the changes that PJ made (particularly the changes that caused inconsistency)? Do you realize that, even though you claim to be, that you are not a member of this camp, Mr. Saucepan?

Why would I say this? Here are some quotes from you earlier in the thread-

I certainly felt uncomfortable (at first, at least) about some of the changes made

Some will think they were better as a result of this process, while others (and I would probably include myself in this category) will think that they would have been better without at least some aspects of it.

I agree that it is difficult to remove sections of the story without this having a knock-on effect. And I also agree that there are places where Jackson and co could have handled it better.

the Nazgul is intended, by showing the effect of the Ring on Frodo, to highlight its peril to Faramir, thus giving him a reason to free them. Although, visually impressive as it was, I agree that this is one of those scenes that could have been handled better.

From your very own mouth (or should I say fingers), you, The Saucepan Man, have reservations about the changes that were made to the book. You do not belong in group 3. Group 3 is fiction. I doubt there is a person in the world who read LOTR, loved it, and also had no problems with PJ's changes.

It would please the people who care and not effect anyone else

It is the second statement that we differ on.

Umm... by definition if they don't care then they aren't going to be effected. But okay, let's pretend... If they were effected, it would certainly be positive. I mean, is there any way that making the storyline more sensible and making the characters more consistent could be a bad thing?

Let me ask- was it Arwen's character inconsistency that sold all those tickets? Was it the Nazgul incident in Osgiliath that got LOTR the Oscar? Was it the little corny or ambiguous lines and moments that made LOTR popular?

NO! Obviously not. Then why in the world have you, for the past five pages, been trying to cling to the idea that the critic reviews and fan numbers were somehow improved by the changes that we are complaining about?