Losing Gollum's Soul

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, it could have been done like that. But then Sam would have been perceived as being to blame for the "loss of Gollum's soul". It is much easier for this to be portrayed as the misunderstanding which it is in the book than it would have been on film. I think that Sam would have come off badly from it from the audience's perspective, and that is the last thing that Jackson (or indeed Tolkien) would have wanted.

And, as I said, I think Jackson wanted Gollum as a villain throughout RotK.

[Lord of Angmar]

Well, PJ could have toned down Sam's reaction to make him seem less culpable for Gollum's betrayal, and Gollum's saying, "Nice master," could even be made somewhat ambiguous in it's motives. I agree that "Jackson wanted Gollum as a villain throughout RotK," but do you personally see this as the best possible way for Jackson to achieve the desired response in the audience? {Do you think it does justice to Tolkien that Mr. Jackson would leave out the scene he described as the most tragic in the book? (I do not mean to aim these questions at you in particular Saucepan, just any who happens to stumble upon this thread besides us... just so you don't think I'm trying to push your buttons.) }

{Text added in edit}

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I don't think Samwise really needed any protection from Jackson. Gollum, on the other hand, could really have used a booster (I mean, just look at the guy!). If they had done the scene as it was in the book, I don't think the audience would have turned on Sam. I think they would just realise the hopelessness of the situation and feel sad for everyone concerned.

[The Saucepan Man]

If they had done the scene as it was in the book, I don't think the audience would have turned on Sam.

Actually, I find it quite easy to imagine people coming out of the cinema saying "I don't like how that Sam turned the cute Gollum dude against them". And that would have provided yet another bone of contention for Tolkien (book) fans, many of whom would no doubt be ranting about how Jackson "messed up" the scene (although, as I said, I think that it would have been very difficult to portray properly on screen).

I think they would just realise the hopelessness of the situation and feel sad for everyone concerned.

But that's the point. Jackson didn't want people feeling sad for Gollum in RotK. As director, that's how he chose to play it.

I think that it's always important to bear in mind in these discussions that the story told in the films is a different one from that told in the books, albeit based on it. Omitting this scene and adding in the lembas scene didn't make the films internally inconsistent (Frodo's mercy still has an important role to play) and it certainly didn't detract from them as far as I am concerned.

[The Only Real Estel]

Actually, I find it quite easy to imagine people coming out of the cinema saying "I don't like how that Sam turned the cute Gollum dude against them".

He's chosen rather to send people coming out of the cinema saying "I don't like/ I hate how Frodo turned on Sam". His movie decision may have channeled a lot of hatred towards Gollum for the Frodo/Sam mess, but Frodo also got some un-deserved hate, or at least some avoidable hate. Have Sam try to apologize to Gollum after losing the fleeting shot at Gollum's conversion, surely he could've found something to get a different scene & not get Sam hated.

[The Saucepan Man]

He's chosen rather to send people coming out of the cinema saying "I don't like/ I hate how Frodo turned on Sam".

I think people (at least those who have not read the book) will be more prepared to accept Frodo's reaction, resulting as it does from a combination of Gollum's machinations and the increasing hold which the Ring has over him.

Have Sam try to apologize to Gollum after losing the fleeting shot at Gollum's conversion

The you lose the tragedy, and the point of the scene.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

But didn't Sam try a meek apology in the book? Only to be given the equivalent of a 'death stare' from Gollum? (That could be completely wrong, sorry.)