BronzeDragon
Explorer
Let me start by saying that I understand the difficulties of transposing a book to the big screen.
That said, let me also say that I liked the movie overall but, as you shall see, as a generic fantasy movie, not as a representation of the book upon which it was based.
Now, on to the gripes...
*I thought the entire early pace of the movie was, how could I put it, wrong .
In the movie, Frodo is basically thrown out of house by Gandalf, while this was clearly not the way in which events took place in the book.
I believe the director could have left this part unaltered (by using fade-ins and fade-outs to represent the passage of time, for example), and it would, in this unaltered way, more clearly present the situation of Frodo in the beggining, that is, he was basically still in a jolly mood and did not think long or hard about problems lying ahead.
The journey of the Hobbits to Bree seemed like it took about a day (since we only see night once).
*Also, I didn't like the director's choice to portray Pippin and Merry as hardly-disguised human children, while in the book they were already out of their "tweens", and thus were grown men. Let me also remember that Frodo was a man of fifty when he left Bag-End, which does not seem to be the case in the movie.*Taking Tom Bombadil out of the movie entirely was wise, and compliant with Tolkien's own guidelines for treating characters. Either portray them fully, or take them out entirely.
*But I thought taking the conspiracy of the Hobbits out simply weakened the whole idea of Pippin and Merry going with Frodo. In the movie, they seem to "just be going along".
*Arwen....oh god, arwen...
Why did they hire Liv Tyler for the part? They then proceeded to mangle out Glorfindel (one good character, even though I dislike elves), and expanded the part Arwen plays. And on top of that, they gave her powers which were inexistent in the books. She ended up causing the flood of the Fords of Bruinen, when it was Elrond and Gandalf together that created it in the books. This seemed only a way of increasing the importance of a character that was being played by a high-budget hollywood star. And a bad actress to boot. I almost cried when she released that one-liner about the Nazgûl coming over to get the Hobbit from her.
I secretly wished for them to get past the flood somehow, and thus end my pain.
*Legolas reveals to everyone who wants to listen that Aragorn is the heir of Isildur, while this is kept more or less secret in the books.
*Gandalf putting the burden of choosing the way (Caradhras or Moria) the Fellowship would go in Frodo's shoulders, while in the book it was a very private business between Gandalf and Aragorn. I really don't know how putting the decision on Frodo's character made the screening any easier.
*Again, Frodo gets a part he did not deserve, or have in the books, by finding the solution to the riddle at the West-door of Moria.
*The movie progresses a lot better once the characters enter Moria, and the story is not altered in any deathly significant way.
*In Lothlórien, the characters are basically all lumped to the background, and the reasons for the emerging friendship of Gimli and Legolas are lost, since the only appreciation of Gimli for Galadriel's beauty is a first look of awe. Unless the director finds a novel way, it's going to be difficult to make audiences understand why Gimli and Legolas become friends, later in the story.
As I said in another thread, a scene that was in some of the early (and in the final) trailers, showing the whole Fellowship receiving presents from the elves in Lothlórien, was cut from the movie. A sad thing, for many beautiful things are lost, like the present which the Lady gives to Gimli and the one that Legolas takes, aside from the elven cloaks and whatnot.
*When the Fellowship arrives at the Falls of Rauros, Aragorn guides the boats to shore with the bare explanation that Orcs prowl the eastern shore, and as such they will await the cover of darkness. Funny thing to be said, since everyone is led to believe, correctly BTW, that Orcs tend to have a problem with sunlight, and thus it would be better for the Fellowship to bound right away.
The director could have added a 10-second dialogue with Aragorn explaining the importance of the decision Frodo would have to make now, choosing the way of the Fellowship. Instead, it is seen just as a stopping point before they follow a pre-determined course. In the books, even Aragorn is doubtful Gandalf had planned anything beyond the Falls.
Also, and this is a personal gripe, the seats of Amon Hen and Amon Lhaw are not explained, and thus the viewer is left with the impression that Frodo saw Barad-Dûr because he put the ring on his finger, and not because he was seating on Amon Hen.
But overall, I thought the movie was good. I wouldn't rank it over Excalibur or Ladyhawke, but it's definitely in my all-time best 5 list.
That said, let me also say that I liked the movie overall but, as you shall see, as a generic fantasy movie, not as a representation of the book upon which it was based.
Now, on to the gripes...
*I thought the entire early pace of the movie was, how could I put it, wrong .
In the movie, Frodo is basically thrown out of house by Gandalf, while this was clearly not the way in which events took place in the book.
I believe the director could have left this part unaltered (by using fade-ins and fade-outs to represent the passage of time, for example), and it would, in this unaltered way, more clearly present the situation of Frodo in the beggining, that is, he was basically still in a jolly mood and did not think long or hard about problems lying ahead.
The journey of the Hobbits to Bree seemed like it took about a day (since we only see night once).
*Also, I didn't like the director's choice to portray Pippin and Merry as hardly-disguised human children, while in the book they were already out of their "tweens", and thus were grown men. Let me also remember that Frodo was a man of fifty when he left Bag-End, which does not seem to be the case in the movie.*Taking Tom Bombadil out of the movie entirely was wise, and compliant with Tolkien's own guidelines for treating characters. Either portray them fully, or take them out entirely.
*But I thought taking the conspiracy of the Hobbits out simply weakened the whole idea of Pippin and Merry going with Frodo. In the movie, they seem to "just be going along".
*Arwen....oh god, arwen...
Why did they hire Liv Tyler for the part? They then proceeded to mangle out Glorfindel (one good character, even though I dislike elves), and expanded the part Arwen plays. And on top of that, they gave her powers which were inexistent in the books. She ended up causing the flood of the Fords of Bruinen, when it was Elrond and Gandalf together that created it in the books. This seemed only a way of increasing the importance of a character that was being played by a high-budget hollywood star. And a bad actress to boot. I almost cried when she released that one-liner about the Nazgûl coming over to get the Hobbit from her.
I secretly wished for them to get past the flood somehow, and thus end my pain.
*Legolas reveals to everyone who wants to listen that Aragorn is the heir of Isildur, while this is kept more or less secret in the books.
*Gandalf putting the burden of choosing the way (Caradhras or Moria) the Fellowship would go in Frodo's shoulders, while in the book it was a very private business between Gandalf and Aragorn. I really don't know how putting the decision on Frodo's character made the screening any easier.
*Again, Frodo gets a part he did not deserve, or have in the books, by finding the solution to the riddle at the West-door of Moria.
*The movie progresses a lot better once the characters enter Moria, and the story is not altered in any deathly significant way.
*In Lothlórien, the characters are basically all lumped to the background, and the reasons for the emerging friendship of Gimli and Legolas are lost, since the only appreciation of Gimli for Galadriel's beauty is a first look of awe. Unless the director finds a novel way, it's going to be difficult to make audiences understand why Gimli and Legolas become friends, later in the story.
As I said in another thread, a scene that was in some of the early (and in the final) trailers, showing the whole Fellowship receiving presents from the elves in Lothlórien, was cut from the movie. A sad thing, for many beautiful things are lost, like the present which the Lady gives to Gimli and the one that Legolas takes, aside from the elven cloaks and whatnot.
*When the Fellowship arrives at the Falls of Rauros, Aragorn guides the boats to shore with the bare explanation that Orcs prowl the eastern shore, and as such they will await the cover of darkness. Funny thing to be said, since everyone is led to believe, correctly BTW, that Orcs tend to have a problem with sunlight, and thus it would be better for the Fellowship to bound right away.
The director could have added a 10-second dialogue with Aragorn explaining the importance of the decision Frodo would have to make now, choosing the way of the Fellowship. Instead, it is seen just as a stopping point before they follow a pre-determined course. In the books, even Aragorn is doubtful Gandalf had planned anything beyond the Falls.
Also, and this is a personal gripe, the seats of Amon Hen and Amon Lhaw are not explained, and thus the viewer is left with the impression that Frodo saw Barad-Dûr because he put the ring on his finger, and not because he was seating on Amon Hen.
But overall, I thought the movie was good. I wouldn't rank it over Excalibur or Ladyhawke, but it's definitely in my all-time best 5 list.
