Things you did NOT like about Fellowship of the Ring.

[Tsyr]

Actualy, I thought the ringwraiths were very well done.

I had a minor gripe with some of the pronounciations, although I'm probably the one who has been prouncing them wrong all along.

I pronounce mithrill as "mith-rill", not "mee-thrill"
I pronounce Legolas as "leh-goal-us", not "lego-lass"

 

[hong]

Actualy, I thought the ringwraiths were very well done.

I had a minor gripe with some of the pronounciations, although I'm probably the one who has been prouncing them wrong all along.

I pronounce mithrill as "mith-rill", not "mee-thrill"
I pronounce Legolas as "leh-goal-us", not "lego-lass"

I thought the pronunciations were mostly accurate, going by the material in the Silmarillion and the appendices to LOTR. The only glitches I picked up were "meethril" and Saruman's pronunciation of Isengard with a long I ("Eye-sengard").

 

[Chairman_Kaga]

Oh dear god, it's started...



Guess it didn't take long for people to start ripping the movie apart like savages. This age is far too cynical...

Get this into your overly critical heads: nothing will ever be perfect, nothing will ever match YOUR vision of what it should be 100%.

Get over it and enjoy things for what they are.

 

[Numion]

Of course it's different from the books; movies always are. They have to be. What works in a book, might not work in a movie.

I think it's an excellent movie, and the alterations to plot weren't bad IMO. They just had to be done, and Tom Bombadil sucked in the book too.

Still, I had two gripes:

1) Galadriel's temptation. Just looked cheesy. I bet they could've done it better.

2) Saurons Great Cleave in the first battle. Just like in Asterix & Obelix

Other than that, great movie.

 

[King_Stannis]

I have one and only one complaint, and considering this is one of my all-time favorite movies, it is a minor one. In the book, 17 years passes while Gandalf researches the ring, finds out about Gollum, etc. That is never clearly revealed in the movie, which makes you believe it happened a few months ago.

All’s they would have had to do was put “X years later” on the scene when Frodo and Sam are stumbling home with each other.

Again, it’s a very, very minor complaint. And I actually had no trouble with Arwen’s new role. Certainly it wasn’t that invasive to the story, and if it helped put teenage fannies in the seats, so much the better.

 

[DevoutlyApathetic]

I could have sworn they did put a 'x years later' on screen during that part. Look again.

 

[Don]

One thing we have to remember when we're nitpicking about character development (eg. Merry & Pippin being buffoons):

We've only seen a third of the movie.

How much character development is there in the first 30 minutes of a typical movie?

 

[Piratecat]

Either Jackson is not accurate with details, but hilt of Aragorn's sword (at least shown in the battle of Amon Hen) is not Narsil.

I'm fairly sure that later, when Arwen gets the flag she embroidered to Aragorn, she also sends Narsil. That's my bet, anyways.

- Did Aragorn took Boromir's gauntlet's in the book? At least in the movie he did.

Like when a fellow PC in your game dies, you never loot the body?

 

[Henry]

My list of things I disliked about the FotR movie:

Pretty long list, huh?

I do have some comments on some of the comments:

Igneous said:

The directors decision to recast this whole encounter had the whole cinema laughing at what they thought to be a gag line from a stupid hobbit who had no sense of direction.

Igneous, your theater had a very different reaction from mine. The act of that one little hobbit, who only wanted to go home and resume his life, in the face of all these powerful and assumedly-noble men and elves and dwarves, with the influence of the ring working at its best, was an act that had the whole theater quiet. I saw more than one smile on the faces of my fellow movie-goers (people I did not know) when Frodo gave his line "though I do not know the way." I must confess I kinda had a tear in my eye at this point too. All these "brave guys," arguing like a bunch of children over the favorite schoolyard toy, because no one was willing to take it into Mordor for destruction. In the book scene, as you quoted it, it worked out about the same way.

Madriel said:

Lastly, the length of the scene when Sam "drowns". It was way too long. Even someone who's never read the books would know that the director's not going to kill off a character at that point, so building suspense just ain't going to happen.

If you hadn't read the books, then Sam's drowning would have been suspenseful, in light of Boromir's recent death. I should know - I had my wife with me on the second viewing of the movie.

I agree with several other points - the birth of the Uruk-Hai, the Time compression of Gandalf's visits to Frodo, The Uruk-Hai finding them so quickly, etc. - but again, all these things can be defended, given that the movie had a time limit. The movie was not only well-crafted, but self-consistent.

Ach, if only the D&D movie had fared so well...

And I hope that the Comic Figure known as Tom Bombadill NEVER makes an appearance in these movies.

Take care all!


Henry

 

[A2Z]

1) Galadriel's temptation. Just looked cheesy. I bet they could've done it better.

I have to agree with this. I wish they could have done something a little different here. It bothered me a little when she started glowing and fairly screaming. It was a little much I think.

Other than that I really liked the movie but I have to agree with what someone else said above; It won't ever match anyone's personal vision of the LotR. It was good but it had to be different from the books in places for some very good reasons. I guess that's to be expected.

All in all it was great to see the LotR on screen.