Fellowship of the Ring

mepbmlist
#1

(major SPOILERS!)

Very disappointed here. I have no idea how many times the Professor is
turning in his grave.

I will start with the good things: Gandalf. The Balrog. Boromir and Frodo.
Many of the action scenes. The Balrog :slight_smile:

Now the bad things :slight_smile:
1) The dialogue. They changed all the epic lines in the book with
Scwartzeneger-type quotes. They didn't even try to make 'I'll be back'
lines sound more like 'Back I will be my friends'. As a friend of mine
very aptly put it, 'Basically, the script is all the things the characters
might have said between the bits that Tolkein wrote'. Another friend of
mine told me that she hasn't read the books but the dialogue in the books
is 'difficult' so it is better that they made it 'easier' for the film...
Nothing to add here :slight_smile:

2) The world. OK, I admit that my first and foremost griping is with the
elves, all elves. Why so arrogant and cold? We know they are not carefree
hobbits, but this? Elrond, Galadriel, Haldir, Celeborn, every single elf
that appeared with the _slight_ exception of Legolas who was unexpectedly
better than the others (and I say unexpectedly because from the trailer I
had the impression that he would be a bit on the soft side). Why don't
elves know how to smile? I thought they were into singing and
merry-making.

As I said, elves is just a part of the problem, but I mentioned them first
because I have a very soft spot for them. But the problem with the elves
is part of the biggest problem with the whole film for me, and took me
some time to pin it down. It is this: In Tolkien's book there is a world
of good and evil. The characters go from light to darkness and then come
out on the light again, before they plunge once more into darkness. I just
failed to see the light in this film. In the books Rivendell is a
stronghold of what is good in the world. Songs and laughs and merriment,
friends and stories by the fire. In the film it is a beautiful scenery
with an ice-cold bastard as a ruler (Elrond, whose casting was so bad that
I was expecting him any time to put on dark glasses and say 'as...
HU-umans... you... idEN-tify... yourselves through... sUFfering') (for
those who have seen Matrix). In the books Lothlorien is another stronghold
of good, although secluded and isolated. Galadriel is good and gentle. In
the film all the elves there have no goodness in them, they are arrogant
and cold-hearted and Galadriel a witch. Even Bree is a decandent place
that reminisces of that bar with all the scum of the universe from Star
Wars. The Dwarves? Gimli is even worse than the dwarf in that pathetic
Dungeons&Dragons film.

Are these the 'free' people? Is this the 'good' that the Fellowship
strives to protect? I have no greater sympathy for the Elrond and the
Galadriel and the Bree-landers I saw in the film than I have for Gollum.

Anyway, I understand that these are differences of 'interpretation', and
Peter Jackson's interpretation is as good as mine. It's just that my
interpretation does not disregard whole passages of the book.

I have many more gripings but I will not go into them. Of course I will
still mention them:
all the story changes. No point in going into this. Half of the audience
has not read the books, but they must pay for a ticket. Give them Liv
Tyler, lots of action instead of dialogue, lots of scenery instead of
script. There you have it.

Orthanc and Saruman - minion of Sauron? How much more can you alter the
storyline?

The orcs. What sort of B-Movie creatures were that? In times they looked
like they spawned fron an 'Alien' movie.

The whole 'council of Elrond' scene. One of my favourite chapters in the
books turned into a Jerry Springer episode.

The fellowship - no interaction between the characters, except Gandalf
with Frodo and Frodo with Sam. Gimli is Chewbacca and Pippin is Jar-Jar
Bings. Aragorn is good at times, but often he gets completely out of
character - like after Gandalf's fall and in all the scenes where he
doubts himself (I am sure this was intented to give 'depth' to the
character? (sarcasm)).

Anyway, there are many more things I could say but that's a rough idea of
why I am so disappointed. I am sure I would have enjoyed the film if I was
not so obsessed with the books. It had some very good moments, it started
beautifully and the end was good (although not faithful to the book). But
all in all, so damn frustrating. Finally I hope I did not offend anyone
who really appreciated it, I know how annoying it is when people knock
down your favourite books/films etc. I do not say that this is not a good
film, just that I personally disagree with it :slight_smile:

Haris

#2

Very disappointed here. I have no idea how many times the Professor

is

turning in his grave.

The key ingredient for a movie that is based on a book is capturing
its spirit, not a slavish and literal interpretation of the text.
You only need to look at the Harry Potter movie to see a perfect
example. It was closely supervised by the author...and it somehow
managed to be both literally faithful and to utterly fail to capture
the magic in the books.

The main themes were beautifully presented. This is in many ways
a somber movie that reflects some of the ethos of the Norse myths
that inspired Tolkien in the first place. The subtle corruption
spread by the ring, for example. The dark forges of Isengard and
the vast hordes of the Orcs. It is filled with elegant touches,
such as the intricate brooches on the elven cloaks or the
foreshadowing of the troubles that the trees will cause Saruman
in the second flick :slight_smile:

I will start with the good things: Gandalf. The Balrog. Boromir and

Frodo.

Many of the action scenes. The Balrog :slight_smile:

Now the bad things :slight_smile:
1) The dialogue. They changed all the epic lines in the book with
Scwartzeneger-type quotes. They didn't even try to make 'I'll be

back'

lines sound more like 'Back I will be my friends'. As a friend of

mine

very aptly put it, 'Basically, the script is all the things the

characters

might have said between the bits that Tolkein wrote'. Another friend

of

mine told me that she hasn't read the books but the dialogue in the

books

is 'difficult' so it is better that they made it 'easier' for the

film...

Nothing to add here :slight_smile:

Reading the Fellowship of the Ring aloud would take 60 hours.
That is one looong movie. You cannot present anything much longer
than a play in literal form.

2) The world. OK, I admit that my first and foremost griping is with

the

elves, all elves. Why so arrogant and cold?

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I thought they
captured the elves perfectly. They work for the forces of good,
but they are not saints. Galadriel does good things...but she is
powerful and intimidating. You see the features that allowed her
to cause so much grief in the Silmarillion.

We know they are not

carefree

hobbits, but this? Elrond, Galadriel, Haldir, Celeborn, every single

elf

that appeared with the _slight_ exception of Legolas who was

unexpectedly

better than the others (and I say unexpectedly because from the

trailer I

had the impression that he would be a bit on the soft side). Why

don't

elves know how to smile? I thought they were into singing and
merry-making.

cheers,

Marc

#3

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Charilaos Nikokavouras <cn399@i...> wrote:

(major SPOILERS!)

Very disappointed here. I have no idea how many times the
Professor is turning in his grave.

Orthanc and Saruman - minion of Sauron? How much more can you
alter the storyline?

I'll just bite into this one. Saruman *was* a minion of Sauron at
that time. They just spell it out a bit earlier than the book does,
but the book definately spells it out for you when Pippin looks into
the Orthanc stone.

From page 579 of my LOTR, where the Witch King answers Pippin in the
Palantir:

===quote===
'So you have come back? Why have you neglected to report for so
long?'
'I did not answer. He said: "Who are you?" I still did not answer,
but it hurt me horribly; and he pressed me, so I said: "A hobbit."
'Then suddenly he seemed to see me, and he laughed at me. It was
cruel. It was like being stabbed with knives. I struggled. But he
said: "Wait a moment! We shall meet again soon. Tell Saruman that
this dainty is not for him. I will send for it at once. Do you
understand? Say just that!"
===/quote===

Now, why would Saruman report to Sauron if he was not his servant?
Saruman is trying to doublecross Sauron, and gain the ring for his
own use to overthrow him, but still does his bidding.

Sorry to be so geeky :slight_smile:

Øystein

#4

Now the bad things :slight_smile:
1) The dialogue. They changed all the epic lines in the book with
Scwartzeneger-type quotes.

Actually a number of movie critics blasted the film for leaving in so
much stilted Tolkien talk.

elves know how to smile? I thought they were into singing and
merry-making.

There wasn't enough screen time for this. Supposedly the Hall of
Fire in Rivendell was shot which might have contained some of this.

with an ice-cold bastard as a ruler (Elrond, whose casting was so

bad that

I was expecting him any time to put on dark glasses and say 'as...

Terrible casting here although I know a couple people who have never
seen the Matrix (too violent for them) and they didn't see a problem
with Elrond.

of good, although secluded and isolated. Galadriel is good and

gentle. In

the film all the elves there have no goodness in them, they are

arrogant

and cold-hearted and Galadriel a witch.

I'm not sure how gentle she is. Even in the books, the Golden Wood
was feared by Boromir. However Lothlorien was a big disappointment
to me. I know most of the footage here - the gift giving, etc was
cut for time so hopefully it will be restored on the DVD.

Even Bree is a decandent place
that reminisces of that bar with all the scum of the universe from
Star Wars.

Don't remember Bree being decandent but I also don't remember seeing
any other hobbits there.

The Dwarves? Gimli is even worse than the dwarf in that pathetic
Dungeons&Dragons film.

Gimli had very little screen time so the actor couldn't do much more
than be gruff all the time. I was disappointed though when Gandalf
stopped in Moria at the 3 passage split, he didn't call Gimli over
for consultation as he did in the book.

Orthanc and Saruman - minion of Sauron? How much more can you alter
the storyline?

Yes. I thought he was way too far over on Sauron's side -- even
calling Sauron "lord of the Earth". His scheming to get the ring for
himself was completely lost.

The orcs. What sort of B-Movie creatures were that? In times
they looked like they spawned fron an 'Alien' movie.

Amazing how many movies have copied "Alien".

The whole 'council of Elrond' scene. One of my favourite chapters

in the

books turned into a Jerry Springer episode.

Also one of my favorite chapters in the book.

It wasn't done well but you could not have filmed what was described
in the book without adding another hour to the film. Instead PJ went
for the Evil Ring influencing the Council until Frodo steps forward.
Basically the Council's purpose is to name the Nine Walkers and get
them on with their appointed task and PJ's version does this.

The fellowship - no interaction between the characters, except

Gandalf

with Frodo and Frodo with Sam. Gimli is Chewbacca and Pippin is Jar-

Jar

Bings. Aragorn is good at times, but often he gets completely out of
character - like after Gandalf's fall and in all the scenes where he
doubts himself (I am sure this was intented to give 'depth' to the
character? (sarcasm)).

There wasn't time for most of this. Hopefully the character
interaction will be greatly expanded in the next two films. It's
hard to judge this film without seeing the other two.

One of my biggest gripes with the film is the tremendous time
compression to cut the film length and keep the story moving. They
say it will take 6 days to reach Rivendell from Bree but there are
there in 2. They say it will take 60 days to reach Mordor from
Rivendell but the next day they are at Moria. etc, etc.

Paul

#5

Paul

> 1) The dialogue. They changed all the epic lines in the book with
> Scwartzeneger-type quotes.

Actually a number of movie critics blasted the film for leaving in so
much stilted Tolkien talk.

I thought the dialogue was fine. They lifted chunks of the book and put it
in the mouths of the characters, and didn't drift too far off beam with the
other dialogue. Seen it 3 times now and this last time it struck me how few
colloqualisms there are in the film, which is just as JRR would have liked
it!!

> Even Bree is a decandent place
> that reminisces of that bar with all the scum of the universe from
> Star Wars.

Don't remember Bree being decandent but I also don't remember seeing
any other hobbits there.

Remember the door to the Bree compound? It had one level of eye slits for
human visitors and one for Hobbit visitors. My friends who haven't read the
books picked this up immediately and realised that Hobbits came to Bree on
business.

> Orthanc and Saruman - minion of Sauron? How much more can you alter
> the storyline?

Yes. I thought he was way too far over on Sauron's side -- even
calling Sauron "lord of the Earth". His scheming to get the ring for
himself was completely lost.

Saruman was a minion of Sauron, certainly Gandalf & co thought so in the
first book - its not really until the second book that you see *exactly*
what his game is. Remember the clash of the Orcs of the Eye and the Hand?

Certainly the director set the groundwork for this by having the Uruk Hai
declare they are servants of Saruman -- and the way they pronounce his name
it as if they are about to say Sauron... Or maybe its me :slight_smile:

> The whole 'council of Elrond' scene. One of my favourite chapters
in the
> books turned into a Jerry Springer episode.

Also one of my favorite chapters in the book.

It wasn't done well but you could not have filmed what was described
in the book without adding another hour to the film. Instead PJ went
for the Evil Ring influencing the Council until Frodo steps forward.
Basically the Council's purpose is to name the Nine Walkers and get
them on with their appointed task and PJ's version does this.

Thought this scene was fine, very clever the way the arguing Elves and
Dwarves reflect on the Rings surface until they are all consumed with fire.
Gave a good impression of the will and malice of the ring -- which we also
see nicely when it works its way free and Boromir retrieves it.

One of my biggest gripes with the film is the tremendous time
compression to cut the film length and keep the story moving. They
say it will take 6 days to reach Rivendell from Bree but there are
there in 2. They say it will take 60 days to reach Mordor from
Rivendell but the next day they are at Moria. etc, etc.

Very difficult to convey the passage of time in a movie, particularly when
the director wants to give a sense of urgency to events. When the
Fellowship was travelling from Imladris towards Moria there were some
excellent expansive camera shots that gave the viewer an idea of travelling
across a huge wilderness.... which takes time.

Matthew