I thought I was going to die of boredom during Elrond's Council, which was one of the more fascinating chapters in the books. I thought most of the opening exposition of the movie should have been held until Gandalf's talk with Frodo in Bag End and Elrond's Council, respectively, keeping the intriguing mystery of the Ring mysterious as in the books. Some kind of brief concept of the time and space could have replaced that long exposition for neophytes to be not totally at sea. I found Lothlorien wrongheaded and Galadriel a dead loss (why does anyone hire Cate anyway?) Moria, on the other hand, was well done. Strider should have been more mature and rugged looking, instead of so cute. In the books Gandalf and Sam were both "types": Gandalf came off very well, but Sam ended up being mostly a cipher. Oh, hell, this can go on and on and ON and in each case others will just plain disagree and fair enough.
Iguana (I feel terrible addressing you that way) hits my situation right on the nose with the following:
For many years I was heartily opposed to the idea of a film adaptation of LOTR for the simple reason that I didn't think anyone could do it justice - or even begin to. Part of that was the sheer difficulty in getting much fo such a gargantuan work to the screen; part of it was the technology needed to convey so many supernatural elements; and part related to the likelihood of Hollywood's bowlderizing and crass commercialistic tendencies making a mush of things if the first two obstacles were surmounted.
Having said all that, I have to confess that while not perfect (in my eyes), Peter Jackson et al have probably done as a good a job in overcoming these obstacles to lens a film project reasonably faithful to the books as one could possibly hope for while retaining any hope of commercial success (or at least of recouping the massive costs).
I used to argue while in college (1968 to 1972) that the only way they could do justice to a movie version was to do a whole series of Disney cartoon movies. Special effects were relatively primitive back then without today's computer technology. (Interestingly, go back to a 1955 science fiction movie called "The Forbidden Planet", where a lot of the effects are recognizably Disney cartoons, but off topic I go...). I still think a lack of detail, as well as the wrong kind of detail, paradoxically ruined it for me, but there was no way around that given the understandable constraints. With me they weren't likely to win, and they didn't. I won't be spending $13 Canadian (that's aboot 18.5 cents U.S., Miss Hair :^)) on each of the next two, I'll wait longer to get them on the movie channels around here.
Miss Hair, you write: "I think the reason was to highlight and bring out a love story that is nice and beautiful." I still think I'm right, FreeRepublicspeak or not. As for Arwen, I enjoy looking at Miss Tyler as much as the next red-blooded male. But who needs the love story jammed in their faces? The books would have been far worse with more of it, and there was almost none, thank God and JRRT! But you don't want to hear my opinion of romance in fiction! To say it's not entertaining is as politely as I can express it. Pornography without having the guts to be actually pornographic is what others might say.:^) I will NEVER understand the entertainment value of two movie stars kissing!
I thought the Faramir-Eowyn scene in the books was embarrassing despite Tolkien's obvious efforts, and the books downplaying potential Aragorn-Arwen mush muck while still giving us the idea was decent and, actually, rather inspired. (The only romantic movie I really ever enjoyed was "Casablanca". Natch!)
So I still don't see a reason for the Arwen enhancement, other than what I suggested. The importance to character development of a weakened Frodo valiantly standing up to the terrifying Nazgul on his own at the Fords was vital, and there was just NO reason to have that role performed by a tough Elf broad! No matter how yummy!!
Don't mind the psuedonym - the awkwardness is my fault, not yours. Some have taken to calling me "Iggy." "Your Scaliness" is also acceptable.
I thought I was going to die of boredom during Elrond's Council, which was one of the more fascinating chapters in the books. I thought most of the opening exposition of the movie should have been held until Gandalf's talk with Frodo in Bag End and Elrond's Council, respectively, keeping the intriguing mystery of the Ring mysterious as in the books. Some kind of brief concept of the time and space could have replaced that long exposition for neophytes to be not totally at sea.
In the appendix discs of the SEV release, it is made clear that the question of backstory became one of the most vexing ones of all in scripting the movie.
Originally, it seems, they had intended unveiling it more or less as Tolkien did - in flashbacks during the "Shadow of the Past" scene, and perhaps more later during the Council.
Ultimately they found reasons (not least of which was New Line's pressure) to move most of it up into a prologue. One of the reasons was (IMO) arguably sound: getting into the backstory midway through the movie killed the momentum and pacing of the story. Jackson/Boyens/Walsh's primary rule in scripting the adaptation was to always drive the story forward. If something (like Bombadil) failed to do so, it was droppedor cut very short.
The Council scene (even in the SEV, which is a bit of an improvement) seems short and abrupt to me as as an afficianado of the book. Too many questions are left unanswered, though they occur only to the casual moviegoer (as they did to my wife) on repeated viewings: how did all the Council attendees happen to be there at once? What was the background of the dwarves in the story? Why could the Ring not be hid or sent over the Sea? How familiar were the attendees with the history of the Ring?
The failure to expand a little on this a little seems to me an unfortunate omission, mainly because the story and the characters could have been illuminated so much better in doing so - not just for the sheer zeal to remain scrupulously faithful to the text.
Given that hardly any reviews faulted the film for this, however, I'm left to conclude that from a strict point of view of script direction and dramatic arc, Jackson succeeded with the casual moviegoer, who apparently felt these omissions or failures little if at all.
I found Lothlorien wrongheaded and Galadriel a dead loss (why does anyone hire Cate anyway?)
Fellow fans and I felt the theatrical release left Lothlorien as the weakest point of the movie. Too little was left in the final cut to render the episode of much value, yet it was long enough to slow the movie pace down. The SEV is a major improvement in several respects (most of the 35 additional minutes were cut from Lothlorien) though it becomes clearer that Lorien remains probably the most problematic chapter to bring to the screen in anything but a serial format. Too much ground to cover. Too difficult to make clear its or Galadriel's significance in anything but a fairly long segment of screen time.
As for Blanchette, tastes will differ. They could have done worse. For example: casting Liv Tyler as Arwen.
Moria, on the other hand, was well done. Strider should have been more mature and rugged looking, instead of so cute. In the books Gandalf and Sam were both "types": Gandalf came off very well, but Sam ended up being mostly a cipher. Oh, hell, this can go on and on and ON and in each case others will just plain disagree and fair enough.
My main qualm with Aragorn - who as portrayed by Mortensen is reasonably close physically to what I think most of us pictured Strider as - is the unfortunate way in which his inner conflict over whether to pursue his destiny as the Heir of Isildur is played up. In the books the conflict does not exist. Aragorn knows who he is and is fully willing to do what he must; his only doubts relate to his ability to complete the quest. Jackson apparently felt the need to distort the character in this regard to give it depth; such a rationale is laudable but the means employed seem unnecessary to me.
Iguana (I feel terrible addressing you that way) hits my situation right on the nose with the following:
"For many years I was heartily opposed to the idea of a film adaptation of LOTR for the simple reason that I didn't think anyone could do it justice - or even begin to. Part of that was the sheer difficulty in getting much of such a gargantuan work to the screen; part of it was the technology needed to convey so many supernatural elements; and part related to the likelihood of Hollywood's bowdlerizing and crass commercialistic tendencies making a mush of things if the first two obstacles were surmounted."
"Having said all that, I have to confess that while not perfect (in my eyes), Peter Jackson et al have probably done as a good a job in overcoming these obstacles to lens a film project reasonably faithful to the books as one could possibly hope for while retaining any hope of commercial success (or at least of recouping the massive costs)."
I used to argue while in college (1968 to 1972) that the only way they could do justice to a movie version was to do a whole series of Disney cartoon movies.
Unfortunately, Ralph Backshi spoiled all that. :-)
I think there was also a stipulation by Tolkien when he sold the movie rights to Zaentz that Disney not be involved in any way with any movie or other screen productions. Tolkien of course cordially loathed Disney in every regard (one can only imagine what he might think of them now).
Someone else could have done what you suggest and of course Bakshi did it in abbreviated form. The serial idea has something to recommend it. At least that way one could include most of the story. The pitfalls of poor or gauche visualization would remain severe, however.
Special effects were relatively primitive back then without today's computer technology. (Interestingly, go back to a 1955 science fiction movie called "The Forbidden Planet", where a lot of the effects are recognizably Disney cartoons, but off topic I go...). I still think a lack of detail, as well as the wrong kind of detail, paradoxically ruined it for me, but there was no way around that given the understandable constraints. With me they weren't likely to win, and they didn't. I won't be spending $13 Canadian (that's aboot 18.5 cents U.S., Miss Hair :^)) on each of the next two, I'll wait longer to get them on the movie channels around here.
My main feeling on leaving the first viewing was also something of disappointment. My fellow Tolkienite felt the same way.
Partly this was because the early reviews, particularly from reviewers whose opinions we highly respected, were crowning FOTR as something just shy of the Second Coming. On acid. Nothing could live up to such expectations easily. If at all.
The other problem was my inability to divorce the film from my fairly intense familiarity with the text and the obvious departures from it. From the moment that Frodo's stay at Bag End after learning the true nature of his possession shrank from six months to about as many hours, I was thrown off my stride. I did not miss Bombadil (I always felt that was a peculiar and awkward bit of Tolkien eccentricity anyway) but I did miss the Crickhollow subterfuge. And so on.
Still, it was far better than I had reason to fear when I first heard of the project. In the end even the glowing reviews never completely undid my low expectations. And I can't help but think that visually, at any rate, they got a great deal of the book "right." Thanks to Howe and Lee for that, I suppose.
So I still don't see a reason for the Arwen enhancement, other than what I suggested. The importance to character development of a weakened Frodo valiantly standing up to the terrifying Nazgul on his own at the Fords was vital, and there was just NO reason to have that role performed by a tough Elf broad! No matter how yummy!!
That is perhaps the best criticism I have heard (or considered) of the handling of the Flight to the Ford.
Jackson may have gained in building Arwen's character by having her conduct the resistance at the Ford, but he also lost in failing to build Frodo's.
It's hard to say how it could have been modified. I toy with the idea that perhaps Arwen could have been knocked from the horse as it prepared to cross Bruinen, with Frodo reviving long enough to urge the horse across and then to resist as he did in the book, with Arwen then recovering to launch the incantation which unleashed the flood. Still a departure (and perhaps an unfortunate one), but one which regains an important episode in Frodo's character's development.
I do not mind (as I said) the effort made to flesh out Arwen's character per se; quite aside from the inevitable demand for a developed love story, Arwen's development helps develop Aragorn's as well. There is at least the Appendix to fall back on; one wishes Jackson/Walsh/Boyens had found a way to adhere to it more closely, perhaps by use of flashbacks.
I guess I find it a larger consolation than some that despite all these failings, it did not end up like, say Willow.
Just imagine midgets playing Hobbits. :Shudder: