As someone who wrote an (unproduced) adaptation of a book (the producers decided they couldn't afford the film), I can tell you, the fans of LOTR who complain about this stuff simply have no idea what goes into adapting a book. I am not trying to be insulting--hell, I thought I knew a lot before I worked on the adaptation of a much simpler story.
The fans of LOTR have very little to complain about if they're going to be realistic. Screen time, pacing, and something as simple as not giving a character too much to do because the nature of watching a motion picture dictates that people will simply get bored even if they're interested in that character--it's so incredibly complicated that I think LOTR deserved every award it got.
I've read so many complaints about things that were cut our or altered, and I just shake my head. Arwen is another example--there just wasn't time, and they chose to make her character (who isn't even IN the main book, she's in an appendix) what she was to mix it up.
I didn't get that Aragorn didn't want to be king. He understood the burden, but they certainly didn't spend tons of screentime showing him afraid of leading. They touched on it once, then we saw him taking command--so much more interesting than meeting someone who from the moment we meet him wants this thing and trudges forward to get it. This arc only strengthened the first film for non-book readers (who, sorry to tell you, had to be taken into account if they money would be there to make this financially workable).
Nope, sorry, the fans who complain about this have no idea how bad it COULD have been (such as with the initial TWO-movie idea, not to mention the ghastly animated version(s)), and their complaints are small potatoes.
I do not doubt it could have been worse. However, it also could have been better.
The scene with Xena took away from Frodo, weakening the main character - and for no purpose. The movie could not sustain the new characterization, so they had to drop it without explaining the enormous switch in Arwen’s personality. Had her role been what it was in the book, the remaining scenes with her would have made sense, while allowing the most important character in the book to show his mettle - to help us understand that Frodo was a strong person, both well taught and brave.
No, Viggo wasn’t at fault for the change in his character - but no matter how athletic he is (and I believe that is very), he plays roles as though he’d prefer writing poetry. Maybe that makes him more likable to women, but he remains too wimpy to have won Arwen’s heart and to be the ‘hope of the west’ - someone who could lead the forces against Sauron or plausibly get men to follow him to Mordor.
You’re right, of course, but this is an opinions thread. Do you think we’ll crack 1000?
When I think of screen writing I think of that Monty Python scene in the restaurant where, after witnessing a client gorging himself, the waiter offers just a “little” mint.
You just cannot pack it all in, not in a time period that audiences will watch.