I'll defend every detail of Fellowship of the Ring, film

[Sir Eowyn]

The other two (Return of the King in particular) are deeply flawed. But Fellowship is perfect. Well, alright, Hugo Weaving wasn't the greatest, and the Council scene felt a little bit perfunctory... but other than that, bring it on.

I'm a film director myself, and in my opinion on this one they nailed everything. Even beyond the book in some cases (i.e. Boromir, Saruman). Literary purism just doesn't work, cinematically... you can't just introduce Glorfindel then throw him away five minutes later, or dwell for two hours on flora and fauna lovingly described by Tolkien. Bilbo can't sing about Earendil. Etc. Yes, I love Tom Bombadil (that's one of my favourite bits of the whole bloody trilogy), but I fail to see where he could have fit into the film. There's no place for him. It's a film, not a book. And a film has to have a more lively pace... to their enormous credit, they still found time for quiet moments: the smoke ship, poring over Bilbo's book, etc.

That conversation of Frodo and Gandalf's, the "all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us" bit, in the book takes place in Bag End, far too early. If you have any feeling for cinema you'll understand that to put that exchange instead in the Mines of Moria was a master stroke. That way Frodo's been through a lot already, he's feeling the weariness... it's not just theoretical. Likewise, you can't have Frodo hang around the Shire for six months after he's given his task, buy Crickhollow, etc. I suppose there are some who truly think they should have had Boromir's death to open Two Towers, instead of ending Fellowship of the Ring. That would have been more faithful.

The filmmakers lovingly crafted all aspects of it, with beautiful design and imagery, music to die for, and the main, important beats of the book all handled with consummate skill and power, emotionally fulfilling grace. In the later movies the CGI and the blind deviations became too much, but Fellowship is a symphony of the kind of loveliness rarely seen in ANY film. I really think people should give it a break, put down the book, have respect for this as a separate art form, and drink in the beauty.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I'd agree that the film can stand on its own, if you can divorce it completely from the book, shutting the latter from mind, but that's a big if, one I find I can't accomplish.

One of the main criticisms has been, not merely that things were left out, an action which, as you say, could at least be justified because of time constraints, or in the interest of filmmaking technique, but that they were seemingly left out to make room for PJ's inventions of what he was more interested in, particularly extended fights. Well, that was his right, as the director, but I don't have to like it.

I was particularly annoyed by the prologue, which deflated and flattened what drew me into the story so well: the sense of mystery, or series of mysteries, the gradual unfolding of which made for a great story.

For more on this, especially on PJ's anticipation of story elements, which I feel was due to his underestimation of his audience, I refer you to Tolkien's comments on the Zimmerman treatment -- they make for hilarious reading, in light of the films.

 

[Elthir]

I think books and films being different mediums is mutually agreed upon. And so, for me, the conversation begins when person A offers an arguably cinematic alternative to a given scene filmed by Jackson, or to a given choice with respect to adaptation (albeit without the benefit of having it visually available to help argue its own merit as an adaptation of something in the books).

Wash, rinse, repeat. Watch the subjective opinions sparkle and fly!

Beautifully crafted . . . versus ham and cheese. Large popcorn please! And a drink of Ent-draught!

🍿🥤

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

OK: I've offered a "cinematic" alternative to PJ's prologue a couple of times; here's one of them:

https://thetolkien.forum/threads/silmarillion-movie.20203/page-2

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

The convention is to say "based on the novel by X" and some of these basings have produced masterpieces of cinema e.g. Lean's Great Expectations (note the film's happy ending was considered by Dickens) and Edzard's 1988 Little Dorrit. (ok I'm a Dickens fan but he is cinematic). Again Edzard excludes Blandois entirely but by telling the story in two films from the pov of Arthur Clennam and Amy Dorrit emphasises that the story is a love story.

The scene and music when the Fellowship leave Moria is a favourite of mine - the bare rock symbolizes how they all feel. You can imagine something like that but not portray it.

edit: And of course the most obvious masterpiece of cinema based on a book is Hitchcock's Vertigo which plays up Scottie's fear of heights and changes the title from the original Boileau-Narcejac French novel

 

[Olorgando]

… I'm a film director myself, ...

Sir Éowyn, in such a case I will bow to your being far more intimately aware of the necessities of the craft.
Things have to be shortened, things have to be simplified as explanation of complicated situations cannot be given the time they can in books.
But I will not accept turning very fundamental, central, and not at all complicated premises of a book on their heads by what I have called a Hollywood "need" to squash everything into simplistic cookie cutters.
I am also a bit of a Douglas Adams fan, and in the three biographies I have about him (one being a collaborative effort which has grown over the decades) I have drawn one conclusion about the "suits" in the media world: they are unimaginative trolls with a very low, not to say insulting opinion of their "customers". This may have to do with them trying to dredge even the lowest 5% of their perceived potential customer base (something other industries have long abandoned). In the process, they manage to insult even 4 of those 5%. In the books about Adams, he is repeatedly cited as reporting about reactions by US fans, pleading with him to resist the "dumbing down" that those US suits seem invariably to feel necessary in adaptations from "overseas". These suits would probably lynched with the rage not seen since the height of the terror of the French Revolution in the 1790s would they ever utter their arrogance before their "customers" as they do in their boardrooms.

My point in question is when Frodo, Sam and Gollum are in their climb towards the pass of Cirith Ungol (and Shelob), where, while Frodo and Sam are sleeping, Gollum crumbles a bit of Lembas across Sam to make Frodo believe Sam has been munching away more than his due, and which led to one of the most abominable scenes in the entire PJ trilogy: Frodo telling Sam to "go home". I very much remember the scene in the EE where PJ explains his reason for this: to give Gollum his "Day" (I may be reading too much of Clint Eastwood's character "Dirty" Harry Callahan into this, with the iconic "make my day" line). As PJ accompanied this statement with a smug smile, I must confess that at this point I had an urgent wish to inflict at least near-lethal bodily damage on him. And I certainly thought of him to be an extremely mentally sick person (some of his earlier small budget films are not helpful in dispelling such an impression).

Books and films are not the same mediums. "A picture is worth a thousand words" works in favor of the latter, I would think. But a picture can be so seriously wrong that not even 10 000 words can repair the damage inflicted.

 

[Sir Eowyn]

My point in question is when Frodo, Sam and Gollum are in their climb towards the pass of Cirith Ungol (and Shelob), where, while Frodo and Sam are sleeping, Gollum crumbles a bit of Lembas across Sam to make Frodo believe Sam has been munching away more than his due, and which led to one of the most abominable scenes in the entire PJ trilogy: Frodo telling Sam to "go home". I very much remember the scene in the EE where PJ explains his reason for this: to give Gollum his "Day" (I may be reading too much of Clint Eastwood's character "Dirty" Harry Callahan into this, with the iconic "make my day" line). As PJ accompanied this statement with a smug smile, I must confess that at this point I had an urgent wish to inflict at least near-lethal bodily damage on him. And I certainly thought of him to be an extremely mentally sick person (some of his earlier small budget films are not helpful in dispelling such an impression).

Books and films are not the same mediums. "A picture is worth a thousand words" works in favor of the latter, I would think. But a picture can be so seriously wrong that not even 10 000 words can repair the damage inflicted.

Alright, that scene in Return of the King I couldn't even try to defend. I agree, it's utter rubbish, and ham fisted. In my view, Return of the King (the movie) falls apart for two thirds of it. They seem under a collective spell of just having simply no clue what to do. Fellowship, however, is for me a different story. And in that one, I don't feel the changes were dumb, or over-simplified.

They may have had a longer Prologue, as Squint-eyed said, but really, for what? The one they did establishes that rings were made (the Three, the Seven, the Nine, and the One), that the One was made to rule them all, that this place called Middle-earth has Elves and Dwarves and mortals in it, that a Last Alliance overthrew Sauron, and then charts the fate of the Ring from there. It's done evocatively (that single shot of Gollum on his rock in the cave being particularly stirring), and in my opinion gives a sense of the ancientness and majesty of the world this story will play in. Just hearing Cate Blanchett speak Elvish from out of the darkness tells you more, instinctively, than a ten minute scene about Celebrimbor and Gil-galad, etc., could have done.

I agree that film executive "suits" are known for being pretty unimaginative... but that's not to say all studio product is ruined by them. Well, maybe now it is, but at that time you could still have some creative freedom on occasion, which it seems they got.

Fellowship the movie has quite little fighting in it, to answer Squint-eyed... other than that snippet in the Prologue, and Strider on Weathertop, there's only the scene by Balin's tomb and of course, the climax of Amon Hen. But I mean, those are there in the book... the Fellowship DO fight orcs in Moria, and a band of orcs DO kill Boromir and capture the hobbits. Lovers of swords (like myself) are glad to see those scenes, which advance the story and aren't overblown. By Return of the King, of course, it's overblown by far, and I'll be the first to admit it. But for Fellowship, I really fail to see how anybody could have filmed a better job.

 

[Olorgando]

Yes, after my first-viewing coma of "Fellowship" being corrected by the second viewing, and after having viewed the other two films, "Fellowship" is still the most faithful to the books (PJ must have known that he potentially had 50 million book readers who could have torn into the first film, causing a disaster for the planned and very-much-filmed three-film franchise). And I have read, in one of my rare frays outside of JRRT sites on the Internet, an opinion that "Fellowship", much more than two years later RoTK, should have won the Oscar for best film. But that lot seems to be playing a hopeless game of catch-up, trying to correct "obviously" wrong awards to someone by giving them a questionable award later. I forget (and don't really care) which film "beat" "Fellowship" when it was eligible. It may be that in some given year, awards given and some difficult-to-define consensus agree. It would seem to have to be a coincidence, as so much in life.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

They may have had a longer Prologue, as Squint-eyed said, but really, for what?

You misunderstand me: I wanted no prologue -- it was unnecessary, and could have been replaced with the scenes in their right places, as I indicated in the linked thread.

As for fights, they are most definitely overblown: the one in the Chamber of Mazarbul was stretched out far beyond its actual length; the "fight" at Parth Galen happens off-stage in the book, by design, and as for Weathertop, to quote Tolkien's exasperated comment, "there was no fight" (his emphasis).

Both you and PJ may love swords as much as you like, and are welcome to make as many swordfight movies as you want; but if you're going to film a beloved classic book, don't be surprised by pushback, when you go against the author's own intent. Maybe you love semaphore? What the heck:

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

"Dirty" Harry Callahan

Or in Gollum's case, "Dirty Hairless Caliban"?

 

[Sir Eowyn]

You misunderstand me: I wanted no prologue -- it was unnecessary, and could have been replaced with the scenes in their right places, as I indicated in the linked thread.

As for fights, they are most definitely overblown: the one in the Chamber of Mazarbul was stretched out far beyond its actual length; the "fight" at Parth Galen happens off-stage in the book, by design, and as for Weathertop, to quote Tolkien's exasperated comment, "there was no fight" (his emphasis).

Both you and PJ may love swords as much as you like, and are welcome to make as many swordfight movies as you want; but if you're going to film a beloved classic book, don't be surprised by pushback, when you go against the author's own intent. Maybe you love semaphore? What the heck:

Ah yes, I did misunderstand about the Prologue. Though I love the Prologue.

As for the issue with fights, I really don't see it. The huge majority of Fellowship isn't action scenes; what's wrong with a couple? Tolkien may not have described, in detail, clash by clash, what goes on, but he put them into his narrative, part of what happens. I mean, would you really want them to make a film where Boromir's last stand is "off-stage?" Is every detail of Tolkien so precious that nothing can be cinematic?

Let's not forget that fight they have with the wolves, in the book, before they get to Moria. They could have dramatized that one, but chose to forego it. That's some restraint, that is.

Tolkien himself loved swords too, I'm sure, considering how the Sword that was Broken plays such a role, as well as Sting, and Glamdring, and the swords they find in the Barrow-downs, imbued with such power one actually can hobble the Witch-king. His writings are chock full of battles... that they admittedly beefed up a couple of clashes in Fellowship of the Ring, where none might otherwise be, in no way does the story disservice. Again, what exactly was missing that cutting out the fights (which likely clock less than 15 minutes of a three-hour movie) would have made room for? There simply is no room for Bombadil, as great as he is.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

The Barrow-downs, for one. You know, where the hobbits actually got their swords? Admittedly, some of the other PJ fanfic would probably have to go too -- I'm sure he would want to have the barrow-wight chase Frodo round and round the slab, a la Moria.

As for Tolkien "loving" swords, another comment on Z: "Why is Aragorn constantly whipping out his sword?".

 

[Halasían]

I'm a film director myself, and in my opinion on this one (Fellowship) they nailed everything.

Seriously? 'Nailed Everything'? Can you not see that PJ Boyens & Co totally emasculated Aragorn? First by having Arwen take him by surprise in the wild, and especially by doing away with the whole of Arnor, and with that, any reason for Aragorn to just "choose exile" from Gondor as the screenplay read. Arwen could have been worked in to the screenplay in a better manner in Glorfindel's place without having Aragorn look like a bumbling idiot. Also, the northern Dunedain could have easily been worked in with a brief scene at the Prancing Pony between Aragorn and Halbarad, and dare I say, the Dunedain of the North be the army that comes to aid Helms Deep with the children of Elrond (yes, including Arwen) and maybe a contingent of elves as well. It would have been less of a fanfic and more of a good movie (in my opinion).

I will agree with you that the movies grreatly enhanced Boromir as a character, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Saruman. And Fellowship is the best of the lot.

 

[Sir Eowyn]

Seriously? 'Nailed Everything'? Can you not see that PJ Boyens & Co totally emasculated Aragorn? First by having Arwen take him by surprise in the wild, and especially by doing away with the whole of Arnor, and with that, any reason for Aragorn to just "choose exile" from Gondor as the screenplay read. Arwen could have been worked in to the screenplay in a better manner in Glorfindel's place without having Aragorn look like a bumbling idiot. Also, the northern Dunedain could have easily been worked in with a brief scene at the Prancing Pony between Aragorn and Halbarad, and dare I say, the Dunedain of the North be the army that comes to aid Helms Deep with the children of Elrond (yes, including Arwen) and maybe a contingent of elves as well. It would have been less of a fanfic and more of a good movie (in my opinion).

I will agree with you that the movies grreatly enhanced Boromir as a character, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Saruman. And Fellowship is the best of the lot.

Seriously? 'Nailed Everything'? Can you not see that PJ Boyens & Co totally emasculated Aragorn? First by having Arwen take him by surprise in the wild, and especially by doing away with the whole of Arnor, and with that, any reason for Aragorn to just "choose exile" from Gondor as the screenplay read. Arwen could have been worked in to the screenplay in a better manner in Glorfindel's place without having Aragorn look like a bumbling idiot. Also, the northern Dunedain could have easily been worked in with a brief scene at the Prancing Pony between Aragorn and Halbarad, and dare I say, the Dunedain of the North be the army that comes to aid Helms Deep with the children of Elrond (yes, including Arwen) and maybe a contingent of elves as well. It would have been less of a fanfic and more of a good movie (in my opinion).

I will agree with you that the movies grreatly enhanced Boromir as a character, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Saruman. And Fellowship is the best of the lot.

While I admit the whole "Ranger caught off his guard" thing is a bit of a stretch, she IS an Elf, and if anyone could do it, it would be one of the Fair Folk.

And yes, I don't mean "nailed everything" strictly according to Tolkien, but as a film in its own right, one that captures the spirit of wonder and majesty the books convey, without being true to every detail. Many complain about Aragorn, but I don't think this really becomes a problem till the movies. He doesn't quite work as the King, it's true, but in Fellowship, as Strider the Ranger, I think he's great. Elrond does mention he's "chosen exile," but Gandalf seems to believe in him. And other than that one line, he seems solid. I'm not counting the Extended version, which in my view slows up the narrative and is artistically inferior to the theatrical cut (with the exception of the bits and bobs added to meeting Galadriel, and to Boromir's last stand).

 

[Halasían]

Ok. It's your opinion. You did seem to back off from your thread title and opening line in your intiial post.
I am of the opinion that Fellowship is the leaste flawed in much of the technicalities, but introduces one of the biggest flaws by throwing out a core basis of the legendarium. So much so that the movie franchise is merely one or two people's big-budget fanfic and no more. Sure, they were entertaining 17-20 years ago, and they were the catylist that led me and my wife to find each other in this world. An occasional watch of DVD is good for a laugh at how cheesy some parts appear now, and generally are a good cure for insomnia. There were some parts that were good and stand up through the years, mainly some of the characters and some of the scenery, but the flaws always have me seeing where a few minor changes in the screenplay would have made them very much better. Namarie.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

they were the catylist that led me and my wife to find each other in this world.

I've added that to the list of good results from the movies. It's still a short list.

Oh, hey -- speaking of lists, we left one off the list of fights: the "Battle of the Wizards". Another PJ invention.

 

[Sir Eowyn]

Ok. It's your opinion. You did seem to back off from your thread title and opening line in your intiial post.
I am of the opinion that Fellowship is the leaste flawed in much of the technicalities, but introduces one of the biggest flaws by throwing out a core basis of the legendarium. So much so that the movie franchise is merely one or two people's big-budget fanfic and no more. Sure, they were entertaining 17-20 years ago, and they were the catylist that led me and my wife to find each other in this world. An occasional watch of DVD is good for a laugh at how cheesy some parts appear now, and generally are a good cure for insomnia. There were some parts that were good and stand up through the years, mainly some of the characters and some of the scenery, but the flaws always have me seeing where a few minor changes in the screenplay would have made them very much better. Namarie.

I'm just interested what that "core basis" consists of here. Any specific detail, or just overall? By the time we get to Return of the King the cheese factor's off the chart, but I just can't see it here. The enchantment remains.

 

[Halasían]

I'm just interested what that "core basis" consists of here. Any specific detail, or just overall? By the time we get to Return of the King the cheese factor's off the chart, but I just can't see it here. The enchantment remains.

Core basis - specifically: Two Kingdoms in the books vs one Kingdom in PJ's fanfic. The reasons that Aragorn was not king in the books vs he just didn't feel like being king, "chose exile" and went off chasing Arwen while leaving the Steward Denethor in charge in Gondor in the PJ fanfic. It's pretty major really.

 

[Sir Eowyn]

Hmm. Well, I agree the whole one kingdom thing is a simplification... but then, it's no easy feat to explain to an audience, concisely and with a moving story, the history of the Numenorean realms in exile. That Elendil had two sons, one ruling Arnor, one Gondor, that the North Kingdom came to an end but that the heirs of Isildur still could claim the royalty in the South from the Stewards... all a bit convoluted, and unnecessary for storytelling, really. All we have to know is that a throne sits empty, stewarded by Boromir's kin, and that Aragorn's the rightful heir. Believe me, as a fan of the book, I lament the loss of complexity there, but again, those are the kind of things you just have to pare down.

The film doesn't really get into the reasons Aragorn ain't on the throne... I'm here discounting the infamous, "I do not want that power; I have never wanted it," scene from the extended edition. I don't like that scene, and they cut it out (wisely), so let's not count it. So all we have is the "chosen exile" line. Well, that could imply all kinds of things... that he's gotten a little too comfortable as a wandering Ranger, that he's dragging his heels, not properly assuming his royalty, etc. Again, not strictly accurate to the book, where what we get is an Aragorn without any doubts or character flaws, who's exactly the same when we meet him in Bree as he is when he sits on the throne in the end. This has been argued before... about the "hidden king," etc., how it's too modern to expect any flaws. Yes, yes. I hear that. I really do. It's a valid point of view, as a philosophical sticking point. All I know is that, as a viewer, it doesn't take any feeling away.

But Aragorn, in Fellowship, is a side issue anyway. The real "core basis" is Frodo carrying the Ring. And I see no issues there, either arguable or otherwise. Yes, he's a little bit young---but 33 for a hobbit is like 18 for a Man, and carrying the Ring you don't age.

Can we all agree on Ian McKellen? I mean, what better Gandalf could there be? (in Fellowship)

 

[Rivendell_librarian]

I think there will be few naysayers about Ian Mckellen. What FOTR (film and book) transmits is the importance of friendship i.e. fellowship. This is well set up in the scene where Gandalf wants "just tea" (bumps his head on the chandelier - a lovely touch) while Bilbo offers him so much choice then asks if Gandalf minds if he eats something (just like a true hobbit). Then later McKellen reveals something of his true power when there is the dispute over the Ring. Mckellen manages to convey majesty and yet glories in friendship with humble hobbits.