Have we missed the point?
I've read with interest all of your posts. Thanks for the opinions. Thought I'd add mine too.
Firstly, I thought it was a good film. I saw it with friends who enjoyed the film (all the guys had read LOTR, the girls hadn't) so that may have influenced my impressions.
Most of your observations were things that I noticed too and my opinion on a few of these:
1)
Arwen - more strength, courage than explored in the book - but probably justified in the absence of
Glorfindel's character. Elven beauty was portrayed well.
2)
Elrond - xenophobia was a bit disturbing (seemed to detest humans), thought
Sam Neill would probably have been better casting choice than Hugo Weaving.
3)
Gandalf - tricky character to portray onscreen but thought was carried off well by Ian McKellen, majesty was not as clearly brought across but his warmth and personality was more clear than
Tolkien's original (gasp - sacrilege!)
4)
Frodo - looked frightened most of the time, as he should
5) Samwise - hopefully his character will be developed more in subsequent movies
6)
Merry and
Pippin - foolish enough but not scared enough, impression from Tolkien's work is that they fight more out of desperation than courage
7)
Saruman - hope his desire for power is more clearly developed in subsequent episodes, I preferred Tolkien's plot where Saruman's forces add an extra complexity to the global conflict, a 3-way war between Saruman,
Mordor and the allies with the twist that Saruman did not realise he was serving Mordor's ends
8)
Sauron - very nice opening sequence depicting the
dark lord and good concise presentation of the immediate history surrounding the
events of the FOTR for the girls who hadn't read any LOTR
9)
Nazgul - initially looked menacing but were surprisingly easy to kill, even the
hobbits seemed to eat them for breakfast
I've noticed many of you in the "purists'" camp, mainly have three main gripes - the character changes, the plot changes and a couple of dumbly scripted lines.
I agree that some things could have been better portrayed or written, but I don't believe that deviation from Tolkien's work means something necessarily worse.
Some of the characterisations I've already commented on. The plot deviations of Saruman's role in the conflict I've also mentioned.
The problem is probably one of a lack of depth in the movie - some of the characters haven't been apportioned the time onscreen necessary to develop their personality or their relationship with each other. This would have made the film more solid.
As I understand, Tolkien's experience of war in the attritive trenches of France with its mud, blood and plunder of human life (even his friends'), were an influence on his writings of conflict. I thought the film did well in bringing across a sense of danger (didn't you only feel relief in the
realms of the
elves? ... and I'm not just referring to those of you who took the opportunity to go to the dunny during those scenes.) Jackson also did well in terms of the pace of the action scenes (I really liked the battle scenes in the opening sequences.)
The "dumbing down" of some of the lines was quite far removed from the lofty language of Tolkien's pen. While it occasionally grated, it was not an entirely bad thing. Tolkien loved ancient European legend and that comes through clearly in his writing but a mainstream cinematic portrayal of LOTR must be an entirely different animal unless you're doing arthouse LOTR. Maybe that's what some of you were expecting.
Ultimately, what good is entertainment unless it entertains? And moreover, what a joy when it does not just amuse but inspire? I thought Jackson did that. Perhaps the movie was anathema to some but for many, it can still thrill and inspire... wasn't that JRR Tolkien's desire?
