Lord Of The Rings Part One

PeterJackson's excellent film based on the first part of JrrTolkien's LordOfTheRings. Opinions follow:

The screenplay is almost letter perfect. Arwen's promotion to a leading character worked fine.
The film is gorgeous to look at. NewZealand is frighteningly beautiful.
Thank the Valar RonHoward? didn't do it or it would have resembled HowTheGrinchStoleChristmas?... (RonHoward? already did a LOTR ripoff: search www.imdb.com for Willow)
The race/size effects were mostly amazing. There were a few scenes where body-doubles stood at awkward angles, and sometimes the matting showed. Hobbits seemed to grow and shrink a little compared to the other characters too. But this is nitpicking - it's wonderful Jackson was able to get this to work at all.
It is particularily amazing to see a movie that used computers and special effects to serve the particularities of a screen play, rather than the contrary. We can see in the movie how we master technologies, and how they can turn wonderful books in no-less wonderful movies.
The CGIs were stunning. The mountain-troll and Khazad-Dum sequences especially.
Actually some of the CGIs got carried away, like flying us around towers, then swooping down and underground, etc. A little of that is okay, but they did it three or four times...
Notice Legolas running over the snow ... too cool. Actually, walking and then standing over powder snow. Very cool, indeed.
I loved the fight scene where Legolas is shooting arrows rapid fire, zip, zip, zip!
- Actually, I thought the 31337 XTR3M3 SK8B0RD WARRIOR role was kind of annoying. -- TheerasakPhotha
IanMcKellen? is absolutely the perfect Gandalf.
The film's pace at the start is nice. But later on it gets too predictable. Now we have an action scene. Now we have a pretty landscape. Now we have another action scene. Okay, now another pretty landscape ...
- The book reads the same way. -- TheerasakPhotha
Didn't feel this, I thought the changes usually felt natural, driven by the story... Tolkien took great care connecting high-resolution passages to glosses like "they walked in the woods for 6 days", and this came thru in a cinematic way.
Too many scenes trudging/running along a path in a line. Probably easier to matt with CGI that way, but it dulls the eye. Especially when the fellowship's running full pelt over terrain obviously too rough to permit it, like the cliffs at the exit of the mines of Moria.

It is well known that a line is the wrong way to walk along a path. In real world trekking, groups normally walk side by side: one person on the beaten path and the others trampling flowers, struggling among the bushes, balancing at the edge of a ravine, wetting their feet in a stream...

The violence is over-indulgent. Yes, Jackson's very good at filming it. But a little harsher editing of the Orc/Uruk-Hai scenes would have been very effective.
Agreed; having Aragorn behead the head Orc felt sort of obligatory and non-Tolkien to me, more like something from an Ah-nold movie...
The movie is three hours long, but doesn't seem long. Everything keeps moving at a good pace. But if you need a restroom break, take it when everyone gets to Rivendell. Definitely do not take it while they are in Moria.
This is precisely the mistake I made first time I saw it; but I did get back in time to see the Balrog!
The scenes around it sucked, but that Balrog was a-fucking-mazing. disagree. I found the Balrog disappointing. sure it looked cool, but it didn't do anything.
The Shire and its inhabitants translate well to the screen, even if they seem a little more Gaelic than English.
The love scenes between Aragorn and Arwen seemed trite.
I liked them; short, mixed Elvish and English, and focused on Arwen's choice to give up immortality.
The world of the high-elves at Lothlorien was disappointing after the beautiful rendering of Rivendell. (Sorry to quibble, but Celeborn and the majority of the population were Sindarin. Galadriel was high-elven of course. Do you mean this was another deviation from the book?) Deviation? In The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales there are varying versions of the history of Galadriel and Celeborn. In some he is Sindarin, in others Telerian. It is possible he is kinsman to Thingol. So "the book" is itself inconsistent. Happily for us uber-fans! Weren't the Sindarin that branch of the Teleri who stayed in Middle Earth with Thingol to begin with?
- >sigh< Thingol was one of the first three ambassador Eldar to visit Aman and see the light of the Two Trees. Therefor he was "Caliquendi", a Light Speaker. But when he returned to MiddleEarth he met the female Maiar Melian, and settled down with her there to rule a nation of Moriquendi (Dark Speakers). And he and she are one of Aragorn's remote ancestors.
- Chris Tolkien wrote the Silmarillion based on his father's notes, so real uber-fans don't consider any of it normative. Well, maybe. Most of it existed in draft form, so I think it's an exaggeration to say Christoper Tolkein wrote it. Some of the other books, however... Besides, if I recall correctly Guy Gavriel Kay did most of the editing work on the Simarilion...
- This sounds like a point on which it can be trusted: not all of the Teleri went across the sea, and the Sindarin were part of those that remained Moriquendi. So the inconsistency is a fiction. Uh, the books are fiction, too ;-)
- Having seen the movie now, I don't see how the population of Lothlorien is presented as high-elven. I think the above line was just a slip-up.
The contrast between Tolkien's original lines and those by the screenwriters was glaring. Examples? I hate unspecific complaints Understood, but I'm not going to see it a second time just to take notes. Gandalf's "Fly you fools" does come to mind though right after the belowmentioned "dwarf toss" line. How about "Let's go hunt some Orks"?
If the collapse of the bridge before the Bridge of Khazad-Dum was done just to set up the stupid "dwarf toss" line by Gimli, it was a total waste.
I found the movie relentlessly linear, boring, and unimaginative. I felt as though I was in a bad first-person action game. I much preferred HarryPotter and any of the Star Wars episodes.

Casting

Casting on the whole excellent, except ChristopherLee?. Lee's Saruman was the same as Lee's anything else. Almost any well-seasoned Commonwealth actor would have done better.
Disagree regarding ChristopherLee?. Lee brought a near perfect combination of hubris and dissapation to the role. Saruman was the greatest of the Istari, but he was secretly controlled by Sauron. Lee knows how to play really old, really evil, and really tired. I don't know of any other Commonwealth actor (except IanMcKellen? and the late JohnGilgiud? who have the chops to pull that off).
Galadriel sucked. A better actress should have actually read all Tolkien's Galadriel material, and used less bullshit breathy voices and staged pantomime. Of course PeterJackson "gets" Tolkien, but he completely missed Galadriel. She's a cousin of Feanor, one of the Eldar equivalent of technocrats and scientists. And she is also spunky and girlish. And what's the deal with subsituting CGI for acting all the time? Here's the damn ring lady, take it! I agree. Rotten casting. She doesn't have the stage presence to pull it off
Partially disagree. The actress was good, and looked the part, but the effects shot when offered the Ring was poor although, I heard some kids discussing the movie after it let out and they said Galadriel's transformation scared the crap out of them It might have been scary to someone young and not familiar with the text, but I found it a little cartoonish, compared to some other existing SFX that might have conveyed the intent better
I was mildly distracted by Hugo Weaving as the elven Lord Elrond; I kept thinking of Agent Smith from The Matrix, and waiting for him put on his dark glasses and say "Mister Anderson!" {grin} He seemed the least "elvish" of all the elves in the film to me... -- It seems, Frodo, that you've been living double lives. One is a respectable hobbit, named Mr. Baggins...the other a wanderer, named Mr. Underhill... Heh, that's good. Hmm, I suppose there's a *rough* correlation between Gandalf and Morpheus, but I can't see Gandalf tricking/misleading Frodo into a serious quest like Morpheus did to Neo... Other rough parallels come to mind: dangerous forays into enemy territory, uncertainty as to who you can trust, ....
Hugo Weaving was good and bad. Good, because he actually came across as the stern, wise, friendly Mentor of Eriador which he had been for 2,000 years. Bad, because "the face of Elrond was ageless", both young and old. HW tended to the old side. But regarding least "elvish", Elrond was half-elven. His line descends from both the Noldor elves that fought the Shadow in the First Age, and from their allies the Chieftans of Men who are Aragorn's distant ancestors. Elrond's brother Elros founded Numennor, the begining of the line of Elendil. But a half-elf who lives among humans becomes mortal.
I also think Ian Holm deserves special mention: his Bilbo was wonderful! Amazing. No CGI needed to prop up this performance!
Aragorn should have been tallest of the fellowship (and not so young looking) even though Boromir was broader.

Deviations from the books

The reforging of the broken sword Narsil didn't occur in sequence ... Actually, the sword that Aragorn pulled out before Rivendell wasn't Narsil given that Boromir saw it on display at Rivendell. The deviation is that Aragorn carried the shards of Narsil with him.
Several major characters (Saruman, Pippin, Aragorn) have been heavily reworked.
Why do you think Pippin has been reworked? He is the youngest hobbit and acts the most immature.
Arwen's role is expanded in the film (to excellent effect).
There are quite a number of seemingly pointless changes. For example, the mithril coat is discovered on Frodo while still in Moria and btw it was an large orc that injured him, that troll's thrust would have killed him, mithril or no.
The story was heavily condensed from the Buckleburry Ferry to the Village of Bree. There's no Fatty Bolger, no Old Forest, no Tom Bombadil, and no barrow wights. Aragon merely hands over the swords to the Hobbits. A huge amount of material has been cut. Some of it very good. Still I can't see what else they could have done.
What could have been done is make each "book" a separate movie (the 3 "parts" of the trilogy are each made up of two books) and then release the first two movies (nearly) simultaneously for twice the revenue.
I didn't miss those bits; I was vaguely aware that some stuff from the book was missing, and I specifically noticed the lack of Bombadil, but it didn't bother me. I hope in the next film Jackson does the same thing with the Ents, especially their looooooong, boring stories. I've read the trilogy three times (so far) in my life, and every time I get bogged down with the Ents, and usually start skipping ahead... -- (later) Okay, I withdraw that particular statement; the Ents part isn't all that long, and I hope Jackson finds a way to keep them in. In general I've been concerned about where/how the books will be chopped to fit into a film; now that I've reread the whole trilogy, I think Jackson should abbreviate much of the story after Aragon weds Arwen, and move fairly quickly to Bilbo & Frodo sailing away. On the other hand, it is cool to see what happens with Saruman and Grima...
Someday the holodeck version of this work will, of course, include every word of the original. But, for now, that entire sequence (the journey from Bag End to Amon Sul, where Frodo is stabbed) has always been regarded among Tolkienologists as in the style of The Hobbit - a light-hearted bedtime story, not the War to End an Age. Very clever of PeterJackson to cut it out, then recast the whole rest of the movie into the style of The Hobbit... I don't think he did - it's not got the depth of the book, but it's not a light romp like the Hobbit either
I thought the film lost something quite important here - the way the whole world seems to get bigger and darker as the hobbits get further away from the Shire.
Gimli not getting a huge crush on Galadriel was a rip. All they needed was an insert of him crying and sputtering as they left LothLorien? to book-end the insert they did have when he was entering and saying stuff like "she will not bewitch my heart" Apparently more was filmed, and cut at the last minute - the Gimli/Galadriel encounter will be on the DVD release
My impression was that the Lothlorien scene was heavily cut, perhaps late in the process. It didn't seem to hang together at all.
An example of that are the green cloaks (with the art nouveau leaf clasps) that everyone is wearing once they leave Lothlorien. The book describes these as gifts from Galadriel, but they aren't mentioned in the movie, they just appear. -- I don't think there's anything wrong with this. One can't expect the movie to explain every detail, but it was nice to see them anyways. I doubt anyone who hadn't read the book was puzzled by the origin of the new cloaks. Unlike the book, the movie can make the broaches in the same art-nouveau style as the rest of the surviving shots of Lothlorien, feature them prominently in the exit scene, and let the viewer figure it out. her give to Sam becomes crucially important at the end of the film -- it should have been shown
The Battle of Dagorlad was decent, but it was Gil-galad and Elendil that overthrew Sauron, and not by relieving him of The Ring. Isildur showed up after the fact and cut The Ring off Sauron's hand to keep as an heirloom. This scene would have also been better shown at the Council of Elrond, where Elrond and Gandalf told it to those gathered, instead of part of the prologue.
Where were all the elves in Rivendell? There should have been elves singing outside Frodo's window when he awoke. The place looked deserted.
There was way too much inter-racial dissension at the Council of Elrond. -- I disagree. The Ring would want people to fight over it, so it would amplify any feelings of animosity in those present. The written chapter was about professionals having their summit meeting, with a subtext of worrying about what evils the Ring might radiate. But Peter Jackson simply cannot ever do anything subtle...
Gandalf should have held onto his sword Glamdring as he was snagged by the Balrog's whip. (Although I never understood why he couldn't have used it to sever the whip before it pulled him down.)
Somewhere Jackson should have deviated more from the books: When Gandalf threatens Bilbo near the beginning, or when Galadriel talks about taking the ring, the literal translation of the text into visual effects detracts from the acting, and makes the whole thing look a little amateurish. Jackson should have ignored the book's description in these scenes and let the actors carry it themselves, they were all capable.
Aragorn speaks to Frodo after Boromir has tried to take the Ring, and decides to let him go by himself to Mordor. In the books, Frodo sneaks off without telling anyone, and it is only because Sam knows him so well that he knows to follow.

Per the page WorksOfTolkien, acts with evil intent harm the doer, but acts with good intent come back to help the doer in unexpected ways. PeterJackson's most inexcusable deviation was to break this rule. He may "get" Tolkien, but he obviously did not read the CliffsNotes?. By placing bumbling hobbits closer to certain bad results, he contracted the script but lost a lot of real magic. Sorry, I'm not following. Jackson had evil intent somehow, or he ignored the evil intent rule in the script (if so, where?)?

You know, it's funny, the first time I read the book I always imagined the Shire as being under some kind of dome or something (or possibly underground), so there were only a few entrances or exits. All evidence to the contrary. But there you go, I guess :P

Saw an interview with PeterJackson where he said that the DVD version was half an hour longer, specifically including more character development.

Personally, I'm hoping that the theatre version survives in DVD form... Of course I want to own the longer version, too, but the theatre version created the most tension of any film I've ever experienced... 3+ hours of gut-wrenching action, with no relent... that's the experience I'll remember most... so tense that after the wraiths were washed away by the raging river, and after Moria, I literally came to tears.

The Theatre version of LOTR comes out on DVD in August (in America)... the Extended Length Special Edition arrives in November.