The hardest thing to do, I think, must be to make a movie and get it sold, when everyone already knows the ending. Jackson took a shot at this with LOTR and he did a great job with a difficult task, or at least that aspect of it. In addition, the unabridged audiobook The Fellowship of the Ring is something like eleven hours, and somehow Jackson cut that time down to just under three. No matter who or what Jackson cut out to do that, he was going to make somebody unhappy, so according to him, he just made himself happy.
Yet again, a great British institution (LotR) is taken by a 'foreigner', and given what it needs (just like the Globe Theatre in London). Good for him, I don't think it realistically could have been done better, and the cartoon sucked to high heaven. I agree there is no way Jackson could please everybody, but I 'get' most of his compromises and changes. I agree that it is very well paced, and the sets are wonderfully detailed and appropriate.
I think a complete 'Tolkien' Sam would be a little silly to a modern audience; far too much hat twisting and forelock pulling. As it is, it seems that Frodo and Sam have a very David and Jonathon thing going on in the film. So I'm happy that Sam is more of an individual, rather than a menial, as him burbling 'Sorry Mr Frodo' every five feet would be dull.
Gimli and Legolas bitch far too much in the book. Maybe The Twin Towers will explore this more, as in the books, but I agree a couple of Gimli to Legolas conversations would have been truer to the film, like, one to establish the antipathy clearly, followed by more moderate ones in Moria and Lothlorien. Legolas does seem to have a magic quiver, doesn't he? One 15 second shot of him reclaiming arrows in the background whilst the others are doing something else would help with this, but it's not a biggie, and is a problem in most films involving projectile weapons; an SMG empties in two seconds if you hold the trigger down, and I can think of many films where this is accurately portrayed, and don't even talk about Westerns!! You make a very good point about the Aragon and Legolas dynamic.
I think that the Frodo-Gandalf and Aragon-Bormoir relationships are done excellently.
I think you actually see Gil-Galad and Elendil being mown down in the film, before Isildur gets knocked down before getting a sly one in with a shard of Narsil, but it doesn't explain it in detail, using a more montage style. Although Sauron is no ordinary mortal, 'all' he is is a Maiar, just like Gandalf and Saruman. The ring-wraith offed by Eowyn and Merry is 'just' a mortal (with jewellery). I'm not troubled by this. And Elrond would not chuck Isildur into Mount Doom, it's just so un-Elrond, let alone un-Elvish.
As for the big absences; I knew Bombadil wouldn't get in, I just couldn't figure it 'working'. This means no barrow-wrights, no wicked special blade for offing ring-wraiths, but that's kind of okay as long as you forget the ring-wraith dies because of the special blade in the book. Of course, we might get more back story of the blade later on, but I don't see a need.
The start of the quest, the flight from the Shire, misses out the Farmer, and the sale of Bagend, and Fatty, and gets them into a direct confrontation with a ring-wraith that they don't get rescued from by Gildor and Co. turning up. There is a line of dialogue in the film that explains the Black Riders perceptions, and this means the film makes sence, even if it differs from the book; we can't expect consonance between the film and the book, only internal logic. Thus no "Water hot is a wonderful thing indeed", or any other songs really, which I think most people are glad about. If Bombadil was still in they'd of had to of made it a musical, which would be silly.
Arwen is cleverly done, I think; yeah, if you've read the book it's like "This ain't Glorfindel", and "She doesn't so that", but it leads to a more linear narrative line, which is essential to keep the time down. It differs from the book, but it lacks suckage, and the 'love-interest' it gives is fully supported by the Appendices. If you stop thinking a 'young' half-eve girl coun;t take the place of Florfindel, then it fits, it's only if you want everything to be like the book that it causes major problems.
As for casting and appearance, I actaully think Aragon and Boromir look too similar, but Aragon is perfect for the part (at least he had my girlfriend sliding of her seat). Sean Bean does well as Bormir, but isn;t fab. Gandalf is great, Saruman faultless. Frodo I like, but others I know differ on this. Galadriel just about works, although I'd have gone for Tori Amos instead, with Claire Danes as Arwen, but Liv will do me. Elrond is good, as are Gimili and Legolas. The other hobbits are okay too.
The 'look' of the races, well the Dwarves are perfect, the Elves are fine by me; thank god the Elves aren't too gay (if you know what I mean). Hobbits are meant to be somehow decended or related to Men, so them not having pointy ears is fine too. The beasties are great, with the Balrog getting full marks.
The chase of the Black Riders was a little long, but I think the handling of Gandalf and Saruman's fight was excellent; go stick your Quiddich where the sun don't shine Ms. Rowling, this is real magic! The bragging about the Plantir is completely neccesary given the film is more sequential than the book, which consisted of episodic sections of each narrative line; the use of the Plantir by Saruman is only explained much later ib the books, but makes sense where it is.
I noticed the thing about Gandalf's staff too; one assume he can make new staves if neccesary, as they are not given the prominence of rings; maybe he used Narya (his ring). Him getting it back apre-Balrog is no problem, as the Valar could sort that, no problem.
I also noticed the axe thing with Gimli, but he used a big double-blader to try and destroy the ring (I think), and was holding a smaller single bladed job when he offered his axe... I could be worng about this, as I've only seen it once thus far... The Coucil is an obvious area to cut time, so I've no beef with this, as doing it true to book would make it drag.
I was waiting for the "See the sword that was broken..." bit too... pity, it's cool.
But as Gimil is throwing daggers (I think), Aragon has a bow (not in the book I think), and the hobbits get impromptu combat training, it's just a difference, not a problem, although Bill the magic pony is a tad silly and against 'internal' logic - whereas the snow-storm sent by Sauruman does, for me fit. Burying them under avalenches means you wait to spring... it's not like he has an orc-power problem!!
I was happy with the cave troll, but you're right, I don't know why it was changed from the chieftan. However, I think in the film, the combat abilities of the fellowship are elevated somewhat above that in the book; they do go through Orcs like a strimmer through long grass, where as in the book I recall they run more...
The Gate to Moria is easily solved; there's a drawing of it by Tolkien in the book; it's one thing EVERYONE know the appearance of. I wouldn't change it, even if it doesn't make sense within the full time-frame of Middle Earth, it's fine for the LotR. However, I don't know whay Gimli had such a hard-on for going to Moria, and why the expectations of the party in Moria (Gimli expected a normal dwarf city, not lots of little skeletons) is so different from the book.
Some of the dialogue switches are pointless, you're right. But Gandalf was clinging to a isolated remnant of the bridge, and I assumed he was (being a well-hard Maiar under the hat) holding on for a moment with a Balrog holding on to him via the whip around the ankle, before falling. I could be worng.
The final scenes are done well, although they depart from the book by a large degree. It's more consistant with the idea of what wearing the ring is like for Frodo not to use it unless he had too, and him kind-of explaining why he was going means the splitting of the fellowship makes more sence to those that haven't read the book, and for the start of the Twin Towers. Without the changes, people who hadn't read the book would be lost why Gimli, Aragon and Leglas were off in pusuit of Pippin and Merry, rather than finding the ring-dude. As it stands, it fits.
I think your review was absolutely excellent though... I've been dying to have an in-depth natter about it.
Jackson has made a very good conversion, I can't recall of a more challanging page to screen job better done. If you allow each work (book and film) to stand in their own space, his efforts are even more outstanding, as he has more or less managed to provide a very fair version of the story with consistant internal logic, that can please most fans, delight those who read it once ages ago, and entertain (and, best off all, get in the bookshop) those who have never read it.
Also, no one says 'keen are the eyes of Elves'; this is a vastly over-used phrase in LotR (at least three occasions, it's a running joke). He also doesn't use the word 'gleam', which Tolkien had a great affection for, and possibly over-used.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
