Peter Jackson has improved Tolkien

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I respect that there can be different opinions on this subject. But when a confessed Tolkienite says he doesn't like a movie that millions have embraced and that clearly captures the essence of Tolkien's great work, I question their objectivity and/or their motivations.

It is of my opinion that the movie did not particularly capture the essence of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Why? Because the Hobbits' POV was basically compacted down, and the POV shifted to a more action packed, humanistically focussed movie. It is this facet that makes me point out that the movie thus far fails for me.

I could also approach it from a more technical vantage point and say that by upping the action, PJ has created a very disjointed film, that in places is very patchy. It is my opinion that it does not flow well. Furthermore, I feel that some actors, ie John Rhys-Davies, Christopher Lee, and Ian McKellen (he was amazing in Gods and Monsters), just were not utilised to their full potential. They had some amazing actors in Fellowship, and it seems that these talents were used ad hoc. And let me not get into the script!

However, despite the film's blandness, I can appreciate that PJ is still an amazing director, and the sets are ... well... beautiful. When I got it out on DVD, and watched it, I may not have been overly enthralled with the flow of the film, nor the utilisation of some of the actors, but by god, that man can direct!

Regarding your rather silly point that "he doesn't like a movie that millions have embraced and that clearly captures the essence of Tolkien's great work, I question their objectivity and/or their motivations".... what are you? A fascist regime? People are allowed to hold differing opinions. Just because you think that the movie is gods gift to moviedom, does not make you right; any more than the fact that I find the movie somewhat blase makes me right.

And there's the "O" word again.

Finally, I'll leave you with the words of Ebert:

Such notions about Hobbits can be found in "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," but the Hobbits themselves have been pushed off center stage. If the books are about brave little creatures who enlist powerful men and wizards to help them in a dangerous crusade, the movie is about powerful men and wizards who embark on a dangerous crusade, and take along the Hobbits. That is not true of every scene or episode, but by the end "Fellowship" adds up to more of a sword and sorcery epic than a realization of the more naive and guileless vision of J. R. R. Tolkien.

The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to it. But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not.