Changes from book *not* by and large necessary

Rating: Null/10 (23 December 2001)

A warning: I'll start out by venting my problems with the movie, and then move on to the positives. Overall I liked the movie very much, and admire Peter Jackson for attempting such a huge and risky endeavor.
Those who have never read the books say "die-hard fans may complain about some minor details that have been changed as a matter of necessity given the innate differences in the media." I must say that is a gross understatement. There were many major changes, some justifiable, some not.
Starting the movie with a battle scene defeats the whole point of stating in the Shire to make the evil to come a greater and more horrible contrast---but I can understand this change. Movie audiences don't want to wait an hour for action. Lothlorien, however, supposed to be one of the most beautiful and sacred places in Middle Earth, is made sinister and threatening in the movie. The blue color scheme (it's not called the Golden Wood for nothing, folks) that Lothlorien shares with two other parts of the movie---the shadow world of the Nazgûl and Moria, the two most evil places in Fellowship---brings it home that Lothlorien is cold and bad. This change has nothing to do with attention spans or time constraints---it is simply a directing mistake.
Speaking of time constraints, the removal of such a huge chunk of the early book (Buckland, Crickhollow, the Old Forest, Bombadil, and the Barrow-downs) is defended by saying "the movie was almost too long already!" If nothing had been added which had not been found in the book, this would have been understandable, but so much time was wasted on material that came from---I don't know where, but certainly not from Tolkien. Arwen? Arwen had to be pumped up to satisfy the female viewers? I know I'm not as intelligent as the combined force of screenwriters for this movie, so why did no one else realize that Galadriel was the solution to this problem? Galadriel was the strong female of Fellowship, and she could have been played up, rather than made sinister, contrary to all of Tolkien's designs.
If you haven't yet seen the movie, my advice to you is to try to forget the books and enjoy. If you try to watch and relate events in the movie to what you've read, you'll only get confused, since things have been switched around without mercy. A great mystery of the first half of the book---what happened to Gandalf?---is no longer a mystery, with Saruman's treachery revealed near the beginning (my personal regret is the elimination of Saruman's Robe of Many Colors, but that's a tiny detail, my mention of which probably marks me fatally as a Tolkien obsessee.) Another needless change was having Strider's sword in Bree not broken! A good deal of symbolism swept out the door---yet why was the sword shown so pointedly (pun intended) broken in the opening scene?
With my complaints safely behind me (except for the casting of sinister Agent Smith as Elrond, a chief good guy), I can now feel free to say that overall it was superb. The effects were great, especially the Balrog, the shadow world, the flooding Ford of Bruinen, and the Eye. I loved Gandalf, and Boromir's depth was wonderful. I was excited to see it once and will see it again. My positive review is much shorter than my negative, but that's only because most reviews have been positive, and I thought a little of the other voice was necessary.