How Peter Jackson Butchered a Classic

Rating: Null/10 (20 December 2001)

J.R.R. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings is THE definitive epic of the fantasy genre. His story telling is clever and subtle, his imagined landscapes grand and immersing, and the entire story is a complex and subtly weaved pattern that culminates to the sharpest, most finely hand created needle point of a climax that the many generations who have read the book, since its printing, will ever know in the fantasy genre....and maybe other genres. And Peter Jackson has ruined it for all to come.
Here's how he ruined it:
1. Storytelling
Peter Jackson took Tolkein's wonderfully suspenseful, subtle and intricately designed plot, dissected it and laid it out open with all its innards disgustingly displayed for all to see. The mystery of Gandalf's capture, and his failure to meet the hobbits is thrown out into the open. The mystery of the Palantiri, part of the cause of Saruman's corruption is thrown out to the audiences a whole movie too early, and not even told properly (Saruman is in contention with Sauron, not in league with). And what really smacked it to home that Jackson was not leaving anything to suspense was in the Mines of Moria, when Frodo suspects they are being followed, where in the book the reader is left to suspect and guess at it being Gollum...Gandalf quickly reveals this fact with a quick "if you were at all in doubt, let me ruin it for you and tell you 'its Gollum' " blurb.
The one part where Jackson's tendency to tell things before hand may have been good was the prologue and the story of the ring. Granted the prologue was very good, and was a good introduction to the whole story line, and especially informative to those who have not read the book. The audience would have received the same information as it was meant to be, through the hard earned efforts of Gandalf' investigative efforts. Remember you have a captive audience for 3 hours, your allowed to keep them questioning and in suspense, and the story of the ring is a big piece of suspense that the reader/watcher really wants to know about and will sit through some storytelling to hear. And it doesn't change the length of the movie and it doesn't drag it on, it's a simple rearrangement of scenes movie wise.
2. Gandalf
Gandalf is a noble, overpowering character of great stature in middle-earth, even so that many are scared of or dislike him. He is of the mysterious order of wizards; he does not cower in the corners of Bag End in fear. He does not sit at the Council of Elrond in confusion or self-doubt, and he does not leave crucial decisions of the fellowship to Frodo. He is a man of authority, dignity and strength and even some times cruel in an importantly leader like way. He faces the Mouth of Sauron himself, when all of his most subtly laid plans are thrown out in front of him and almost proven to have failed (meaning the possible destruction of middle-earth as he knows it) without barely a shudder. This is the Gandalf of the book, not the cowering, fearful, self-doubting character Ian McKellan plays. And for those that argue that Ian portrayed a more human/realistic character, remember this is fantasy, we didn't come to see reality we came for quality entertainment, we came to see Gandalf in all his power and glory. The only way that this mistake would be offset, is if after he comes back in the second movie Ian plays his character properly so that there is a contrast between the old and the new Gandalf. Given the part in Bag End where Gandalf appears large and terrible to Bilbo is good, it is lost in the weakness of character he is portrayed with in the rest of the movie. A better portrayal would have been compared to Li Mu Bai in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon....quiet, cold, powerful, grand and authoritative but yet a sense of something more underneath his outer character. Even Magneto in X-men would have been a better portrayal of Gandalf than in this movie.
3. Elrond
Elrond is another grand character that was "humanized" and poorly portrayed in the movie. Here is a 3000+ year old Elf of great wisdom and experience. He is one of the oldest elves alive on Middle Earth and was there when Isildur cut the ring from Sauron's very hand. Hugo Weaving plays him as a panicky stressed out man who sounds like he might lose his job and has no idea as to how to win this war of the ring. Given Elrond in the book does not know how to win this war, and does not know that they will win, but he has focus and composure and maintains his dignity, as does Gandalf. They are both grand characters that may not know everything but always maintain their composure with the recognition that they are role models and leaders of the highest order in this world of middle-earth.
4. The Council of Elrond
The Council of Elrond is probably the most important meeting of people in their Age. It is a meeting of many, with many important elves present to say the least. Not a meeting of a handful of people. The importance and stature of those present at this meeting is downplayed by the childish bickering they get into in the movie. These are mostly representatives sent by those races who have had problems very recently, and many important stories are told here. Some very important background of the fellowship is told here and there should have been more effort to show the council accurately, even if time did not allow. Again, the full story of the ring is told here, the story of the mines of Moria are told here, all of Gandalf's efforts are revealed here, Saruman's betrayal is revealed here, it is a mini climax in the book after a long hard journey to Rivendell, not a squabble-fest between the races.
5. Galadriel
The scene where Galadriel turns horror like? Come on, she is the most beautiful of all the elves, the most elegant and again one of the oldest remaining on middle earth. The explanation of why she could not take the ring could have gone without tarnishing her character. Another grand character butchered....are we seeing a trend yet?
6. Move time vs. Middle Earth time
Part of the grandness of this epic is that it takes place over many many years in middle earth. This sense of time is lost in the film. I know your first argument is "its a 3 hour movie", but time can be quickly and concisely depicted with narration and scene collages and labels like "50 years later..." etc. The way Gandalf travels in the movie makes everything seem like he's in the same city and is only a horse ride away from the nearest wizard. It takes 50+ years for Gandalf to finally find out the full story of the ring, between Bilbo's departure and Frodo's departure. The journey from the Shire to Rivendell is a long hard journey. Understandably it is hard to convey time in a limited length movie, but it is possible, and the value of conveying this properly is important to this book to give it that epic feeling.
7. The Reforging of Narsil
This was left out along with the prophecy of the return of the king. Sorry, this is a critical part of the story and unthinkable that it was left out. Sure they showed the sword, but nothing else was said edgewise. Maybe Jackson means to bring it up later on, but if not....shame on you Jackson....shame on you. Does he remember the name of the third book? I think not.
8. Arwen
Yes, Arwen's character is little seen and heard of in the book. I agree that maybe expanding on Aragorn's love interest is in the best interest of moviegoers, because it is nice. But is that what he has done here? I don't think so. He hasn't told more of the story of their love, he's just put her in the movie more than she needs to be. It isn't that bad, but the whole part from the stabbing of Frodo, to the Flood at Rivendell is butchered so that she could have more screen time. Okay, parts need to be cut out to shorten the movie, but the more times that a single character takes on the 5 Ringwraiths and wins takes away from the dread the Ringwraiths should bring to the story (remember Strider fights off all 5 Ringwraiths....unheard of in the book, in the book the Ringwraiths pull back of their own accord). The whole horse chase could have been shortened or made to incorporate the other elves that come and help the hobbits go that last bit to Rivendell, rather than have Arwen ridiculously outrun, for a fairly lengthy time, all the Ringwraiths on her own.
9. The test of the ring
Again In case we were all too blockheaded to realize that the ring is a temptation to even those that are striving for good in middle-earth, and can never be wielded by any but Sauron without falling to the taint that the ring carries with it, because it was made by the greatest evil of middle-earth, Peter Jackson has kindly depicted the gist of this message in several easy to understand, explicit tests for most of the main characters of the movie. Thank you Peter, otherwise I would have missed out entirely.
10. Meriadoc and Pippin
Meriadoc and Pippin are not along for the story simply for comic relief. They are close friends to Sam and Frodo, and they forced themselves into the trip out of a deep friendship with Frodo and Sam. Would have taken that much longer to replace the useless scene where they are running from Farmer Maggot with the proper depiction that Pippin and Merry were spying on them and knew the whole story and forced themselves along through a sense a friendship so that there is some importance of them being there and some friendship and closeness between the hobbits? I think not. Don't even get me started on the lack of story with Sam.
Of course there are many other things that could have and did irk me, but these I listed above are the major ones.
So now your asking, how does this ruin it for those to come? In the present day, when most people are willing to go see a movie over reading the book, many of this generation and the following will form their opinions of the trilogy on the movie rather than on the book, and even for those who watch the movie but then take the time to read the book, the way the story is sculpted to keep you in suspense to find out about things throughout the book and earn the knowledge that is acquired, is lost on those who have seen the movie and were force fed everything that you were meant to wonder about and strive to read about. This is my biggest qualm, Peter Jackson could have kept as much of the master storytelling intact as possible, but instead has turned this story into an okay tale at best.
So enough of the whining, here's the pluses. Overall the movie was visually pleasing, the effects were very good, some strange glitches, like the part where they are running out of the tomb room in Moria to the bridge (got a little Charlie Chaplinish there). But generally Middle-Earth was shown in incredible and accurate detail. The orcs left something to be desired, but the Balrog....Amazing! And the scene at the River Bruinen(?) was as I imagined it. Even the Prancing Pony was accurate. The movie was good, but could have been much better.
Its understandable that there are only 3 hours in the movie, and stuff like the story of Boromir's horn, or the relation of Arwen to Elrond, or the whole Tom Bombadil sequence, or the full stories behind every major player at the council cannot be told. But what I'm saying is even in the given time, the story could have been told in such a way as to capture why this saga is an epic and not just another fantasy trilogy. But instead, what could have been an incredible film, turned out only to be a good film. Those that have never read the book, think that this is an amazing movie, and maybe it's just me, but I'm sure if more thought was put into the proper storytelling and character portrayal, both those who have seen read the book and those that have not could have both benefited equally.