> Likewise, Galadriel and Celeborn didn't need to have a faint glow around them; I wanted to see them in focus, in natural lighting, like any other character.

The thing about the elves is, they *do* appear gloriously. The books' descriptions of the elves must have made it a headache to film, because the appearance of the elves, as described, is not worldly visualizable -- but I think a great job was done. If anything, my complaint is that Elrond *doesn't* look inhumanly glorious during the battle scene in the prologue. I would think an elf of Tolkien's would look spectacular even covered in battle grime.

> * Battle scenes: I understand that the MTV approach to filming such scenes is popular and is intended to convey the chaotic nature of hand-to-hand combat. But I've had enough of it. I would have much preferred a view from the ceiling for at least several seconds of each fight, with several different skirmishes clearly visible onscreen instead of an indistinct flurry of limbs and blades. The MTV approach doesn't convey to me the danger of facing an armed opponent; showing both combatants in full does.

I didn't have a problem with the editing, but I can see how your idea would make a very interesting alternative way to film it. Now I want to see that.

> * It was the wrong decision to switch back and forth between close-ups of Gollum's face peering through a stone rail and close-ups of Gandalf and Frodo discussing Gollum's possible role in their quest. The effect was confusing; it made it appear that Gollum was "hiding" about five feet away from them as they continued to talk about him, unperturbed.

Yes. Not something that concerns me, but it was indeed an error.

> * The film doesn't adequately convey the passage of time, which makes some events confusing. After entering Moria, Gandalf announces that it will be a four-day journey to the other side. A couple of shots later, Frodo notices Gollum lurking in the shadows and Gandalf acknowledges that he's seen him before: "He's been following us for the past three days." Why not add a few seconds of footage to show the Fellowship stopping for a meal, or to sleep -- anything that suggests that they've traveled longer than a few minutes? The same thing happens earlier when Gandalf is shown riding to Minas Tirith to study Isildur's journal and learn about the One Ring. That's a journey of, what, maybe three weeks each way? But when he arrives back at Bag End in the next scene, it seems as though he's only been away for a day. I understand that Jackson didn't want to lose the tension he had built during Gandalf's previous conversation with Frodo, but there are ways to maintain that tension without concealing the passage of a couple of months.

With the first example, I agree. With the second example, is it actually important that at least six weeks passed? It could be a day or two and not disrupt the narrative at all. Books need to be consistent with the maps of their worlds, but movies merely need not be inconsistent with them. The dramatic tension, in this case, was more important.

> * Boromir's last fight. THWAK! An arrow hits him. He falls, gasping and looking remorseful, then his face fills with resolve and he rises again and beats down some more orcs. THWAK! Another arrow hits him and he falls, gasping. Then his face fills with resolve and he rises again and beats down some more orcs. Lather, rinse, repeat. Come on P.J., this isn't the WWF.

Heh. Agreed. I winced there, too.

This one is probably one of the more serious nitpicks I have. Another is when Gandalf is snatched by the Balrog. In the book, he says, "Fly, you fools!" as he is falling. In the movie, he catches himself on the edge of the bridge and says it. But this gives the rest a chance to help him back up, which they inexplicably do not take.

But all I can come up with are nitpicks like these. I think this one and Boromir's death are the only ones that amount to much significance. I'm used to watching movies -- even those that *start* with a known good story -- and having far greater problems, such as the unbelievability of entire character arcs, undermining performances, distracting special effects, an utter absence of a story, or a story that does not make sense.

But Fellowship has none of these problems but rather does well. Could one imagine a more charismatic portrayal of Gandalf? It's not easy to make a character in a movie both congenial and awe-inspiringly fearful, and yet when he enjoys a laugh with Bilbo or Frodo or amusing the Hobbit children at the expense of his wizardly dignity, we think he'd be the perfect cuddly grandpa, and when he intimidates Bilbo over the Ring (thanks to some incredible lighting effects but just as much due to the performance), we figure we'd perhaps rather cross anybody but him. The above is an example of something that would much more than a nitpick if it had not been successful. If Gandalf hadn't been portrayed so well, much of the movie would have buckled. But I think because we are familiar with the books and already understand Gandalf as a character, it's less noticeable to see it all work right than it is to see the more minor things that do not. But we must remember how difficult and improbable the greater things were to accomplish and how much better the movie is for the success.

Most movies don't even *aspire* so high, let alone achieve the essence of their goals, so even a lot of less flawed movies are inferior.

I make no claims that the movie is perfect. What movie is? But what is done right is done SO right, so miraculously, that I consider it nothing short of a masterwork.