What are your most hated parts about the L.O.T.R movies?

[jordainian]

I am curious about what parts of the movies you hated the most. Did they leave out too much from the books? You tell me. :)

[Boromir88]

Leaving out parts of the book isn't a big deal. Tolkien admits in Letter 210 that cuts need to be made in order to translate his books onto the screen.

I think overall Jackson's films were great pieces of literature in themselves, he shows he's got the potential of becoming a good director. There are a few things that get me upset with him about, and it's not diversions from the books because he explains most of them, it's actualy some mistakes as a film director which shows that he has not fully gotten away from his old horror movie days.

The biggest one being the chopping off of the Mouth of Sauron's head. This shows total disrespect for the rules of war, rules in which Tolkien understood, and rules in which other directors who have made war movies (Troy, Braveheart, The Patriot, King Arthur) all show that you can't kill messengers.

The Mouth of Sauron is a messenger, he can not be assailed, this is established, and it's pretty clearly shown in the movies. Despite what the Mouth of Sauron said, he was no threat, and could have been driven off by "words" and sent away fleeing like the coward he was and not by getting his head chopped off. Bottomline is, messengers can not be assailed no matter how evil they are.

Though this thing I can get passed because all I have to do is not watch the EE.

So, the other one is his blatant alterations of the books for no apparent reasons. I'm not talking about some of the big ones because Jackson has explained most of them. The best example I can give is not one of the creditted Dwarves in the Council is named Gloin. There's four dwarves at the Council (and there should only be two-Gimli and his father Gloin), but of the four dwarves, one is Gimli, the others are made up names like Barik and Frarin, or some junk. Gloin is not one of the creditted members. This doesn't get me furious and ruins the movie, in fact it plays little effect to the movie, but it gets me mad because there should be no excuse for not having Gloin at the Council.

I didn't expect him to deliver a speech like he does in the books, that disrupts the flow of the movie and would serve no purpose in the main plot line, but if there's added dwarves I did expect on of them to be creditted as Gloin (the one that SHOULD have been there) and not putting him in the Council I think is a blatant alteration of the books.

There are some other ones, like Jackson switches around letters in named. Instead of Mardil it's Madril in the movies. Instead of Iorlas its Irolas. Either there was a problem when typing the credits or Jackson just felt like changing the names, if it's the latter another blatant alteration.

While these blatant alterations are small they get me to question his statement on "making the movies as close to the books as he possibly could," because these changes show other wise, no matter how small they are.

[mormegil]

Speaking of fairly small changes that irked me. I know it seems fairly petty but the fact the PJ included Merry in the company of the Men of the West was rather irksome. I remember leaving the theater rather annoyed at it. It was one of those simple things that they didn't need to do and yet did.

The Mouth of Sauron bit was explained masterfully by Boromir so I will not go into that here. However there is at least one other thing that bothered me, that is when Sam is sent packing by Frodo. There love was too great for that to ever happen. I just don't agree with that bit at all.

Finally--Faramir.

Overall though I am grateful to PJ and crew because I feel that they did a wonderful job but there are a couple of things that I would change, but of course it wasn't my decision. :p

[arcticstorm]

There were a few things that made me mad in the movies, first thing was the fact that they Bilbo did not come to the council at all. They did not need to have him tell his story, as it has already been told, but being a ringbearer and haviing a big roll in the story of the ring he should have been there. Also it would have led to some comedy releif not be Gimli, Merry, or Pippin. " Bilbo the sillly hobbit startted this whole affair, and Bilbo the silly hobbit had better finish it."

I also disliked the timing of the reforging of Narsil. It made the weapons scene at the gate of Meduseld less interesting without the debate over Anduril and Gimli's axe. It also made them figure out a reason for Elrond to bring it to him later, and that leads to point 3.Arwen's life being tied to the ring, there is no reason they did this except as I said before, they needed a reason for Elrond to give Aragorn Anduril.

[Kuruharan]

Most Hated Part: Practically the whole Two Towers.

More specifically...

The Fellowship of the Ring: This was by far my favorite of the three. The alterations in this movie were (for the most part) at least reasonably explicable. I still don't understand why Jackson had to make Gandalf the one who was afraid to go to Moria rather than the one who inspired it. The more I see it I am also getting less and less impressed with Jackson's interpretation of the Nazgul. He made them really buffoonish and ineffectual. The part where they are literally riding right on top of the hobbits and can't seem to catch them is really hard to swallow. Of course, on the other hand, Tolkien said that the Nazgul had no great power over the fearless, but still... He also took a page out of Bakshi's movie and turned the Council of Elrond into the Council of Babel (or rather Babble). Galadriel: need I say more?

Oh yes, and the winged (and oversized) Balrog. ;)

Other than these things I found the movie to be pretty enjoyable.

The Two Towers: There is not enough time for me to say all the things that I hated about this movie. Even standing on its own without any reference to Tolkien's work (which I believe is how the script was written) I don't think this movie is any good. Most of the changes were utterly senseless and sabotaged the plot. Even in the midst of all this wreckage, there are a few monstrous warts that stand out for abuse. The entire sequence from the time Theoden decided to go to Helm's Deep until the battle begins is just awful, awful, awful. I don't find there to be a single enjoyable (or even coherent) moment in this bit until the fighting blessedly starts. Then, thankfully, all the annoying pointy-ears die (a just fate for having horned into the plot where they don't belong). The entire sequence from the time Faramir captures Frodo and Sam until the end of the movie is just awful, awful, awful. We witness the savaging of not only Faramir's character but Frodo and Sam become deceitful little sneaks (no wonder Faramir was so suspicious of them). We are also treated to more ineffectual blundering by the Nazgul. Osgiliath: need I say more?

A minor thing, but one that annoyed me, was that Grishnakh and his band were from Isengard and not Mordor.

The Return of the King: I have a fairly positive opinion of this movie, although part of it is probably that it is so much better than The Two Towers. King Elessar the Bloodthirsty Maniac has already received the flogging that is his due. Then there is the Anduril thing. The whole Witch-king vs. Gandalf sequence was just terrible. I was also not too happy with the way Denethor and Gondor's "war preparations" were portrayed. Every time that Gandalf is riding to safety shouting "Get the women and children out!!!" makes me want to scream. I was also not happy that the Orcs broke into two or three levels of the city. This also relates to my disdain for the WK vs. Gandalf bout. I realize Jackson was trying to amp the tension, but once the orcs broke through I found the tension was shattered and the disappointment of defeat set in. It would have been much better to have the confrontation that is in the book. Frodo and Sam and Gollum: need I say more?

I was also passingly annoyed by that inane speech by Gandalf about how "death comes to us all." Well, in Middle-earth, no it doesn't. Gandalf himself only came to it by happenstance not biological imperative.

On the whole, I think most of the problems I have with Jackson's movies stem from his inability to break away from his horror film background and his compulsion to try to cram as much drama into scenes as possible to the point they become unbelievable and almost laughable (several instances of this with the Nazgul).

[The Only Real Estel]

First off, I am not bashing & neither is anyone else so please nobody ask us to stop bashing.

Had to get that out of the way. :p

Things that I 'stongly disliked' (hate may be too strong a word)

Fellowship of the Ring: Uhhhh. Nothing that I couldn't get over.

Two Towers: Faramir has been redeemed a great deal, IMO, but I still dislike the changes that were made (yes I see why, no I still don't like it). I also greatly dislike Aragorn's 'death' scene. You know, it really would've been fitting if Viggo Mortenson had died during the filming of that scene-than PJ would've seen that the scene really wasn't worth making up.

Return of the King: Denethor's incompetence (sorry Meela :p). Frodo sending Sam away (yes I see why, no I still don't like it). Like mormegil, the Mouth of Sauron getting beheaded. An uncharacteristicly unwise move, even for Movie Aragorn.
And another small thing that irked me-you can clearly see that Frodo's finger is only doubled-back when Gollum 'bites it off' in Mount Doom. Do I expect them to really hack off Elijah Wood's finger? No. I do expect the editors to earn their paychecks, though.

Every time that Gandalf is riding to safety shouting "Get the women and children out!!!" makes me want to scream.

Personally I wondered why in the world the women & children weren't moved to a higher level until the orcs broke through.

There are probably a few more things, but on the whole I got over most of my dislikes & disappointments.

[Essex]

we've been through this bashing (and yes it is bashing) before, so I won't reply to the points raised above as this has been done many times before.

the only part I really HATE in the movies is the bit in TT when the rohan woman is sending her daughter and child away on the horse to safety. This is a pure 'Hollywood' moment of the film. (what is it she says, 'I will find you'?), and the close up of the kids crying. It really is vomit enducing, and hauls me right 'out' of the film and back into reality. Much as the moments where we see Jackson or his kids appear in the movies (not that I hate these parts it's just that you get dragged back to the real world for a moment and relaise that you're watching a movie, and think about it in that way)

but really, all in all, the point above is the only part of the movie I actually HATE. I dislike others, yes, but I can get over them. Now, if I could teach my DVD player not to play these few seconds of the movie then all would be fine and dandy.

[The Perky Ent]

Where the Harry Potter movies screwed up, you say? Well...let me get out my list

*Pulls out 12 foot long list, with writing in size 4 font*

...wait...this isn't for Harry Potter? oh wells. For LOTR though, I would have liked to see Tom Bombadil. But he's just one of my favorites, so i guess i'm biased

[The Saucepan Man]

I prefer to enjoy the films rather than letting any aspects of them spoil my enjoyment.

Even the Hyena-Lemmings ... ;)

[Dimturiel]

Now, I think I am able to tolerate most of the annoying parts of the movie except for two things. One is Arwen, and I asure you that this dislike is not due to me liking Aragorn a lot-this is an understatement but it does not matter- because I very much admire Arwen from the books. But Arwen in the movie is truly impossible especially in FOTR when she comes puting her knife to Aragorn's throat and asking silly questions. I really hate that scene, it is so unlike LOTR and I am sure Tolkien would have hated it too. The second thing is, of course, the Mouth of Sauron. I mean if the descendant of Luthien attacks a messenger for no reason then what is to be expected from those of lesser ancestry?

[Lalwendë]

Whenever Gimli is turned into the butt of all the jokes! Poor lad! :(

Messing about with the Faramir storyline.

Dragging out the whole approach and build up to the Battle of Helm's Deep by having bizarre side stories with Aragorn falling off cliffs.


On the whole, I think most of the problems I have with Jackson's movies stem from his inability to break away from his horror film background and his compulsion to try to cram as much drama into scenes as possible to the point they become unbelievable and almost laughable (several instances of this with the Nazgul).

It could have been worse though, as I am now picturing Nazgul riding fell beasts, wielding Flymos. :eek:

[Lily Bombadil]

Lalwende, I am completely sharing your sentiments. I hate what they did with Faramir, changing his valiant personality! If they hadn't dragged out Helm's Deep, dragged Haldir into it (and killed him, no less!) etc, they could have put the fall of Boromir in its correct place: the beginning of TTT, and they could have put Shelob's Lair in its intended place: the end of TTT. And yes, I was quite miffed that they replaced Glorfindel with Arwen. Eowyn was the only heroine Tolkien intended, I believe, and they ought to have left it that way! Besides, I wanted to see how Glorfindel would be portrayed. And the sad news is, the animated LotR did no better: they replaced him with Legolas! LEGOLAS!!!!!!!!! (funny, because my best friend and I were watching it, and right as the elf who should've been Glorfindel approached, I said, "Wouldn't it suck if they replaced him with Legolas?" And what did they do????) Fools... *walks off muttering*

[Kitanna]

It has always irked me how Eowyn was portrayed in TTT. There's just something about her that I can't get my finger on...though I do enjoy when she rides off to battle. For she was my favorite character in the books, but not so in the movie.

It is understood that certain things must be changed or else the popcorn eating masses would not understand, but somethings are just disgraceful. It has been said many times before so I won't elaborate, but Gimli and Faramir...I don't think I need to say more.

And Boromir summed up Aragorn's beheading of the Mouth of Sauron well. That is no way for a future king to act.

The final thing that must be said is Saruman's death. I wish that it had just been left out of EE. I think Christopher Lee is a wonderful actor and on top of it a great fan of Tolkien and to ruin Saruman's death like that is just...ugh. That of all things has left the worst taste in my mouth. I can barely watch the scene in EE without cringing and mumbling unutterable things.

[The Only Real Estel]

Posted by Essex:
we've been through this bashing (and yes it is bashing) before, so I won't reply to the points raised above as this has been done many times before

I disagree. I think you can have an intelligent discussion about problems you have with the films without turning it into a rage against the screenwriters. Just because the triology was great on the whole (IMO) doesn't mean we have to pretend that there was nothing wrong with it.

But you are right that we don't need to reargue past points that have been made...at least not at any great lengths.

Lalwende's post brought up the constent jokes at Gimli's expense in TTT-those got old fast but I suppose I can get over them. *shrugs*

edit: Lyta brought up Gandalf's handling of Denethor. I did not at all like Denethor's death, nor the role that Gandalf & Shadowfax played in it.

[Lyta_Underhill]

I was also passingly annoyed by that inane speech by Gandalf about how "death comes to us all." Well, in Middle-earth, no it doesn't. Gandalf himself only came to it by happenstance not biological imperative. Also the "far green land under a swift sunrise" line, while appropriate for Frodo, is NOT appropriate for Pippin, who, poor hobbit, will never see it, and so Gandalf's explanation only points up how alien he is and how far removed from Pippin he really is. It is as if Gandalf is relating a dream that's only purpose is to distract Pippin or comfort him with a "story," as it seems cruel to promise something to him that he will never see.

While I'm on the subject of Gandalf...I think the necessarily rough handling of Denethor's character on Gandalf's part is a direct result of the changes made to Denethor. The 'Villain of Minas Tirith' is much less effective, less noble and merits almost the treatment Gandalf gave him. But this change cheapens the role of Gandalf. It makes him seem brusque and uncaring, and he is definitely NOT! I think Gandalf the White was unfairly destabilized by the alterations made to other characters, and I realize his subtleties can't be fully explored, but he certainly seemed out of character in some ways. Perhaps this is one reason no one seems to like Gandalf the White as much as they liked Gandalf the Grey. Certainly Gandalf's active role in the passing of Lord Denethor rankled!

Not to unfairly beef on Mithrandir, there are many things I disliked and many things I liked, but this one came to mind first.

Cheers!
Lyta

[Boromir88]

Essex, to add to some of Estel's points, not all complaints against the movies are against the changes from the books. There are many changes Jackson makes to the books, and I try hard not to focus on these, because I think as movies they need to be treated like any other movies. Critiqued, but from the film perspective, not because it's different from the books. But, since Jackson did base these off the Tolkien's books it's perfectly reasonable to compare and contrast, just like any other movie based off of a book.

For example, my main argument in the Mouth of Sauron scene was not that it differenciated from the book, but Jackson rejected the very Rules of War that other directors show clear understanding of. Messengers can't be killed, and the Mouth of Sauron could have been easily defeated, and shown in total shame by not having to cut off his head.

When you see a movie, or read a book you must ask yourself (for you to consider it a good story or not) does it show unity and continuity? Does it hold togeter and does it make sense? Is it believable? Not believable as in "there's Dragons and fireballs, this can't happen in real life, it's not believable." But believable, within the movies/books context, if it's a fantasy story you expect to see such things as dragons and basically anything is possible. There are cases when Jackson's movie just doesn't hold together and doesn't make sense within the movie.

For example, Gimli in TTT says "3 days on night pursuit..." when chasing the Uruk-hai. So from Amon Hen, to the plains of Rohan they've been on the hunt for 3 nights. So how does Haldir's Elves make it from Lorien to Helm's Deep in one night? (For what it seems, unless an explanation can be shown to prove otherwise).

Another one, Aragorn acts extremely out of character in the movies. He spares Grima, he stops Theoden from killing Grima, but then he goes and does the immoral thing of chopping off a messengers head. A complete 360, now Aragorn's character doesn't hold together. He spares Saruman's messenger Grima, who nearly caused the destruction and extinction of Rohan, but he kills Sauron's messenger who may or may not have had terms to deliver we don't know, and who had a message to give.

I think anytime you make, write, create (or even type out a reply on a forum) it's open to compliments, but not only compliments you must also accept it's going to be critiqued and criticized. Then I think you take the compliments and the criticisms into account to change and make better the next piece of literature you do. Anytime you make or write something, you're opening for an audience to see which means you're opening it up to criticism, not just compliments.

[alatar]

First, I am surprised that Essex and I haven't been banned from such threads like this one ad vitam...;)

That being said, I would have to agree with and echo many of the posters thoughts in regards to what PJ didn't get right. My #1 peeve, as noted ad nauseum, is the mishandling of Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch-King. And, letting all of the comparisons between Tolkien's and PJ's Middle Earth aside, I would list the following items that irk me (abbreviated list, to be sure):


Dueling Nazgul - are these just people with swords dressed in black? Too clumsy to catch hobbits, too easy to scare with fire and swords - why exactly I am afraid?
Arwen at the Fords - if she wasn't there, the dreaded "She-elf" line couldn't have been uttered. "She-Elf, drop the He-Hobbit from the It-Horse." "Come and claim him, He-Wraiths!" Never realized that wraithdom made one overtly concerned with pronouns and gender identification...no wonder everyone feared the Nazgul.
Gandalf's lesser role as leader of the Fellowship. "Let's take the Ring to the Fords as all of this snow made me forget about being imprisoned by Saruman."
The "Stairs of Khazad-dûm" - could we have used our FOTR running time better? More Lothlorien please.
Most of TTT - Cliff-diving Aragorn, running dwarf running gags, eloping Eomer, Gandalf a rider for the Pony Express: white wizard division ("When your call to war absolutely, positively has to get there before the movie ends"), dreams of Arwen, etc.
Of special TTT note: Just how many of elves does it take to kill a few Uruks? See
here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=409564&postcount=46) and here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=409546&postcount=44) for more frothed-mouth rantings.
More TTT: Ents. It takes them (seemingly) hours to say hello yet can change their minds and go to war with Saruman immediately after seeing some felled trees. Pretty inconsistent, and not very good shepherds either.
Saruman's fireball was just great. Would have been handy against Ents if they ever made up their minds to attack.
Legolas' concern for body count. This is my only explanation for 'capping' Grima. Hmmm...maybe that explains Aragorn's execution of MoS. "One! I'm already in the lead!"
Denethor the slob. If only the orcs had brought a spikey wheel with them as they entered the Minas Tirith, then the Steward could have died a fitting death.

Theoden's bonfire. It seemed a bit confusing that Theoden needed to see a fire on a hill to go to war. Couldn't Aragorn saved some movie minutes by having the Dynamic Duo go off and light the one that he sees? This would have saved us from watching Indiana "Pippin" Jones being watched by Gandalf the Fireless ("Sure wish they would have taught us that fireball spell back in Istari school.")
The Pirates of PJ-anze. This menacing bunch gave us more Dwarf and Elf show. Cheers on that. And "I produce, therefore I can act."
Gothmog.
What's a woman gotta do to get some recognition? "So you're Eowyn, Stewardess of Ithilien. It says here that you slew countless orcs during the Siege, took down some mumakil, single-handedly beheaded the Fell Beast and destroyed the biggest corporal non-spotlight baddy of the trilogy known as the Witch-King...okay, so what did you do after that?" She killed the WK, yet we had to have more, and so she flees from Gothmog. Is the word enough in PJ's vocabulary?

Osgiliath amphibious invasion. I wasn't sure if PJ were going for a reenactment of the landing at Normandy (6-June-1944) or the crossing of the Delaware (25-Dec-1776).
The Green Ghost Tide.

My fingers are running out of strength...

The Spotlight of Sauron.
CSI: Cirith Ungol. Watch tonight as everyone's favorite sidekick Sam finally figures out 'who done it' after examining lembas crumbs.

I'll quit now.

Anyway, before I get flamed, note that I appreciate PJ's work as it's better than anything I or anyone else has done. Without his movies I would still be wishing that someone somewhere would get the rights and make the movies - I'm too lazy. Great scenery, props, actors, effects, soundtrack, etc.

[Dimcollowen]

Hi there!

Alright, overall Jacksons movies were awesome!! But the scenes I didn't like were the ones w/ Aragorn and Arwen....mayb thats because i am jealous.... :rolleyes: yeah that must be it!

[Essex]

the 'messanger' that was the mouth of Sauron was not there to Parley as he did in the books.

Therefore he was not under any protection via the 'rules of war'

The MoS was goading and and putting doubt into the Forces of the West's hearts. He was not offering any terms of surrender to the troops.

Therefore aragorn did the quick thing (and yes not very moral but it was war) and stopped the MoS in his tracks by killing him. Henry Vth supposedly did pretty much the same thing when he got his troops to kill his prisoners as he could not afford to keep them imprisoned and fight the battle of Agincourt at the same time. Not nice, but then, hey, it's War. nasty things happen unfortunately. People die.....

PS It is Bashing. Just look at the title of this thread 'What are your most hated parts about the LOTR movies?' And that's what I've done above in my first post above. I bashed the one part of the movies I thought was really dire.

[The Only Real Estel]

Posted by Essex:
It is Bashing. Just look at the title of this thread 'What are your most hated parts about the LOTR movies?'

I wouldn't have used 'hated' in the title, but that's up to the thread starter. Still, that doesn't mean that we are all relating scenes that we 'hated', just because he used that word. I said myself that 'hate' would be too strong of a word.

A good example of bashing would be listing off things you didn't like about the movies & then continuing on to say that PJ must have a brain the size of a pea & shouldn't be allowed to ever make another movie. As far as I know, that's not what we are doing.

[The Saucepan Man]

A good example of bashing would be listing off things you didn't like about the movies & then continuing on to say that PJ must have a brain the size of a pea & shouldn't be allowed to ever make another movie.Technically, that would be Jackson-bashing. Essex is correct that listing things that you hate or dislike about the films is film-bashing. Perfectly permissible but, hey, it's so last year. :p ;)

[The Only Real Estel]

Good point, SpM, especially about it getting a bit old.

But I still think that there is a happy medium-you can discuss your dislikes without going overboard [bashing].

[alatar]

A good example of bashing would be listing off things you didn't like about the movies & then continuing on to say that PJ must have a brain the size of a pea & shouldn't be allowed to ever make another movie. As far as I know, that's not what we are doing.

Was that me? :eek: I love utilizing the 'list' feature as it gives a different look to the post.

Anyway, I never would comment on PJ's brain size or ability. Hey look, he's a film producer, got the rights and the backing to make three good films, was able to sell the completely contrary idea of 'three at once' to an industry that is terrified to take risks, was more than vindicated/honored both by sales and awards...and I...well...post about him. Hope never to be so arrogant as to slam the guy personally.

Well, at least not anymore - can't remember what I may have previously posted ;).

As SpM rightly states, this is becoming ancient history, but I still can't help posting on this theme - though more for fun than for therapy.

[The Only Real Estel]

I wasn't referring to you alatar. I remember reading a post by some trollish newb that said stuff along those lines but that must've been a year ago at least.

So you're safe. ;)

[alatar]

So you're safe. ;)

Didn't think so, but you never know...especially as I've posted pretty negatively in regards to PJ's depiction of the Gandalf-WK encounter (which is why I joined the forum in the first place). That scene really torqued me off, and I felt that I had been betrayed. The night that I first viewed ROTK:EE, I got my torch and pitchfork and set off for New Zealand :mad:. Stopped at the 'Downs along the way and, after a few (hundred?) bellowing and whining posts, put down my riot paraphenalia and got over it, thanks to some sense sent by some fellow wraiths. :)

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Yess. This is easy, precious. It's Gandalf beating up the
Steward of Gondor while his elite guards are
apparently comotose. The istari were expressly
forbidden to try to force/coerce/dominate the free
races of Middle-earth. We hates it, we hates it forever!

P.S. I consdier FOTR by far the best of PJ's three movies.

P.P.S. And how come Pippin and Merry shrank back to
normal hobbit size in ROTK.

P.P.P.S. Real posting total for myself is over 1,000. Had to
change and start over in losing my old computer and
going to Yahoo. :mad: :eek:

[Elrowen Tinúviel]

Bottomline is, messengers can not be assailed no matter how evil they are.


There's actually been many cities completely obliterated for killing messengers. (A certain incident comes to mind concerning Genghis Khan's messengers he sent to a sheik... the ambassadors were killed, and then the entire city was completely wiped out.)

I must say though, what really irritated me was the lack of Faramir/Eowyn development... in the theatrical version they're seen standing together at the coronation and that's it. Several people I talked to were unaware that the two were even aquainted... much less betrothed. ('Course they hadn't read the books....)

The other things that irritated me are understandable for the most part... Except I still don't understand why the Dúnedain and Elladan and Elrohir never showed up. Possibly because Peter Jackson didn't want to add any more characters than he had to? (Arwen?????) That, and the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep...

-Elrowen

[drigel]

Most of my gripes are already expounded upon. I will throw in the "frantically searching flaming eyeball" atop Barad Dur when it crashes. ugh soooo anticlimactic for me.... i recall the eye of Sauron, but not the eyeball of Sauron.. :)

[Essex]

Yess. This is easy, precious. It's Gandalf beating up the
Steward of Gondor while his elite guards are
apparently comotose. The istari were expressly
forbidden to try to force/coerce/dominate the free
races of Middle-earth. We hates it, we hates it forever!
From the Pyre of DenethorThereupon the door which Beregond held shut with his left hand was wrenched open, and there behind him stood the Lord of the City, tall and fell; a light like flame was in his eyes, and he held a drawn sword.
But Gandalf sprang up the steps, and the men fell back from him and covered their eyes; for his coming was like the incoming of a white light into a dark place, and he came with great anger. He lifted up his hand, and in the very stroke, the sword of Denethor flew up and left his grasp and fell behind him in the shadows of the house; and Denethor stepped backward before Gandalf as one amazed.

[Boromir88]

Essex, only thing with that quote is I think Gandalf had a ligitimate reason to whack Denethor. (Though I've seen it been debated whether Gandalf actually hit him, I seem to think he did). But, Denethor has totally lost his mind at this point and was about to kill his son, hence Gandalf's emergency and no time to dilly-daddle.

Anytime before this, despite their hate for eachother, Gandalf and Denethor were always able to keep themselves atleast respectful and show restraint.

In the movies the main scene I think that comes to mind when Gandalf hits Denethor is when Denethor comes running out and says "Abandon your posts." I don't know about others, but to me this would warrant Gandalf whacking him on the head, he is running out like a mad man telling everyong to flee, Gandalf had to shut him up. The only problem is Gandalf just doesn't hit him once to shut him up he cracks him multiple times. Is there really a reason for this, except for PJ to get people guffawing at "HAHA old mad man gets his butt beat down!"?

When I view this scene, if Gandalf wants to shut Denethor up from screaming all this madness and fleeing, all he'd have to do is hit him over the head once to knock some sense into him. That's what he did, he saw the huge army facing him and he went mad, Gandalf simply had to knock some sense into him. And after the first crack on the head, it seemed like Denethor got his senses back (by just looking at Noble's expression), but no, it doesn't stop, Gandalf (and PJ) have to turn it into a beating (which to me takes it too far). He then jabs him in the stomach, cracks him over the head again and knocks him out. There's no reason for this, I'm surprised Gandalf didn't kick him while he was down and spit on him when walking away.

[Essex]

But, Denethor has totally lost his mind at this point and was about to kill his son, hence Gandalf's emergency and no time to dilly-daddle.and jackson brought this 'madness' forward in time in his movie, so he could show Gandalf taking control of the city at that time. Hence we have him striking out and asserting his authority at this moment in time. I don't particularly enjoy this scene either, just trying to put in a counter point for discussion that ties in (loosely) with Tolkien's text.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

The whole Denethor-beating thing, as Boromir has mentioned, and I think I've probably babbled of in other threads, was just kind of pointless. There was no reason to carry it on that far, other than COMIC RELIEF. Then again, Gimli was stuck in the cave of the Pirates of the Dimholt Mountain, so we hadn't had any comic relief for a while.

Eowyn was one of my favorite characters in the book, and the fact that we completely lost Dernhelm and the element of Merry's surprise ticked me off. Would it have killed them to let Eowyn look like a man for a while, and have Merry be confused??

Again with the tiny little things bothering me... literally, I was saddened at the lack of 'neeker-breekers'. That would have been a fun addition to the scene where Frodo hears Aragorn singing.

[Bandobras Took]

I agree with The Saucepan Man. I think you should just enjoy the movies and not just go around looking for faults.

But if I must...Faramir :mad:

[Lush]

What are your most hated parts about the L.O.T.R movies?

The fact that they didn't include Legolas' nude scene. :mad: The cheek!

Ok, seriously, I thought the whole "oh no, Aragorn's dead" interlude in the second film was completely pointless and cheesy. Neither could I stomach the resolution to the Paths of the Dead; the green ghosts looked like leftover footage from Peter Jackson's "The Frighteners."

Otherwise I can't really say that I "hated" anything. Cringed a few times. But "hate" is a strong word. I reserve it mostly for Chris Columbus' handling of the first two Harry Potter films.

[Neurion]

Gondorians going down like Stormtroopers.

Pathetic.

[alatar]

Was watching the second disk of ROTK:EE last night (wasn't everybody?), and found yet more to add to the list:

The scene at the Gate. First off, just how big is the Gate? When Grond and the three trolls burst through, it seems to be 20-30 feet across at most. Yet when the army of darkness enters after the trolls, it seems to be about 200 yards across as the number of enemy is way too many to have entered through such a small gate. And if I were Gandalf, I would have plugged the Gate with dead enemy instead of standing back and allowing them to enter the city. Theoden and his men met the enemy at the Gate at Helm's Deep as they tried to enter; maybe Gandalf woud have learned something had he hung around in TTT.


After this we have the wonderful dialogue of Captain Gandalf. "Fight for your lives!" "Evacuate the women and children!" "Retreat to the Second Circle!" "Wear a sweater so you don't catch a chill!" along with other wisdom. But suddenly there's something more important to do than to ride around stating the obvious - save Faramir! In the books, as no enemy had entered the city, Gandalf's decision to leave the battle makes some sense, as he wasn't engaged and no one else could save Faramir. In the movie, however, the city is being overrun and the situation looks to be pretty hopeless. Now why is the life of Faramir so important? The city could be completely overrun, making Gandalf's attempt vain. Or as he leaves the battle, he abandons not only the soldiers who obviously need his bits of wisdom but also the women and children who seem to be retreating as well. Why are these people less important?

[Essex]

Alatar, re Gandalf's decision to leave the battle makes some sense, as he wasn't engaged and no one else could save Faramir. In the movie, however, the city is being overrun and the situation looks to be pretty hopeless. Pippin: Can't you save Faramir?
Gandalf: Maybe I can, but if I do, then others will die, I fear. Well, I must come, since no other help can reach him. But evil and sorrow will come of this.Same in the book as the film. It's a difficult choice, but Gandalf feels it needs to be done. It's as you say in your point above. No one else could save him so Gandalf felt he had to try. Evil will come of it in the book as well. The gates were broke and it was only a matter of time before the forces of evil entered. So no real difference.....

[Anguirel]

No contest for me. I could have forgiven everything else, but the radical, senseless altering of the Pelennor Fields, in the book one of the most cinematic scenes I've ever read, seemed suicidally awful.

I agree; I wanted to see the disguised Dernhelm. "Do you not? Then call me Dernhelm," is one of those lines that makes the blood tingle with excitement. (I was one of the less canny readers, by the way, whom Eowyn fooled...)

Theoden's charge was good, and I liked his speech, but it should have coincided with the sunrise, of course.

The Witch King fight was enjoyable because Miranda Otto is an excellent actress. But oh how I yearned for those lost dwimmerlaik lines. Then poor Eomer-already practically cut from TTT-was massacred. That sliver of grief we got was brilliant. Why weren't we allowed more? The EE only worsened things with the stupid Gothmog chase aspect...

Theoden pinched my favourite line "Ride to ruin and the world's ending!" Dash it, Kingy, give your nephew some limelight...

And Arwen's banner...ah!...I would have cut Arwen out of the films completely if necessary just to see that banner.

[alatar]

Then poor Eomer-already practically cut from TTT-was massacred. That sliver of grief we got was brilliant. Why weren't we allowed more? The EE only worsened things with the stupid Gothmog chase aspect...

Theoden pinched my favourite line "Ride to ruin and the world's ending!" Dash it, Kingy, give your nephew some limelight...

And Arwen's banner...ah!...I would have cut Arwen out of the films completely if necessary just to see that banner.

Silly :p. All of that extra time/footage was scrapped for the much more interesting dwarven drinking/belching, 'counting with the Elf and the Dwarf,' 'The Ghosts and Mr. Gloinzson,' and the love triangle between Gothmog and Eowyn (he really just wanted to hug her). PJ needed those extra minutes to give the 'Tolkien-faithful' these treats.

[Mithalwen]

Many of my gripes have been aired. I to object to some inclusions more than exclusions (I mean I would have liked Galdor, Sons of Elrond and Imrahil but they excluded them in the 12 hr long radio version so..... ) . I would have preferred shorter battles and more character development and I think in a way the CGI hindered this - that troll fight went on far too long for a one paragraph incident I felt they did things becasue they could rather than becasue it was necessary - but the scaling rarely looked quite right to me.

I think most of the main characters were demeaned in some way by the film. The possible exceptions being Boromir and the younger hobbits.

But my single most hated thing has to be Legolas's get up at the council of Elrond. How did he get to be such a object of desire when he is wearing that strange nylon crushed velvet nightie thing - is it his comfort-blanket or what?

[Boromir88]

I agree with The Saucepan Man. I think you should just enjoy the movies and not just go around looking for faults.

The way I view it is, if you write or create, or direct/make, a piece of literature (book or movie) and advertise it all over for an audience to see, you are not simply opening it to the good parts of the movie/book, but also the criticisms.

I don't think we should go on ignoring the low points of the movie and pretend they're not there. There's faults in everything, Tolkien had his fair share of critics, and when you make something for everyone to see you are also expecting it to be criticised and picked apart, not just receive compliments.

Now, I don't think we need to carp and nit-pick at every little thing wrong with the movies, but there's certainly faults in the movies (not in just comparison to the books) and I don't think we should ignore these. There are compliments that can be made, as well as criticisms, and when you make something for people to see you must be prepared to receive both. It's impossible to please everyone.

[drigel]

I agree Boro! It's an interpretation of the books. Granted, PJ procurred the contract, resources, money, etc., and did a deliberate, and (somewhat) respectfull job of it, but it wasnt MY movie :)

[Ellewen]

The only scene I didn't like was the history of Gollum, seeing it as the opening scene of RoTK caught me way off gaurd. Also my parents were there with me and they think the movies are too vilent anyway so seeing that as the opening scene didn't plead my case in any way...

[The Saucepan Man]

I don't think we should go on ignoring the low points of the movie and pretend they're not there. :eek:

Er - Barrow-Downs members are not, on the whole, noted for being backwards in coming forward about their gripes with the films ... ;)


There's faults in everything, Tolkien had his fair share of critics, and when you make something for everyone to see you are also expecting it to be criticised and picked apart, not just receive compliments.It really depends upon whether you approach the films as a viewer seeking enjoyment or as a critical analyst. I have no objection to critical analysis of the films, and indulge in it myself occasionally, but mostly I just watch them to be entertained. Because mostly that's the purpose for which they were made. They are blockbuster "action" films, albeit rather superior ones (imho). So I tend to approach them as such.

I realise that it's because they are based on a book which we all hold dear, but how many other "action" films to we analyse to the same extent?

[alatar]

It really depends upon whether you approach the films as a viewer seeking enjoyment or as a critical analyst. I have no objection to critical analysis of the films, and indulge in it myself occasionally, but mostly I just watch them to be entertained. Because mostly that's the purpose for which they were made. They are blockbuster "action" films, albeit rather superior ones (imho). So I tend to approach them as such.

It may be that, unlike most other films in my 'extensive' DVD library (think that I own about ten movies), I've watched the LOTR DVDs many many times, especially FOTR:EE. Sometimes I have them on as background as I do other tasks, such as ironing (don't ask!) and other times I'm actually watching them to...well..watch them. By repeatedly viewing PJ's work (which I have to say that I'm thankful for), I cannot help but notice certain issues. Sometimes I just jump to the next scene - most of TTT:EE is like that, as I'd rather not see the Ents (yawn) - but there are times when I decide to watch a scene more closely as someone might have had a strong opinion about it, and so I want to 'see it for myself.'

Another poster may have liked a scene that I did not, and so, armed with their point of view, I'll rewatch it and may see something that I hadn't seen before. Or not.

Anyway, think that it comes down to caring about the material. If I didn't care or like the movies so much, I wouldn't have watched them as much and also would not have been so vocal with my criticisms.

[Boromir88]

I realise that it's because they are based on a book which we all hold dear, but how many other "action" films to we analyse to the same extent?~Saucepan
For me, it's actually pretty much every movie. I've had classes on film studies and during my college days, I'd usually get in with a group of buds from the class and 1-2 times a week watch a movie and critique it.

But, I'd say for the person who just goes to see a movie, to watch a movie, I say rarely. I see what you're saying, I think it was the same in the Harry Potter movies. Those who had read the books were angry and disappointed in the 3rd movie, Prisoner of Azkaban. Where I've only read the first book and I was quite happy with the 3rd movie.

I think I just look at films so critically because that's what I've done for so long. It doesn't make the LOTR movies bad, or horrible (I can pick out many that are horrible), but there are NON-BOOK related problems in the movies. The main one being from I believe a post I said earlier on unity. Does this make sense? Does it make sense for Aragorn to spare Grima a messenger who arguably did more damage than the Mouth of Sauron, then slice off the Mouth's head? Things like that, not in comparison with the books. I think most changes Jackson did because he wanted to attract a wide variety of audiences, purists and movie-goers. To do that he had to balance things out, and compromise, which is only his job and I do not blame him for.

[The Saucepan Man]

Does this make sense? Does it make sense for Aragorn to spare Grima a messenger who arguably did more damage than the Mouth of Sauron, then slice off the Mouth's head?It's perfectly explicable, given that the circumstances of each are far from identical. It seems to me that most plot/character "inconsistencies" can be explained one way or another with some thought, provided that one recognises that the characters and events are not the same as those depicted in the book. Of course, most film-goers won't notice such "inconsistencies" and therefore won't have any need for an explanation.

I suppose that if I had to identify one aspect of the films that irritates me the most, it is the technical mistakes. Such as continuity errors, dead orcs moving, anachronisms in the background and Legolas getting his directions mixed up. With the amount of money lavished on the films, and the incredible level of care and detail that went in to them for the most part, I feel that such matters should have been addressed (on the EEs at least, if not the cinema-released versions).

Then again, I wouldn't have noticed any of these either (even the Legolas/direction of Isengard one) had I not seen them pointed out here in the Downs. :rolleyes:

[Reg Pither]

I finally got round to watching the RotK EE DVD yesterday! (Yes, I know, I'll hand in my elf ears and hobbit feet for being so lax...)

So here a few things for this dislike thread ('hate' is far too strong a word) :

- Aragorn's murder of the Mouth of Sauron just seemed wholly inappropriate, gratuitous and out of character. I was really shocked when I saw it happen! Having read a few explanations here about MoS not being officially 'parleying', I feel a little better about it, but it still jars. They could at least have tried to justify it by letting us see Aragorn become angry and vengeful after learning of Frodo's 'death'.

- I was bored for the first 30-40 minutes of the film. Opening with Smeagol and Deagol was a real turn-off, and things didn't improve until we finally got to the muster of Rohan. After that, it was a pretty good rollercoaster ride.

- The beating of Denethor was just plain wrong, matched only by his further abuse at the pyre. Even Shadowfax joined in! And despite the quote from the book cited earlier in this thread, I'm sure Gandalf used 'magic' to disarm Denethor, not physical violence.

- Until I read about him on various fora, I had not the slightest inkling that the crippled, potato-faced Orc leader was supposed to be the great Gothmog! Very poorly portrayed.

- Why on earth would you charge Mumakil instead of just avoiding them?

- Frodo sending Sam home. I'm speechless, really.

- All the Arwen being tied to the Ring and strange dream sequences guff. Waste of time and effort.

- The Gondor soldiers were pretty useless for all their fancy armour.

- How come the Army of the Dead had to be 'convinced' by Aragorn that he was the King who could free them from their oath? Surely they would have 'sensed' that he was the one?

Anyway, that's enough for the moment, as I actually found a lot that I liked, including several genuinely tear-jerking moments, but they'll have to be in the 'loved' thread.

Oh, and one last thing for the 'dislike' thread : TTT. All of it. :(

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Until I read about him on various fora, I had not the slightest inkling that the crippled, potato-faced Orc leader was supposed to be the great Gothmog! Very poorly portrayed.

What thats Gothmog ! ! ! :eek:


Pippin : He just seems so foolish and he is just plain trouble all the way throug the movies. In the books he som times appears to be smart (atleast thats the impresion i get)

That PJ chooses to change who says what ? Why

The battle at Helms Deep. Why does Theoden not defeat the armies of Sauruman, why does it have to be Eomer and Gandalf.

The fact that the walls of Minas Tirith just crumbels when they are hit by the rocks, that the armies of Mordor launches.

But actually i liked the movies.

[The Saucepan Man]

Pippin : He just seems so foolish and he is just plain trouble all the way throug the movies. In the books he som times appears to be smart (atleast thats the impresion i get) I agree, to an extent. It amazes me when people cite Merry and Pippin as characters who changed very little from book to film. They are played far more for comedy in the films and lack much of the depth apparent in the book, particularly in their development as the tale progresses. One of my most lamented losses is the events of A Conspiracy Unmasked, as it changes the whole basis for their joining in Frodo's Quest. That said, I did feel that Pippin's character was greatly redeemed in RotK, although Merry was hard done by the cuts to the theatrical version.

Why does Theoden not defeat the armies of Sauruman, why does it have to be Eomer and Gandalf.To be fair, he had a little help from Gandalf and Erkenbrand (and the Huorns) in the book. ;)

But actually i liked the movies.So did (do) I. :D

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

To be fair, he had a little help from Gandalf and Erkenbrand (and the Huorns) in the book.

yes, but is the armie of Sauruman not allready fleeing at the time ?

Not that it realy maters.

[Essex]

Reg, re -

Why on earth would you charge Mumakil instead of just avoiding them?Comparible to the Charge of the Light Brigade - fool hardy you might say, without hope definately, but hounarable, yes.

- Frodo sending Sam home. I'm speechless, really.understand your point, and it did rankle with me too, but this was done to ramp up the tension as frodo has to escape from shelob himself - as well as this piece in the books works brilliantly for me with both frodo and sam being scared out of their wits, I think the reason it was done this way was to ramp up the excitement of frodo escaping from Shelob - and this was because the director and co probably thought that playing the scene out as the book would jar against the pace of the minas tirith scenes interspersed with the shelob scenes in the movie - tolkien didn;t have this problem......and of course, movie wise, Sam comes back and saves the day.........

How come the Army of the Dead had to be 'convinced' by Aragorn that he was the King who could free them from their oath? Surely they would have 'sensed' that he was the one?Think of it from a movie setting again - in walks aragorn - i'm the king to be, follow me - all right then says king of the dead - wouldn't work, and neither (again like frodo and sam above) would the superb words of tolkien, with the terrifying slow walk through the paths of the dead, with 'the dead following' - again, reasons of pace, we're getting to the end of the trilogy now and jackson has to ramp it up for the final battles - PS, I think he got some of the feeling of oppresion in the EE as the three hunters leave theoden's encampment on their way to the paths of the dead anyway.

[Reg Pither]

Well, Essex, while I can see that the justifications you give for those things are 'reasons' they certainly aren't 'excuses' for some of the pointless, illogical changes that were made. Also they seem to be reasons after the event - i.e. shoe-horned onto the changes after they've been made, rather than changes being made to solve a particular problem of pace or story-telling. And even then, many of those problems have only occured because so many things have been changed in the first place... ;)

I must admit I also get frustrated when people insist that something in the books 'wouldn't work on film'. How do they know?? 90% of the time the book version very probably would have worked (IMHO), or might have needed only very small changes to do so.

Couldn't PJ just have had Sam getting lost once they got into Shelob's lair? Couldn't he have chased after Gollum in the caves and just appeared at the vital moment to rescue Frodo? To be perfectly honest, having Frodo send Sam home in this way makes me really doubt that PJ understands what the book is actually all about. I feel it totally undermines the central theme of loyalty, friendship and duty, which is bizarre as he gets so much of the adaptation right. That's why it seems so frustratingly inexplicable to alter it like this.

Ok, minor rant over. :)

[Gothmog]

Well, most things have been said already, but I'll make my contribution anyway. I understand that PJ wanted to make movies for everybody, not just for us freaks, but some changes are so pointless.

The part I dislike most is the part where Rohirrim and part of the fellowship are atacked by wargs on their way to Helms Deep. Why, oh why, did you almost kill Aragorn PJ? Is the story too slow?

And why did you turn Gimli in to a clown? That walking joke is not the dwarf I know...

Frodo sending Sam home, Arwens connection to the ring (and her overalll enhanced role in the story), and the Army of the Dead trying to kill Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli (?!) by drenching them in human skulls doesn't belong to the favourite parts either...

Also, I think Faramir acts a bit strange through out his meeting with Frodo and Sam. He was really tempted by that ring. I don't know but from the books I had the feeling that he was quite capable of resisting its powers, letting frodo and co go.

Even if there's minor (and some slight larger) changes and fault, they're wonderful movies and all credit to PJ for making them. But next time...

[Essex]

Reg, yes I can see that idea working with Sam getting lost. I think Jackson was trying to show in one scene the depth that the Ring had taken Frodo - and the guile and dnager of Gollum - thousands of words that tolkien expertly crafted about the 3 travellers story would not have made a viable movie for many film goers - yes, for us tolkien fanatics we would have lapped it up, but new line would never have let him make a movie 54 hours long (plus all the time for 'action') - the reason why I say 54 hours is the length of time it takes for the audio book for the unabridged lotr to be read out.

anyway, so boyens and walsh crammed up all these feelings into one scene (for me anyway)

PS the reason of Pacing is a valid one. But maybe the reason why tolkien wrote the books like they were was (and I may be shot down in flames here) was kindof like the same reason. To go from one book with the hobbits trudging along, almost dying, to scenes of mayhem and fighting would not have worked.

If the story was shown in say 6 movies, then we could have a book per movie, but again, other than us die hard fans, who would go to see sam and frodo trudging through mountains for a few hours?

[Neurion]

There are quite a few things PJ did that I'm not overly fond of (turning Fell-Beasts into Ray Harryhausen-esque pteranodons straight out of One Million Years B.C. is one of the absolute worst, right up there with making the Gondorian infantry the disposable, why-do-they-wear-armour-if-it-doesn't-work Stormtrooper cannon-fodder that they come off as), but I think his sins of omission are almost as bad.

I'm quite certain that with a decent trimming of extraneous belching dwarves, pallid Elf-princesses mysterious tied to the Ring, shieldmaidens of Rohan stealing dreams from Ranger captains, surly, phosphorescent ghosts and warg attacks, there would have been room for more actual book material, such as the Knights of Dol Amroth, Imrahil, Beregond, maybe even the Dunedain.

Case in point: Why does Denethor have a sort of assistant named "Irolas"? Why not Hurin of the Keys, or some other actual character from the books?

[Ardeth Bay]

Yes, He definitly shouldn't have left out imrahil.
His knights are like half the gondorian army in the first place

[Folwren]

Frodo sending Sam away was definitely the worst part that he changed. The other things...you know, lots of the things named here are pretty trivial. Some characters that he left out he simply didn't have time for. But for Frodo to tell Sam to go away and have that whole scenerio is without excuse. It didn't save him any time, it time is what he wanted to save, and it certainly didn't help Frodo's character. It was a totally non-Tolkien. You couldn't get farther from the books. Well, maybe you could've, but not much farther.

-- Folwren

[Essex]

Neurion, rethere would have been room for more actual book material, such as the Knights of Dol Amroth, Imrahil, Beregond, maybe even the Dunedain.everyone seems to be viewing these films as being made just for us rabid book readers - if they were, then new line would be out of business today.

What would the people in the list above bring to the Movie?

Knights of Dol Amroth - just more armies from another part of Gondor - this would just confuse the movie goers

imrahil - what does this guy actually add to the books let alone the move! yes, I know he was briefly in charge of Minas Tirith for a while during or after the battle (wasn't he?), but hey, that's not too exiting is it?

Beregond - yes, and I enjoyed these scenes in the books, but do you think we could have had these scenes work as Jackson is building the tension up with Frodo & co struggling up the mountains, rohan getting ready for war, and Gandalf pumping up the gondorians? i don't think so unfortunately.......

Dunedain - their main use in the book was to deliver Elrond's thoughts on which way Aragorn should go via the paths of the dead - but in the film jackson had gandalf deliver the line, so no real use for them either...........

yes, this is quite a flippant reply, but I'm trying to make sense of why these were left out, and I think they are valid 'excuses'.

totally agree with jacson using new character names though - there's no point in that!

[Neurion]

Going by your line of reasoning, one might not at first conclude that the correct course of action would not be to reduce the trilogy's protagonists down to the barest skeletal essentials, i.e. Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn, as some games have done. :p :rolleyes:

[SarumanCymraeg]

I think you have to take the movies almost seperately from the books. They have to be enjoyed at their own level. Personally, although some bits of the films (normal and EEs) aggrivated me, I thought they were really, really enjoyable and skilfully directed. However, there's two things that truly annoy me about the films.

1) Saruman: in the books we know that Saruman is in fact a traitor to both the White Council and Sauron. Although in the movies he's obviously a traitor to the Council, to me the movies don't convey this, and he is portrayed almost as a good ally to Sauron.

2) The Elves and Dwarves don't seem to be troubled at all by Sauron and Mordor. Rivendell Elves are still free to go to the West if they want to, such as Arwen would in the movies, and this is utter nonsense. There was no escape for the Elves, Rivendell, Lorien and Mirkwood were all under siege (and the sending of aid to Helm's Deep, along with Elrond's visit to Dunharrow, was stupid). Also, we don't really see anything of the Dwarves.

The only clue to wider troubles in in the RotK EE when Legolas says to Gimli that war is already upon the Dwarves (or vaguely hints at it, really). This would be a perfect oppotunity for someone (Legolas, I guess) to maybe have a mini-speech about the brewing battles in Dale and Lorien, and showing us that, after all, this is not just a war of Men, as it is portrayed.

[ninja91]

I kind of wish that they had the scene with the Barrow-Wights and Tom Bombadil. That (to me) was a real good (and scary) part of book 1. But then again, thats just me. ;)
Also, I would also have liked to see Prince Imrahil.
There were alot of places that I would have liked to see portrayed, such as: Harad, Pelargir, Dol Amroth, the Tower Hills, Angmar, Nurn, and the City of the Corsairs. Not to mention Erech, Annuminas, and Dol Guldur.
I guess I'll just have to use my imagination... :)

[Texadan]

This has been mentioned for individuals but looking at it as a whole the thing I am most disappointed in is that most, if not all, of the character changes are for the worse. I've listened to the commentaries and I understand PJ & Co.'s reasoning that there must be action and conflict for a movie audience (even if I don't necessarily agree with it), but every time they changed a character to produce more story it lessened that character. The changes in Faramir that made him so much less than he should be have been mentioned. As has the changing of the Rohirrim from a people of courage and valor to crying cowards and Frodo's harshness with Sam. The same thing was done, to a greater or lesser degree, to Aragorn, Arwen, Elrond, and the Ents. I'm sorry, but I think we need examples of people of character and valor in our fiction these days more than we need conflict. Conflict we are familiar with. The other, not so much.

[ArathorofBarahir]

I don't have a most hated part of the Lord of the Rings movies. I fully understood and accepted the fact that you can't film the Lord of the Rings page by page, it is impossible and would have been awfully boring. The Lord of the Rings Movie Trilogy was an adaption of the book, it may not have been the way that I or you would have adapted the book, but the way the movies came out was how Peter Jackson and the other writers adapted it. I love the book and the movies. Some of the changes in the film I disliked and wished they hadn't done, but the good part of the movie trilogy fare outwayed the bad.

[Boromir88]

I guess some other things that got me irked were Jackson's disrespect to Tolkien in a way. It really makes me question did he make these movies as a "fan" of the books, or to make a name for himself?

Tolkien said the most moving parts of the story for him was the cock crow when Rohan arrived to Gondor's aid and Gollum's near repentance but Sam's "rebuking" turned him back towards evil. Both were left out of the movie.

Tolkien felt like for his story The Scouring of the Shire was an essential part, Jackson replied with leaving out the Scouring was a "no-brainer."

Tolkien changed The Hobbit and took out all references to Tomatoes, feeling like he didn't want them in Middle-earth. Jackson said this was silly and put them in the movie...why, to prove that he felt like it was silly?

I notice a pattern of Tolkien stating his feelings and most moving parts of his story, and Jackson just for some reason purposefully changes it or just doesn't include it at all.