How it should have been...Purist universe.

[MenRWeak]

JRR Tolkien himself produces the movie line for line from the book.<P>- Three hours into the movie the Hobbits finally leave the Shire.<P>- Two hours later, after the whole Tom Bombadil ordeal the Hobbits arrive at Bree.<P>- At hour 7...Rivendell at last! And by God, we got to see Glorfindel! And lest we forget, 2 hours earlier we saw Tom and Goldberry. Yay...<P>- Another hour or so, the council and - oh yes! - there is the little glimpse of Arwen. Nothing more or the whole story flops. And Elrond...anybody but Hugo Weaving...we'll take Gilligan for cripes sake. <P>- okay...checking my watch...have taken 4 bathroom breaks by this time which caused me to miss some Tom Bombadil stuff, damn!...hour 9 maybe? The Fellowship has formed and we're off to Mordor.<P>- Hour 12 and the company is in deep s**t in Moria. Gandalf falls...the real Gandalf, not the one that had the audacity to bump his head in Bilbo's Hobbit Hole and got in a dumb ol' fight with Saruman. Almost broke the story again. So stupid, so senseless...more unintelligible purist mumblings...<P>- Lucky hour 13 and the Fellowship stumbles into Lothlorien. Galadriel, Celeborn, et al are wonderful, nice etc...etc...etc...Sam gets to look into the mirror. And - ah yes - Gimli develops his devotion for Galadriel.<P>- 15 Hours into the movie the company is camped out above Rauros. Mandatory - absolutely no orcs/Uruk-Hai present. In this way the story is unspoiled because this all occurs at the beginning of The Two Towers. No digression here. So the company talks amongst itself while the Boromir/Frodo incident goes down which breaks the Fellowship. Sam almost drowns but goes with Frodo onward to Mordor.<P>Movie ends...lights go up...nobody in the seats except for a few scattered groups of pale, thin, starving creatures with red eyes and sunken cheeks. Initially mistaken for a bunch of gollums, but later discovered to be Tolkien purists. Scampering about they declare the vision pure and the best and only screen adaption to the Tolkien novel.

[Rose Cotton]

So what you're saying is if us fans (and Tolkien) had had it our own way with an unspoiled film the movie would have been a wonderful experiance for acouple of dying LotRs fans.(and I bet you I would hve been one of those half gollums left in the theater)<BR>So dose that suggest that PJ has the right idea?

[Arwen]

very, very funny. <BR>but there where bit missed that should have been in, and vise versa

[Rinberethial Bloom]

I read somewhere Peter Jackson Talking about the cutting of Tom Bombadil and he said that this particular part of the book had no real impact on the rest of the story and deviated too much from the ring. Would it really have been worth it to sit another hour or so for something that had no relevance to the main story?<P>Although in the book it was really good, but would you have rathered he sacrifice something else?

[Amaranth Sorrel]

agreeing completely with ms. bloom, here!! the tom bombadil part of the book, brilliant as it was, didnt have any huge impact on everything or anything. <BR>of course, theres always things that could be added/changed about a movie, but the film was excellent[ and i think it would just be selfish and silly to ask for anything more.<BR>all the cast and crew gave up two years of their lives for this... doesn't that make you think?

[Tirinor]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Amaranth Sorrel:<BR><STRONG><BR>all the cast and crew gave up two years of their lives for this... doesn't that make you think? </STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>think what?

[Amaranth Sorrel]

that these people gave up a long while of their lives for this. we shouldnt ask more of them. (im not trying to sound mean)

[Tirinor]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Amaranth Sorrel:<BR><STRONG>that these people gave up a long while of their lives for this. we shouldnt ask more of them. (im not trying to sound mean)</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Do you mean that to make the movie longer would be to add more time and effort for the actors, and that they have done enough? If that is what you mean then I agree, but more for the reason that I think 3 hours per movie is long enough, and a quality story can be told in such a time. But to ask more out of the movie itself, (not more length, more quality) is not altogether beyond our rights.<P>Amoranth Sorrel, I'm not trying to be mean either, I have not come across you yet and cannot yet read the tone of your postings. I was just trying to clarify what you meant. I apologize if I have come across to you as anything but inquisitive.<P>It seems pretty clear, on the other hand, that MenRWeak's tone is sarcastic and intolerant of those who are dissappointed by the movie and have legitimate complaints.<P>Taken by itself I may have been able to laugh at such a posting as being humorous, but unfortunately I have read MenRWeak's other posts regarding those who were dissatisfied with the film and can read this one in no other way than as being mean-spirited. If I am wrong MenRWeak, and you are just offering a good natured jest, I apologize. <P>And now for a jest of my own.<P>How it should have been in a people with short attention spans who need constant visual and audio stimulation and who won't be dissapointed by sparse characterization, misused scenes, and overdramatization universe.<P>-fire <BR>-explosions <BR>-sword fights<BR>-scary computer animation <BR>-and chicks.

[Amaranth Sorrel]

i do not usually take a negative tone with people i do not know well, or online when they cannot determine my actual tone.<BR>i thought the quality of the film was.. well, the film was excellent, and i do not think we could ask for a better one! <BR>and you are correct, MenRWeak does appear to be insultingg Peter Jacksons efforts. I did not laugh at the first list, but i did indeed laugh at yours!

[Tirinor]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Amaranth Sorrel:<BR><STRONG>you are correct, MenRWeak does appear to be insultingg Peter Jacksons efforts. I did not laugh at the first list, but i did indeed laugh at yours! </STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>MenRWeak is not insulting Peter Jackson, MenRWeak is insulting those of us who did not like the movie. More specifically, in this post, purists. <P>And thanks for the laughs.

[Amaranth Sorrel]

yes, point taken.<BR>i knew what i meant i didnt mean peter jackson really. dang i hate it when i stuff my foot in my mouth!

[MenRWeak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tirinor:<BR><STRONG><BR>It seems pretty clear, on the other hand, that MenRWeak's tone is sarcastic and intolerant of those who are dissappointed by the movie and have legitimate complaints.<P>Taken by itself I may have been able to laugh at such a posting as being humorous, but unfortunately I have read MenRWeak's other posts regarding those who were dissatisfied with the film and can read this one in no other way than as being mean-spirited. If I am wrong MenRWeak, and you are just offering a good natured jest, I apologize.<BR></STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No apology needed. I expect to receive in kind what I dole out. I was indeed mean-spirited in other threads. This thread is mere jest.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tirinor:<BR><STRONG> <BR>And now for a jest of my own.<P>How it should have been in a people with short attention spans who need constant visual and audio stimulation and who won't be dissapointed by sparse characterization, misused scenes, and overdramatization universe.<P>-fire <BR>-explosions <BR>-sword fights<BR>-scary computer animation <BR>-and chicks.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>touché

[Enkanowen]

well if you want to talk true to the book it WOULD have to take 13 months, that is how long the journey of the fellowship lasted, add another year for TTT and return of the king... and we're at what? 3 years of 24 hours a day lord of the rings experience... now THAT is worth watching... then again, how long can we stand pippin talking about food and frodo looking most utterly miserable? point being 3 hours is enough, there will be a 5 hour dvd director's cut released eventually so that will hopefully satisfy those who want 24hr LotR/TV

[Rinberethial Bloom]

I think keeping the movie a little changed from the book is actually good. It's keeps the book special and people don't think just because they've seen the movie they knkow all about it.

[ozzman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> <BR>Originally posted by Enkanowen:<P>well if you want to talk true to the book it WOULD have to take 13 months, that is how long the journey of the fellowship lasted, add another year for TTT and return of the king... and we're at what? 3 years of 24 hours a day lord of the rings experience... now THAT is worth watching... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You forget the 18 years that passed between Bilbos party and the actual departure from Shire.<BR>I for one waited 18 years to continue reading LOTR, so it should be the same in the movie

[Tirinor]

When I read the book, and the characters stop for the night, I put my book down and go to sleep. And when Frodo was unconscious after shelob's attack, I slammed my head on the doorjam so I could experience the same feelings as him.

[Gayalondiel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I read somewhere Peter Jackson Talking about the cutting of Tom Bombadil and he said that this particular part of the book had no real impact on the rest of the story and deviated too much from the ring. Would it really have been worth it to sit another hour or so for something that had no relevance to the main story? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You don't really think anyone could have played Tom Bombadil, do you? (I'm not being nasty, i'm really not!) We've had complaints about the casting not looking right, but i honestly don't believe that any version of Bombadil would have looked anything like what any of us imagine. Or sounded like, come to think of it.

[Lush]

Exactly! And that's why I am glad they went around him. I loved him too much to see him skewered, as much as I admire Peter Jackson's (and everyone else's) talent and dedication.

[lomion]

Well, I gotta tell you I don't feel selfish or silly for stating my opinions. I walked into the theater with an open mind. The opening scenes blew me away. I realize that you have to cut scenes as far as the length of the movie is concerned. The wizard battle scene and Arwen facing the riders, "You want it? Come and take it!!!" was just too much. Sorry boys and girls, I don't mean to insult anyone. I've been waiting 25 years for this film, guess my expectations were too high. It was turned into a typical action/adventure film. Maybe Mel Gibson should have played Elrond. Ha ha. By the way, I agree with those who say Elrond was ugly.

[Amaranth Sorrel]

in response to lomion's comments, i don't mean to sound mean or anything, i'm also just giving opinions.<BR>i can totally understand where you're all coming from with your views, so dont worry <BR>I actually saw the film first, which some fans find annoying and all i have to say to them is, at least i know their names, know the full story and respect & love it for what it is. Three truly amazing books.<BR>I don't actually agree that Elrond was ugly in the film... I thought he was okay. <BR>Who do you reckon should have played him then?

[Rosie Posie Burrows]

I'm glad they didn't have Bombadil in the film. I found him pretty annoying in the book, because he never stops singing! If I was Frodo I'd just be yelling at him to shut up half the time… I mean, if he'd been in the film he would have turned into a musical! And Goldberry's a bit characterless. The Old Forest's really cool though. It's a shame that was missed out, and the Barrow Wight afterwards.<BR>(Actually a Lord of the Rings musical isn't such a bad idea… Lets take it to Broadway! Yeah! Or The Hobbit! Hi ho, hi ho. It could be a musical spectacular!)<BR> <BR> <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rinberethial Bloom:<BR><STRONG>I read somewhere Peter Jackson Talking about the cutting of Tom Bombadil and he said that this particular part of the book had no real impact on the rest of the story and deviated too much from the ring. Would it really have been worth it to sit another hour or so for something that had no relevance to the main story?<P>Although in the book it was really good, but would you have rathered he sacrifice something else?</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Telgaladiel]

I've seen The Hobbit as a musical. *shudders* The only good parts were Gollum and the Dragon. The rest.. lets just say scary hairy big big feet.<P>As much as I love the theatre and musical theatre, there are certain things that do not belong up there. And LotR is one of them for me.

[Lush]

Publicly stating that Hugo Weaving is "ugly" is a bit too much in my opinion. While I still think that he is not the Elrond from the book, after seeing the movie an embarassing number of times I must say he grew on me. I love the way he furrows his brow.

[Amaranth Sorrel]

i know i saw the film first so its gonna sway my opinion a bit but i think Hugo was fine as Elrond.<BR>Great infact. And after reading the books as well, I think he really does fit Elrond. So mneh!

[Nenya]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> When I read the book, and the characters stop for the night, I put my book down and go to sleep. And when Frodo was unconscious after shelob's attack, I slammed my head on the doorjam so I could experience the same feelings as him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And you didn't kill your self when Boromir died? Shame on you...

[Tirinor]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nenya:<BR><STRONG><P>And you didn't kill your self when Boromir died? Shame on you...</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>no, but I did stab a ninth of myself with arrows, of course that was after I chopped off a different ninth of myself and threw it in a hole, so some may consider it an eighth.

[Amaranth Sorrel]

*screams out in grief* BOROMIR!!!

[Hama]

Elrond ugly???<P>Well I have to admit, Hugo Weaving is no Cate Blanchett... but Elves aren't really supposed to have ths same standards of beauty as us... I think they did all right in picking the slightly odd looking actors to play the elves (apart from Liv).<P>The movie wasn't the book, and couldn't possibly be.<P>Mind you I did nearly get stamped on by a wild horse when I was trying to tame it in my re-enactment of the Shadowfax scenes

[Enedhil]

i have nothing against any members of the cast, i thought elrond was excellent! i thought he had that air about him...not royalty, but near it I thought the film was excellent too. I may add at this point that i had never read LOTR before now. The film was perfect for <B>whetting your appetite</B> and <B>introducing more people to tolkien</B> some of the stuff would have been too much or gone over a lot of folks' heads. But they are including some cut scenes into the DVD's arent they? aren't they?? PJ had to take into consideration all the younger folk that would be watching this film, having never even hearing of it before, folks that hadnt read the books, etc...he had to cater for everybody. that's a lot of catering. <I>hats off to PJ & his crew i think that they are purists too</I> (though maybe not as much as some...88% maybe )

[Amaranth Sorrel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Enedhil:<BR><STRONG>PJ had to take into consideration all the younger folk that would be watching this film, having never even hearing of it before, folks that hadnt read the books, etc...he had to cater for everybody. <I>hats off to PJ & his crew i think that they are purists too</I> (though maybe not as much as some...88% maybe) </STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>100% correct. PJ and the others who worked to make this film have done a verygood job on this. I read the books when I was a lot younger, and so it kind of went over my head. But after watching the film, I'm obsessed.

[Mankáno]

I can understand that some parts were changed because they have to adapt the whole story in 3 hours. I agree the Bombadil part wasn't essential for example, but there are some changes I don't understand/don't agree.<BR>1) Why was Arwen who met them when they were going to the Rivendel? it was Glorfindel in the book. They showed Arwen as a warrior, something she never was and was totally out of her character, I think this was a very bold mistake.<BR>2) Why they made Saruman responsible for the snow storm? that was an utter invention.<BR>3) IMO it was a mistake to tell the story of Isildur and how he got the ring at the beginning, it ruined the sequence of the story, it should had been told in the proper order, when Gandalf explained it briefly to Frodo and in Rivendel.<BR>4) No clear references to how the rings were made, no mention to Celebrimbor who is very important in the whole story.<BR>5) Anduril, they changed the story, when Aragorn met the hobbits in bree the sword was broken and it was reforged in Rivendel before the fellowship left, that was part of Boromir's dream and that dream was the reason why he made the long trip to Rivendel.<P>I could think of more details, some other changes were ok, because they didn't really affect the story, but I found that if I hadn't read the books before, I wouldn't have understood the story clearly and would have gotten a wrong impression.

[RHUDLADION]

I hear you, Mankáno!

[River Jordan]

Okay, I know, some of you are going to shout, "Thou art no purist!" and you may be right, you may be right. I enjoyed the movie! I was actually impressed with how they were able to turn what (as MenRWeak stated) COULD have been a 15 hour movie, had they included everything, and condensed it into a 3 hour movie. One of the things that I like is that hundreds of thousands of people who saw the movie will now read the books and be introduced to the REAL Middle-Earth, and read the entire story of Frodo and the Fellowship! How wonderful!<P>- your friendly neighbourhood elf, *River*<P>"Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes." as saith Frodo Baggins

[River Jordan]

p.s. The only part of the movie that REALLY bugged me was the change made with Arwen / Liv Tyler - meeting the five, and then the whole warrior personality thing. Enough of this political correctness stuff! Let the story be told as it was!<P>- *River*<BR>"Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes." as saith Frodo Baggins

[Amaranth Sorrel]

To be perfectly honest I don't know where YOU lot got the warrior thing from.<BR>All she did was get out a sword and cast an elven spell on the water.<BR>I know that it isn't the best way to go about things, changing characters from what you see them, but from what I can see, you lot have got Arwen very, very wrong.<BR>Okay, so she's gonna be in the battle where Eowyn stabs the leader of the Nazgul in the head but still, Arwen isn't a porcelain doll, even if she WAS treated like one.<p>[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Amaranth Sorrel ]

[Rhudladion]

Anyone who faces the Nine (not the five), has <I>got</I> to be a warrior. I think she was definitely portrayed like a warrior. But I guess we'll see more later, and can determine her character more substantially.<p>[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

[Mankáno]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Amaranth Sorrel:<BR><STRONG>To be perfectly honest I don't know where YOU lot got the warrior thing from.<BR>All she did was get out a sword and cast an elven spell on the water.<BR>I know that it isn't the best way to go about things, changing characters from what you see them, but from what I can see, you lot have got Arwen very, very wrong.<BR>Okay, so she's gonna be in the battle where Eowyn stabs the leader of the Nazgul in the head but still, Arwen isn't a porcelain doll, even if she WAS treated like one.<P>[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Amaranth Sorrel ]</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I disagree, she was definitely portrayed as a warrior, and I am sure Tolkien wouldn't have liked it. Arwen was the live image of Luthien, and Luthien was never a warrior, the two options are not a porcelain doll and a warrior, Arwen wasn't any of them.<P>Too many inventions in that part, it wasn't Arwen who met them but Glorfindel.<P>It wasn't Arwen who ordered the flood but Elrond.<P>Frodo didn't ride with Arwen (or Glorfindel) but alone, and he tried to face the nazgul.<P>Arwen would have never left Rivendel, Elrond would have never let her. The movie was good, but that part was a big mistake IMO.

[lomion]

Arwen is in the battle with Eowyn? Good lord!!! What else can go wrong. The screenplay stinks. If Arwen helps kill the Witchking then those who want to have Peter Jackson drawn and quartered will have my blessing.

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

don't forget hung...the Squatter wrote somewhere that Arwen represents those who cannot go to war and have to remain at home, which is often harder, and I agree<BR>but here she's been made a warrior-why??? Eowyn fills that role.

[Frahhamn]

feminists. they have to have their rights.<P>so do homosexuals, so this talk about it being a gay movie makes them happy too..<P>*DOH*<P>i don't like arwen being a fighter. it messed it up. but at least they didn't change it so Gandalf was a hobbit or something.

[Lush]

What exactly does the term <I>rights</I> mean? I know it means nothing to me. "Rights" is something too PC, too obscure, and certainly too trite. As a woman, I want to be treated like a human being. I want to be protected and loved by the men in my life, but never do I wish to be the silent beauty in the corner, smothered in loving care. If I must wait, I will wait, but retain the right to throw myself in the path of nine extremely tempremental Nazgul, if I so choose. <BR>I'm not up there burning my bra (you just DON'T burn langerie by La Perla, let me tell you), and screaming and banging on the pots and pans for some elusive "rights." I just want to live my life as I see fit. And this is why I appreciated what PJ did in terms of Arwen's character. And as for the minor problem of Elrond not letting her out of Rivendell, well, let us not be naive. The art of sneaking out to undertake a dangerous mission with one's stubbly-cheeked lover was surely perfected by then! <BR>Really, I think some of you guys may have enjoyed meeting the Arwen as she was in the movie! A female both fiery, and soothing, now that is rare indeed! I'm one, but I'm eternally unavailable to most. <p>[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Amaranth Sorrel]

Well said Lush! I couldn'ta said it better myself.<BR>As for the 'not being let out of Rivendell' that is actually a load of rubbish, because infact Arwen didn't always live in Rivendell. People seem to be forgetting the fact that for a long time, Arwen lived with her mother and mothers kin in Lórien.

[Mankáno]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lush:<BR><STRONG>What exactly does the term <I>rights</I> mean? I know it means nothing to me. "Rights" is something too PC, too obscure, and certainly too trite. As a woman, I want to be treated like a human being. I want to be protected and loved by the men in my life, but never do I wish to be the silent beauty in the corner, smothered in loving care. If I must wait, I will wait, but retain the right to throw myself in the path of nine extremely tempremental Nazgul, if I so choose. <BR>I'm not up there burning my bra (you just DON'T burn langerie by La Perla, let me tell you), and screaming and banging on the pots and pans for some elusive "rights." I just want to live my life as I see fit. And this is why I appreciated what PJ did in terms of Arwen's character. And as for the minor problem of Elrond not letting her out of Rivendell, well, let us not be naive. The art of sneaking out to undertake a dangerous mission with one's stubbly-cheeked lover was surely perfected by then! <BR>Really, I think some of you guys may have enjoyed meeting the Arwen as she was in the movie! A female both fiery, and soothing, now that is rare indeed! I'm one, but I'm eternally unavailable to most. <P>[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well Lush, Arwen might have the feminist right to be a warrior and she can sneak out of Rivendell, but that's NOT Arwen, that's not Lord of the Rings.<P>If Peter Jackson wanted to portrait women's independence and right, he didn't choose the right movie.<P>You know, what you think, what I think, or what PJ thinks doesn't matter, it was what Tolkien thought what is important. The movie is suppose to be based on Tolkien's work and the role given to Arwen is in open contradiction to the book an Arwen's character. If you don't like Arwen being pasive, too bad, but that's what she is. For me the change in Arwen was as bad as if they had portrayed Sam as evil.<P>And Amaranth, yes, Arwen lived in Lorien for a long time, she met Aragorn there and it was there where they got engaged, but she was called to Rivendell when roads become more dangerous and she didn't adventure out of Rivendell until Sauron was defeated, not even Elrond would live Rivendell until the end.

[Frahhamn]

yeah. it just wasn't the book. yay.

[Lush]

Well, bah humbug to you too. It was an interpretation of the book, and it doesn't take away from the original concept at all, so why be upset? Really, some of you guys must lighten up a tad (and I thought PMS was bad enough, but no, there is nothing like a disgruntled Tolkien reader ). <BR>Speaking of lightening up; I head that Chris Tolkien actually disowned someone because of their association with the film. Ack.

[Rinberethial Bloom]

That Gandalfs Diary link was sooooo funny!!! still laughing. They should make a movie like that but then again it'd probly offend way too many people

[Amaranth Sorrel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mankáno:<BR><STRONG><P>And Amaranth, yes, Arwen lived in Lorien for a long time, she met Aragorn there and it was there where they got engaged, but she was called to Rivendell when roads become more dangerous and she didn't adventure out of Rivendell until Sauron was defeated, not even Elrond would live Rivendell until the end.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually she first met Aragorn in Rivendell, they became engaged in Lórien, yes, but they met in Rivendell.

[Jenny 8675309]

As much as I would have liked to have seen a longer, more complete version of the film, I don't think that the general public has the patience to sit through more than 3-4 hours of movie. If a movie doesn't appeal to the general public and only a handful of people go to see it, then the producers of that film will lose all of the money that they put in to make that movie and there aren't many people who are willing to make a film to just to create a beautiful piece of cinematic art - as jaded as this sounds, they're primarily in it for the money.

[Glenethor]

Greets,<P>Well, they don't have to worry about that now. FoTR has made a profit worldwide. As a 'quasi-purist' I thought the Arwen scene at the Bruinen to be wrong, but it was still a dramatic scene. Loved when the fjord came down on the Nazgul. That was cool. If you watch closely, the first two Nazgul who get swamped by the water don't just get swept away. They get pulverized.<P>As for Elrond, I am probably the only person I know who hasn't seen 'The Matrix' so Weaving's portrayal was not contaminated with associations to his earlier character. I've wanted to see this movie, and I will definitely see it before the sequel comes out. <P>I certainly hope I don't see Arwen in the scene with Merry and Eowyn against the Witch-King.. The thing is, Jackson <I>is</I> paying attention to fans' opinions, and since some of the financial risk has been mitigated, I think (and hope) that he will be more true to the books.<P>Look: there was no way on earth that he was going to please everyone. No way. I loved the first movie, but I am well aware that I could be disappointed by the last two. I doubt I will be, but there is always the chance.<P>I thought the change of location for the 'It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance!' discussion between Frodo and Gandalf was appropriate. Thinking back to what happened in September, and what is happening now in the world, and what may happen in the next couple of years, that scene hit me right between the eyes. They are discussing Destiny, and then, a little while later, Gandalf falls. That change from the text works for me; The changes to Boromir's death scene works for me;<P>Here is what didn't:<P>Arwen at the fjord; I don't want to see 'Arwen: Warrior Princess' in the rest of the story.<P>The chance meeting between Frodo and Sam with Merry and Pippin; then again, if fulfilling Destiny is one of the themes of the LoTR, this is consistent with that. Merry and Pippin were <I>meant</I> to bump into them at just that moment. I know I am stretching that a little, but I am a generous person by nature.<BR>The meeting with Strider: Bad editing. Will hopefully be fixed in the DVD.<P>The pacing. It is really impossible to determine how much time is passing. This is where Jackson fails, IMO. When we get to Rivendell, we don't know if Bilbo is so much older because of time passing, or whether he aged overnight when he gave up the ring.<P>Finally, I didn't appreciate (although I laughed with most everyone else) Gimli bellowing 'NO ONE TOSSES A DWARF!' in a scene that had no business introducing a bit of levity; As well, I found Aragorn's line 'Let's hunt some Orc' and Gimli's bellowed 'YEESSSSSS!' to be a bit too Hollywood. It jarred me out of the spell.<P>All I can say is, I hope I don't join the minority of people who hate Jackson's vision in the next two films.<P>Pax,<P>Glenethor

[MenRWeak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Glenethor:<BR><STRONG><BR>All I can say is, I hope I don't join the minority of people who hate Jackson's vision in the next two films.<P>Pax,<P>Glenethor</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>These folks are forming a club and are already preparing their thesis entitled, "The Two Towers will stink and so will The Return of the King...blah,blah,blah...and I knew they were going to be terrible and I shouldn't have watched them but I did anyway".<P>Only those whose dissertations with the most gripes and complete absence of any redeeming features for the upcoming films will be accepted into the Clan of the Cave Purists.

[Glenethor]

You are, unfortunately, probably right. As I've said numerous times, I really feel sad for the people who loathe Jackson's FoTR. Really, I do. I am not being sarcastic, ironic, gloating, or anything else when I say that. I haven't been as emotionally moved by a film in a long, long, time. Maybe, never. What shines through for me is the heart and soul of everyone. I think everyone knew they would never do anything as important in their lives, so they put everything they had into it.<P>I am ambivalent about Saruman's expanded role, but Christopher Lee must've said 'give me more to work with.'<P>And the scene where he is controlling the weather on Cahadhras...he is only substituted for Sauron..."His arm has grown long if he can fling all this snow so far south!" "His arm has grown long." So, it wasn't as if weather control was a novel concept introduced by Jackson.<P>Pax,<P>Glenethor