My list of everything wrong with the movies (Not EE) [Archive]

View Full Version : My list of everything wrong with the movies (Not EE)

willkill4food

01-22-2004, 06:46 PM

now, I am not doing this post to be a complainer, its just that one has to realize that NO ONE will EVER make LotR EVER AGAIN. This was our final chance to see it done right, and though PJ did an extraordnairy job, I still have a lot of beef with him about some of the liberties he took with the Trilogy...here is the big list I have with everything that went wrong with all 3 movies..FotR: <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Elendil was portrayed as a suicidal fool, when in the books he and Gil-Galad wound Sauron many times before finally being killed. <LI>"The power of the ring could not be undone", what the heck does that mean? In the books Sauron attacked too early not realizing that the Elves had become stronger while he was away, and he didnt count on such fierce resistance from the Men of Numenor. Sauron come out from Barad-Dur when he had no chance left at all, victory was assured when Sauron came out. <LI>No mention that the Elven rings were made by Celebrindor, not Sauron, which just confsues the viewer as to why the Elves are almost untouched by their rings, while the 9 kings are now wraiths, and all 7 drawven ones are gone.. <LI>Isildur's end was cut short in the final version, not showing the part where the ring betrayed Isildur, which really helps show the evilness and "tricksyness" of the ring. <LI>No Dwarves left the Shire with Bilbo on the night of his party, I wanted to see Dwarves!!! <LI>The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes...not to mention almost the entire manner in which he escaped was either cut out or changed to an unrecognizable form.. <LI>Merry and Pippin suddenly show up in the fields with Frodo and Sam, without any hint that they are very good friends with Frodo, making the two young hobbit's choice to go join the fellowship even more irrational (if thats possible) and confusing... <LI>The way to Bree was way to short, I do believe that Tom Bombadil had no real pace in the movie, but still, it seems like just a stroll in the park to get to Bree...If maybe somehow they could of had the barrowdowns without tom bombadil, that would give an explaination to how Merry wounded the WiKi so badly, maybe Frodo could of saved the 3 hobbits from the Barrowwight, or something to that effect.. <LI>No poem about strider, "All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost" is an entire explaination of Strider in 1 sentance, not to mention it is easily one of the most memorable lines in all of LotR... <LI>Weathertop was a disaster, not only do the black riders look weak, stupid and scared, but there is no mention of their fear of fire, and none of Frodo fighting back. <LI>Aragorn using another sword and a knife besides Anduril and not having Anduril be forged until RotK just got me mad, if Aragorn had the shards of Narsil at Weathertop in the movie, weathertop would not of been so horrible... <LI>The scene of Bill the Pony being left go at the gates of moria....they never showed the scene were they bought bill, so why have the scene were they let him go? <LI>Arwen calling the River to destroy the Nazgul just got me mad, the river is under the command of Lord Elrond, and none other... <LI>The scene of the gift giving was cut out of the final film, this cut I consider one of the most hurtful and wrong cuts that PJ made, not only does it explain the cloaks, Gimli's love for Galadrial, and a lot of other things later on in the trilogy, its just a great scene... <LI>Aragorn "letting" frodo go was one of the biggest mistakes PJ made in the first film, not only does it not go alnog with the story, but the involving of Aragorn in Frodos descision to leave just is very un Tolkien to me...</UL> tTT<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The adition of the wild men attacking parts of Rohan in the begining, I dont care about any peasants getting killed, I care about orcs, Balrogs, Trolls and Nazgul being killed... <LI>Eomer's "flight" from Rohan just got me mad, not only does it thouroughly mess up Helms Deep, but it doesnt fit with Eomer's character one bit... <LI>The Ents stalling...I mean dear god, the movie is more than 3 hours, and still a lot of important and relevent things were cut out, and PJ has the nerve to have the Ents say "no" at first... <LI>No mention of the Battles of the Isen, which once again cause Helms Deep to become an unTolkien mess, no mention of Erkenbrand, and no reason given why Theodred died... <LI>Rohan's total lack of ANY army in TTT, in the book within minutes of Theoden's awakening, he had 1000 mounted riders of the Rohirrim outside his golden hall..not 300 old men and children... <LI>The taking of the women and children to Helms Deep, if there already not enough women and children in the caves in the book, PJ has to make the riding of the Riders into a refugee train...once again...I dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them... <LI>Aragorn's close call....no reason for this, though the Warg riders were cool and you cant get made when extra fighting is thrown in, the "feigned death" of Aragorn just got me mad, I dont care if it gave PJ reason for the Arwen and Aragorn flashbacks, I didnt even like the flashbacks, which is my next point... <LI>The love story between Arwen and Aragorn was just plain awful, though I do know that Tolkien did not give PJ much to work with, PJ eally could of done a better job in TTT and RotK, (The story in FotR was alright).. <LI>Elrond's "Im a stubborn and overprotective father, forget my goal to return a king to the throne of Gondor, forget about saving humans and middle erath from the clutches of Sauron, I want my daughter to sail of the sea with me and thats final" <LI>No extra men at Helms Deep before the battle started, no mention of the scattering of Erkerbrand's men, instead it was replace by ELVES and a runaway son, probably the worst part of TTT... (Here is how the battle should of gone...early in the movie sohuld of been the battle of the Isen, Theodred killed, eomer runs into the 3 hunters, eomer comes back and is thrown in jail, the riders of rohan leave to make open battle, find the army is destoryed, make for helms deep, gandalf goes and reunites the army and comes at dawn, much less annouced, gimli sohuld of ben in the caves with eomer, theoden and aragorn should of had more people riding out with him, and not as much out of desperation, no elves, no giant explosives, and no 300 vs. 10000 stuff) <LI>Faramir...I dont are that his character was much better in the EE, I went to the theaters and paided 10 many times to watch the final version, and im angry...Faramir was supposed to be portrayed as a wise strong, fair and gentle man who even when the ring of power is within his grasp, refuses it and lets Frodo and Sam go.... <LI>Frodo Sam and Gollum going to Osgiliarth, it just made no sense...by then Faramir should of let them go and just gone there with his men, I have no problem with a bit of a cameo by osgiliarth in the movie, but Frodo and Sam there just got me mad (see above).. <LI>No Huorns....now that got me mad...there is no way every last single orc was killed by the Rohirrim, and thats why the Hourns needed to be there, they were the cleanup crew, they were what truely destroyed Saruman's army.. <LI>No talking with Saruman, no throwing of the palatir, no tempting both the king and Gandalf...nothing...at first I tohught it would of been taken care of in RotK, but that was not the case, and so now it is obvious to me that it should of been taken care of, and somehow PJ should of found the room in his movie for it... <LI>No more shots of the actors children, its bad enough to see random extras cower in fear, but when its a cameo from a child or spouse of an actor, it just gets me mad, not to meantion a good 10 minutes were spent on shots of the helpless women and children.. </UL>RotK <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Nothing, absolutly nothing about Saruman, which wouldnt be so bad if he was taken care of in TTT, but the cutting out of one of the major bad guys without any attempt at an explaination just makes me mad... <LI>Smeagols past was an ok flashback, but it was too long and too annoying, I would of just like a couple minute explaination, but I guess PJ wanted to make the viewers pity Gollum less... <LI>Gollum turning Frodo against Sam was just unneccesary and bad, there was no need for it, and not only that, it got me mad, I already hated gollum, no need for me to hate him more... <LI>The endless staircase was WAY too close to minas morgul...but thats a small thing, but you would think someone would of seen the 3 small figures climbing up it... <LI>Theoden's reluctanse to go to the aid of Gondor, didnt make any sense, and this coupled with the amazing army that appears out of no where just got me mad, if they only had 300 men at Helms Deep, they should be riding to gondor with about 15 men...I really hate the excuse of "the other men were far away"... <LI>No Rangers, no songs of Elrond, no nothing, making legolas, Aragorn and gimli brave the paths of the dead all by themselves, without horses... <LI>The stupid green people attacking the orcs and saving the day, the dead were supposed to attack the corsairs and then go...and though 30 rangers attacking the orcs wouldnt be too exciting, maybe PJ could of had some of the besieged gondorians come with the rangers and attack... <LI>No Prince Emrahil....and htis fact hurts me deep inside, probably because Prince Imrahil is by far the coolest character in the entire LotR trilogy...and I was looking forward to seeing the three warriors (eomer, imrahil and aragorn) meet in the middle of the battle after attacking on 3 different sides.. <LI>Denethor was AWFUL absolutly aful, I mean dear god, I dont know if it is the actor of the role that was written for him, but every little thing he did ****ed me off, first with hi s rambling until gandalf hit him, then with his eating, and then the pyre.. <LI>Gandalf's dealing with denethor was almost as bad, first with the knocking him on the head, and then actually murdering him by pushing him into the flame... <LI>Gimli holding the crown....just plain dumb.. <LI>Legolas' oliphante surfing attack, the attack was fine, he just looked like a dumbass as he came down from the oliphante.. <LI>No house of healing....one of the most importante parts of the movie cut out...no real reason other than Aragorns victory for him to get the crown...though throughout the movie it never is actually said that he is not the real king of gondor.. <LI>The love story and elrond again, I didnt think it was possible , but the flashbacks and the scenes with arwen were worse than in TTT...not to mention Elrond riding all the way into rohan just to deliver a sword just shows that PJ forgot about Anduril for a while and finally remembered he needed to put it in... <LI>No faramir and eowyn love story, that got me really mad, because not only is it a great side story, it sorta brings closure to the story involving gondor and rohan, and giving way for the rest of the story to focus on hobbits.. <LI>No mention of the wild men leading the rohirrim through the hills...this I thought was pretty bad, not only because it made PJ change denethor's belief from "rohan will be late" to "rohan will not come"... <LI>Celeborn boarding the boat into the west, just a useless change from the book, and also I didnt like how few people boarded the boat, I mean its not like any one of them knows how to sail in a boat, I was under the impression that a very large host of elves sailed west at the same time.. <LI>No Cirdan...now thats just mean, I wanted to see Cirdan...you dont see a bearded elf every day... <LI>Hardly any people were at the attack on the black gate, in the book it was 6000, in the movie it look like less than 1000... <LI>Gollum fighting an invisible Frodo just looked too strange, and not to mention Frodo pushing gollum off the edge got me angry, he just lost of a finger, he was in no condition to fight gollum for the ring...it should of been a shorter struggle and gollum should of fallen off... </UL>But all together, it wasnt that bad, and I still will be buying the DVD and EE of RotK, just because im a materialistic and hopelussly addicted tolkien fan...-willkillPS, Feel free to comment or argue about any of the kazillion problems I have with the movies, ill be happy to destroy your arguement and then insult your mother =)BTW sorry about the bad grammar and spelling mistakes, no spell check =([ 7:50 PM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: willkill4food ]

Knight of Gondor

01-22-2004, 09:55 PM

Willkill -I agree the movies were not 100% accurate to the books. I must confess I didn't take the time to read everything you wrote, because I know a good deal of the book-to-movie problems. But I think you need to cut Peter Jackson a little more slack. Many people set up for themselves some rather impossible goals which Peter Jackson could not hope to reach. Remember, out of millions, he had to try to please as many as possible, while still pleasing the rest of mainstream America and the rest of the world, who are not Initiated. Some things I agree with changing, as I've said before, such as the regular sword Aragorn carries. As for the others...I really think we should be grateful that Lord of the Rings actually entered Hollywood and came out as unscathed as it did!

Olorin

01-22-2004, 10:21 PM

I agree with everything you said. Most of the stuff was completely pointless. PJ could have kept it accurate and not hurt the movie in any way. I think he just diminished several characters by making changes.

Armetiel

01-22-2004, 10:47 PM

^just so you know, some of the things that are missing (like the gift giving) are in the EE edition, and had to be cut because of screen time, however Jackson still filmed them and they are still in the movie although, you are right, it would explain a lot and it's not a scene i would have cut, from the Theatrical version either no one really is going to remember who elendil is anyways, if they haven't read the book...personally, yes tom bombadil should have been in at least the extendend version, as well as the old forest, but you don't really NEED those parts to understand what's going on..so yeh, time limits call for change, it can't be helpedDwarves going with Bilbo, Jackson probably didn't want to hire another couple actors for such a small part that doesn't really effect the story, and it's not like he completely took out dwarves (however I would have liked to see a bit more of Gloin like in the book)as for "the power of the ring could not be undone" well, really it couldn't. That's why Frodo has to destroy the ring so many years later... As too Celebrimbor, I think PJ is trying to NOT confuse the audience who haven't read the book by throwing too many names at them that aren't going to appear elsewhere in the movieAs to saying good bye to bill, well not only did you not see them buying him, he's not even with them on Caradhras...so yeh, I'd say cut the scene, in fact cut the pony when they first leave rivendell too, unless you want to put him in all the scenes...but please..one way or the other lolas for weather top, I thought the blackriders looked pretty scared of the fire...but I agree with the Anduril bit.TTT, I LOVE the scene with the peasants ..personally i thought it a great addition.The stalling of the ents was stupid, i was a bit annoyed at that.The woman and children go to helm's deep in the book, so why not in the movie...personally i think having them in it was a GREAT idea, so it's not all battles (which there are already too much of)The whole warg thing and Aragorn almost dying was dumb, but hey it's not supposed to be just like the book and they took out the warg scene from the fellowship, so why not add one here.Elrond's roll is there because he did not approve of Aragorn's and Arwen's relationship. (In the book)Personally i liked the elves at helms deep, however they shouldn't be there if he was being true to the book, which he wasn't, so it doesn't matter. however, Haldir should not have been killed as he lives in the book. And personally i agree with leaving Earkenbrand out, too confusing, stick with ppl we already know (confusing to ppl who haven't read the book i mean)I HATE that Faramir didn't let Frodo and Sam go and brought them to Osgiliath, that part was HORRID.I think the Huorns are in the EE. cut for screen timeagain, i think it's great that the kids were in the movie so often, and I don't care WHOSE kids they are lol as long as they are in it.ROTK Saruman will be in EE, however I don't think he should have been cut, and still I've heard that in EE, it's going to be some big showdown between him and Gandalf..what's all that about...Smeagol turning frodo against Sam was def. uncalled for...it's my least fav partthe figures weren't seen on the stair because of the elven cloaks i guessFaramir and Eowyn's story will prob be in the EEas for the boat, it doesn't say in the book that Celeborn WASN"T with them does it? i could be wrong...if you want a REALLY pointless change, howabout in the book they were 14 days from rivendell at weathertop, and only 6 in the movie...(or something like that)anywayz, i'd comment more but i gotta go now..[ 11:58 PM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: Armetiel ]

Silmiel of Imladris

01-22-2004, 10:51 PM

WillKill I think you just need to relax. In my opinion most of the changes you described were pretty minor compared to the Elves at Helms deep, Arwen, and Faramir's character change. Of course everyone is going to have little things that tick them off but they are not worth making a big deal over. Even some of the things in the books ticked me off too but I ingrored them and kept reading. Oh and.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes...not to mention almost the entire manner in which he escaped was either cut out or changed to an unrecognizable form..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It took 17 years for me to get though that part of the book for it bored me so. I am completely grateful it was not put it.

01-23-2004, 02:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Merry and Pippin suddenly show up in the fields with Frodo and Sam, without any hint that they are very good friends with Frodo, making the two young hobbit's choice to go join the fellowship even more irrational (if thats possible) and confusing...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I disagree. I think this is a case of 'showing, not telling' - most audience members with an iq higher than their shoe size will either: a. have read the books and know who M&P are; or, b. realise that the reason why the hobbits all get along as if they know each other is beacuse they do, indeed, know each other.I think sometimes we forget that movies can imply events and relationships without having to show them.I also don't see why "one has to realize that NO ONE will EVER make LotR EVER AGAIN" - I can think of many books/plays which have been made into multiple movies. Shakespeare's stuff being the most obvious answer, but also Animal Farm and The Secret Garden, off the top of my head. We'll just have to wait another 20 years, that's all.

Essex

01-23-2004, 04:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How on earth can you show this in a movie without a narrator. It worked fine in the cartoon version as the narrator explained it, but what can Jackson do? Could he 'age' the hobbit characters using prosthetics by 17 years, and then be stuck with this 'look' for the rest of the film? I think not.How they alluded to the time difference was to show Frodo having to find the Ring (still in the envelope) in the box it was kept in. I've learnt to live with most of the minor changes to the films. If you want a fantasy film that is pretty much exactly like the book, then watch HP and the Philophoser's Stone (Sorcerer if you're American, why on earth did they do that?) HP1 is an incredibly boring film because it sticks so tightly to the book (which is an exxelent read). Sometimes it just doesn't work out well when this is done........

willkill4food

01-23-2004, 11:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>^just so you know, some of the things that are missing (like the gift giving) are in the EE edition, and had to be cut because of screen time, however Jackson still filmed them and they are still in the movie although, you are right, it would explain a lot and it's not a scene i would have cut, from the Theatrical version eitherno one really is going to remember who elendil is anyways, if they haven't read the book... personally, yes tom bombadil should have been in at least the extendend version, as well as the old forest, but you don't really NEED those parts to understand what's going on..so yeh, time limits call for change, it can't be helpedDwarves going with Bilbo, Jackson probably didn't want to hire another couple actors for such a small part that doesn't really effect the story, and it's not like he completely took out dwarves (however I would have liked to see a bit more of Gloin like in the book)as for "the power of the ring could not be undone" well, really it couldn't. That's why Frodo has to destroy the ring so many years later...As too Celebrimbor, I think PJ is trying to NOT confuse the audience who haven't read the book by throwing too many names at them that aren't going to appear elsewhere in the movie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It really doesnt matter what was filmed, it matters what ends up on screen, and the gift giving scene just adds so much to the trilogy..Elendil just happens to be one of the greatest men ever, and seeing up shout, jump forward and die was a blow to all Tolkien fans, just a few more seconds of him actually fighting hand to hand with Sauron would of made me happy, and if somehow it could of been filmed so that Isildur didnt come off ias an arrogant, foolish, petty man who the only thing he did was cut the ring, then I would of been crying in happyness during that scene...As for the dwarves, I just cant get enough of them, they are just so cute and snuggly with their big beards, axes and 4ft 6 height... "But the power of the Ring could not be undone" makes it sound like even if all of Sauron's forces were destroyed (which they almost were) then still he could not be defeated (which is BS), Sauron was destoryed even before his ring was cut from his hand...In the movies the viewer has no idea that the elven rings are any different, so if maybe just some small reference that the Elven Rings of power were not made by any help from Sauron and his hand never touched them, it would of made more sense to the viewer who is thinking "why are the Elves immune from Sauron?" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>TTT, I LOVE the scene with the peasants ..personally i thought it a great addition.The woman and children go to helm's deep in the book, so why not in the movie...personally i think having them in it was a GREAT idea, so it's not all battles (which there are already too much of) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The women and children are already there in the book, as Erkenbrand lived in Helms Deep during these dark days...but do we really need to be reminded every 5 minutes that the fate of all of Rohan (women and children included) relies on this battles? I didnt, and I doubt the average viewer really felt anything more than pity for these people...and I barely felt pity (probably because I knew they would win) But again, PJ cut out Saurman's humbling in order to show the faces of his children and some of the acotrs children...not cool... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Elrond's roll is there because he did not approve of Aragorn's and Arwen's relationship. (In the book) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Elrond approved of their relationship, but would only let Arwen marry the King of Gondor and Arnor, for Elrond forsaw that Aragorn would be the last cheif of the dunedain, either he would claim the thrown, or he and his line would disappear...he was just adding in a little incentive for Aragorn... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Personally i liked the elves at helms deep, however they shouldn't be there if he was being true to the book, which he wasn't, so it doesn't matter. however, Haldir should not have been killed as he lives in the book. And personally i agree with leaving Earkenbrand out, too confusing, stick with ppl we already know (confusing to ppl who haven't read the book i mean) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We didnt even now Haldir's name until he showed up at Helms Deep, and if we are going to introduce new characters, new armies, and other stuff, it might as well be the characters, armies and stuff that is in the book...I am not that mad that Elves were at Helms Deep, I am mad because that battle could of been the battle to make all other movie battles look like GI Joe fights, but instead it was ruined (IMHO)... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Faramir and Eowyn's story will prob be in the EEas for the boat, it doesn't say in the book that Celeborn WASN"T with them does it? i could be wrong...if you want a REALLY pointless change, howabout in the book they were 14 days from rivendell at weathertop, and only 6 in the movie...(or something like that) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again, another thing cut and left for EE, and for what? So we can see Sam crying a few seconds longer when Frodo sends him away? This story needed to be in the theatrical version, and thats why I hold it against PJ...(Next reply) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> WillKill I think you just need to relax. In my opinion most of the changes you described were pretty minor compared to the Elves at Helms deep, Arwen, and Faramir's character change. Of course everyone is going to have little things that tick them off but they are not worth making a big deal over. Even some of the things in the books ticked me off too but I ingrored them and kept reading. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not really making a BIG deal, I did write a huge, giant, long post, but thats really all...of course a lot of the things were minor, but also they were pointless and unnecesary, and thats why I am mad, PJ had $300 million to do this, he could of made an effort to keep some thing with the story ling just for because...and the changes to practically every character are what **** me off, not only because the things they do are so unlike them in the books, but also because they just focred PJ to make more minor changes to the script, its the domino effect...btw, it took me a long time to get past the first few chapters too... anyways, gotta go this second, be back in a day or two for the next few replies...-willkillbtw, thanks for the replies, it makes me feel loved.....or hated...

Meela

01-23-2004, 12:04 PM

You need a stiff drink.I don't think people should see the films at all if they're going to be that picky...I would say more, but I'm tired of picking at tiny details and defending good pieces of film making. Just because one line or one extra man in the corner is missing, it is not worth the fuss.

Armetiel

01-23-2004, 01:27 PM

[/quote]We didnt even now Haldir's name until he showed up at Helms Deep, and if we are going to introduce new characters, new armies, and other stuff, it might as well be the characters, armies and stuff that is in the book...I am not that mad that Elves were at Helms Deep, I am mad because that battle could of been the battle to make all other movie battles look like GI Joe fights, but instead it was ruined (IMHO)...[/quote]we know he name...it's in FOTR when he greets them in Lothlorien (at least in EE) but even if you don't know EE, if you've read the book you know his name, and if you haven't, well you still know who he is because at the very least, you know his FACE from FOTR.

Kronos

01-23-2004, 03:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I dont care about any peasants getting killedI dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dear God.....

Hama Of The Riddermark

01-23-2004, 03:24 PM

Many, Many, MANY of these issues are dealt with in the EEs...

Elrond of Rivendell

01-23-2004, 04:57 PM

Well, I think if we keep ourselves overfixed to the books, we could generate a list ad infinitum. Still this is not my intention, although I recognize that I also disliked some parts of the movies. The general opinion however is a very good one, I still can enjoy watching FotR for instance, to be sure. I am honestly thankful to Peter Jackson for offering us this great work of movie-making (and not of literally 1:1-adapting Tolkien's works, which would be quite impossible, given the length, both in the space (cf. distances in Mordor) and in time (cf. the 17 years) of the latter). I think the best method of enjoying Peter Jackson's movies is to remind what they are after all: movies. If you want to have a Middle-Earth congruent with Tolkien's writings, then I regret, you have to read the books. There is no other way. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen calling the River to destroy the Nazgul just got me mad, the river is under the command of Lord Elrond, and none other... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>E.g. this doesn't disturb me at all. The Nazgul are rebuked by some powers emanating from Elves (and Gandalf, as it is said in the books), is it really THAT important whether the force behind them was Elrond or his daughter (and therefore very close to his kin and even probably detaining the same powers)? - Honestly, I don't think so. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Ents stalling...I mean dear god, the movie is more than 3 hours, and still a lot of important and relevent things were cut out, and PJ has the nerve to have the Ents say "no" at first... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here I have to admit that this was a very nice prolongement of Treebeard's saying "No one cares about the forests any more, no one is on my side". I think an Entmoot leading to enthusiastic Ents marching into war would not have been credible in the movie. Remember that even in the books, the Entmoot is an event of long duration, without the usual black/white reasoning (Oh yes, Saruman is evil, we must destroy him). Peter Jackson tried to represent this by letting the Ents firstly refuse their participation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The taking of the women and children to Helms Deep, if there already not enough women and children in the caves in the book, PJ has to make the riding of the Riders into a refugee train...once again...I dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I could not disagree more. What Tolkien wanted to show us in his books throughout his books, is the dramatic consequences of a cataclysm like a great war. (I remember reading or hearing somewhere that some battles are depicted in allusion to the trenches of World War I.) So I see the women and children crying and suffering, as shown by Peter Jackson, as of the same mind, which I greatly appreciate. We should not forget after all that Tolkien's books are a little bit more complex than mere orc-slaughtering. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Elrond's "Im a stubborn and overprotective father, forget my goal to return a king to the throne of Gondor, forget about saving humans and middle erath from the clutches of Sauron, I want my daughter to sail of the sea with me and thats final" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For this point, I refer to what has been said on this board before: Peter Jackson has - IMHO - not tried to come with a stubborn Elf, full of disdain for the human race, but he presented us a loving father, caring for his daughter, after having lost nearly all his kind. In fact, I would almost use the word "human(e)" to describe his feelings. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Gollum turning Frodo against Sam was just unneccesary and bad, there was no need for it, and not only that, it got me mad, I already hated gollum, no need for me to hate him more... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this was quite a difficult decision for Peter Jackson to take. As it is, Gollum had to die at the end, but whereas in the books, his character can be dealt with throughout 700 pages or more, with appendices and so on, the movies only have a (very limited) space of time to do a complex character analysis. Therefore, Peter Jackson had to depict Gollum towards the end of the movies as fully evil, so that his death could be "accepted" even by non Tolkien-readers. Just imagine the uproar of horror and indignation to be heard if Gollum would have died after scene like the "name-giving" by Frodo. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No Rangers, no songs of Elrond, no nothing, making legolas, Aragorn and gimli brave the paths of the dead all by themselves, without horses... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, they are not necessary in the movies. It is Aragorn only and alone who can enter the Paths of the Dead. He doesn't need any companion for his deed. Btw, I am sure, if more Rangers had shown up, some people would have used this fact to point at the chronological inconsistency. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Denethor was AWFUL absolutly aful, I mean dear god, I dont know if it is the actor of the role that was written for him, but every little thing he did ****ed me off, first with hi s rambling until gandalf hit him, then with his eating, and then the pyre.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here again, not disposing of some entire chapter-lengths to deal with Denethor, Peter Jackson had to transform this character. Okay, I agree, the changes in this particular figure were quite deep, but I agree now with them, seeing that after all there are two Denethor's: the one from the books and the one from the movies. You simply must not juxtapose the two of them.So I repeat that I recommend accepting Peter Jackson's movies as what they are: movies. This term - in my eyes - clearly implies the artistic licences of a skillful director. I still hope for another version of LotR-Movies, not because PJ's are bad, but simply I think that a book like this deserves more than one movie-adaptation.Greetings, EfR[ 6:00 PM January 23, 2004: Message edited by: Elrond of Rivendell ]

Rocharwen

01-23-2004, 07:22 PM

i think that peter jackson did a wonderful job for what he had to work with. he made everything seem so real. and these movies were not just to please the LOTR reading fans, they were to please non-readers as well. and since non-readers tend to like different things, he took some liberties to be a people-pleaser. but the only problem that i have with any of the movies was in return of the king, i was REALLY looking forward to see the houses of healing, hopefully they'll be on the extended version!

Elrond of Rivendell

01-23-2004, 07:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> he took some liberties to be a people-pleaser. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmm, I wouldn't use this term, as it usually stands together with quite negative connotations. I would rather affirm that Jackson tried (and succeeded for the most part) to "deliver" an understandable insight-view of Tolkien's Middle-Earth even to non-Tolkien-addicts. But for the most part I agree with your points, although I will be waiting for the EE (Houses of Healings), as for the moment, I am not that sure what people are really expecting. I must admit that I found this particular chapter in the books quite boring. Don't accuse me of anti-romantism! I simply believe that the scenes at the Houses split the dramatic moments of Pelennor and Morannon in a unduely way. Greetings, EfR

The Saucepan Man

01-23-2004, 07:57 PM

Willkill4food, please please please stay away from the films - for the sake of your blood pressure. Well, I agree with most of what has been said in response. Excellent post in particular from Elrond of Rivendell. They key point, I think, is this: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think the best method of enjoying Peter Jackson's movies is to remind what they are after all: movies. If you want to have a Middle-Earth congruent with Tolkien's writings, then I regret, you have to read the books. There is no other way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you really want to enjoy the films, then you have to accept that these are, in many cases, not the same characters or events that are depicted in the book. They are based on them, but they are not the same. Although I don't consider it a matter of regret that people have to read the book to get the real story. I consider that a good thing. My personal opinion (as someone who has been a fan of the book for over 25 years) is that these films are masterpieces of film-making. They work for me on so many levels. Visually, they bring Middle-earth to life in a way that I never thought would be possible when I first read the book. They have great action sequences. They have characters which (although different from those in the books in many cases) you really care about. And, to my mind, they really are emotionally engaging, particularly the final instalment.I am not saying that they are perfect. But, for me, the imperfections are not in the departures from the book but in the aspects that are not internally consistent or credible within the context of the films. Examples of this, in my opinion, are: <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Gandalf's exorcism of Thedoen (which renders Wormtongue obsolete);<LI>Aragorn's cliff diving episode (which is unnecessary);<LI>Frodo offering the Ring to the Nazgul at Osgiliath (which just doesn't work for me);<LI>Gandalf and/or Shadowfax pushing Denethor onto the pyre (which is inconsistent with Gandalf's film character); and<LI>Arwen's life being tied to the fate of the Ring (which is never explained and makes little sense).</UL> Other than these episodes, I have very few complaints about the films. Anything else would be nitpicking, which I feel disinclined to do, given the great enjoyment that I have derived from them.Oh, and on the subject of nitpicking: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No mention that the Elven rings were made by Celebrindor <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They were made by Celebrimbor. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The adition of the wild men attacking parts of Rohan in the begining <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This happened in the War of the Ring, even though it is not specifically depicted in the Book (like the Battles of the Fords of the Isen ). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The love story between Arwen and Aragorn was just plain awful <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Aragron and Arwen loved each other in the book too. And elements of these scenes were taken from their Tale in the Apendices. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> oliphante <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's Oliphaunt. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No Cirdan...now thats just mean, I wanted to see Cirdan <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He's there at the Grey Havens, standing behind Galadriel and Celeborn. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Gollum fighting an invisible Frodo just looked too strange <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, but that's straight from the book. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Frodo pushing gollum off the edge got me angry <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He didn't. Frodo tried to get the Ring back. They struggled and both fell off the edge. To my mind, this was a good addition, since it made up for the strangeness of Gollum's struggle with an invisible Frodo.

Elrond of Rivendell

01-23-2004, 08:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Although I don't consider it a matter of regret that people have to read the book to get the real story. I consider that a good thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And right you are. EfR

Vuelve

01-23-2004, 08:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Celeborn boarding the boat into the west, just a useless change from the book, and also I didnt like how few people boarded the boat, I mean its not like any one of them knows how to sail in a boat, I was under the impression that a very large host of elves sailed west at the same time..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only part of the boat scene I had a problem with was Thranduril(Forgive my sp.)standing in the background like he was some unimportant character.I believe there was a line that said something to the effect of the power of the 3 rings is over or something.I can't remember, and I've seen the movie twice.lol.He makes it look like Elrond,Celeborn,and Galadriel are the 3 bearers.And then there's Thranduril standing all by his lonesome in the background like some dock-worker.ok I'm done but thats been bothering me since I've seen the first movie.Black and green on my computer screen, Vuelve

The Saucepan Man

01-23-2004, 08:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The only part of the boat scene I had a problem with was Thranduril(Forgive my sp.)standing in the background like he was some unimportant character. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What makes you think that it was Thranduil? As I said, it was Cirdan. He is the same actor who featured as one of the three bearers of the Elven Rings in the Prologue to FotR.

Knight of Gondor

01-23-2004, 09:02 PM

Willkill –Just a few observations since you offered for argument and discussion on your objections. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Elendil was portrayed as a suicidal fool, when in the books he and Gil-Galad wound Sauron many times before finally being killed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You have a bit of a point there, but at the same time, he was not suicidal, or a fool. It was a brave act, it just turned bad. Yes, I understand it differs from the book...but that doesn’t mean the wounds didn’t take place before! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"The power of the ring could not be undone", what the heck does that mean? In the books Sauron attacked too early not realizing that the Elves had become stronger while he was away, and he didnt count on such fierce resistance from the Men of Numenor. Sauron come out from Barad-Dur when he had no chance left at all, victory was assured when Sauron came out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It was just a cinematic quote. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No mention that the Elven rings were made by Celebrindor, not Sauron, which just confsues the viewer as to why the Elves are almost untouched by their rings, while the 9 kings are now wraiths, and all 7 drawven ones are gone..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where would be a good place to insert this particular fact? The prologue didn’t say that Sauron forged all of the Rings at all. And if they had tried to say it somewhere in the movie, it would be what I refer to as a “TTM”; using dialogue to convey story concepts to the audience that they wouldn’t actually need to tell the people they are talking to. (I call it TTM because of a book that used it all the time) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Isildur's end was cut short in the final version, not showing the part where the ring betrayed Isildur, which really helps show the evilness and "tricksyness" of the ring.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Peter Jackson’s heart lay in the extended edition. But Peter Jackson was not the be-all and end-all when it came down to final say...and though he didn’t like it, the studio or production company or whatever made him trim it down. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No Dwarves left the Shire with Bilbo on the night of his party, I wanted to see Dwarves!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, you didn’t see it, but there were dwarves hiding off-camera. :-) Come on! PJ had to make it as optimally awesome for all who watched it, or as near as he could come, and most movie goers (my parents included, probably) would go “huh?” if they saw Dwarves. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes...not to mention almost the entire manner in which he escaped was either cut out or changed to an unrecognizable form..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, it’s a time issue. Can you imagine how much time it would take, even in theater time, for them to convey the fact that 17 years past? Besides, who said they didn’t? You saw Bilbo going away, Gandalf left for Gondor, researching, etc, the Black Riders leaving Minas Morgul, and so on. It COULD have been 17 years. But Frodo isn’t going to go “Well, Samwise, my somewhat drunk but loyal servant, what a lovely 17 years these have been since Bilbo left.” (An example of “TTM”, there) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Merry and Pippin suddenly show up in the fields with Frodo and Sam, without any hint that they are very good friends with Frodo, making the two young hobbit's choice to go join the fellowship even more irrational (if thats possible) and confusing...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey, they knew they were good friends. “Merry, it’s Frodo!” “Hello, Frodo!” Yeah, a little disappointing that there wasn’t a conspiracy...some of the nobility in Merry and Pippin choosing to go along with Frodo was lost. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The way to Bree was way to short, I do believe that Tom Bombadil had no real pace in the movie, but still, it seems like just a stroll in the park to get to Bree...If maybe somehow they could of had the barrowdowns without tom bombadil, that would give an explaination to how Merry wounded the WiKi so badly, maybe Frodo could of saved the 3 hobbits from the Barrowwight, or something to that effect..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>People already complained about the walking that was already included in the movie, much less the books. If they had put more walking in to Bree, then others would complain of the too-boring walking scenes. PJ can’t please everyone. Besides, you should know that in movies, a large amount of walking, or time can take place without any indicator that it had. Barrow-Downs would have taken too long, and left more people going “HUH?” <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No poem about strider, "All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost" is an entire explaination of Strider in 1 sentance, not to mention it is easily one of the most memorable lines in all of LotR...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It’s a great line, and some of it was taken for Arwen’s raspy dissertation in Return of the King, but Gandalf did not leave that letter according to the movie, and all that other behind-the-scenes stuff didn’t happen with Barliman and such. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Weathertop was a disaster, not only do the black riders look weak, stupid and scared, but there is no mention of their fear of fire, and none of Frodo fighting back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sad that Frodo didn’t fight, I agree. He’s too much of a wimp in LotR, if you ask me. But they don’t look weak and stupid. If they do, it’s because you’re not there, not feeling the fear and terror of being in the presence of the Witchking. What did you want instead, a giant marionette? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Aragorn using another sword and a knife besides Anduril and not having Anduril be forged until RotK just got me mad, if Aragorn had the shards of Narsil at Weathertop in the movie, weathertop would not of been so horrible...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I’ve explained this several times before, but I agree with that change. Aragorn lived a rugged life for the sixty years or so that he wandered the Wild. He would not be able to have survived, carrying around a broken hilt of a sword! Plus, it makes more sense for the honorable heirloom of the house of Elendil to rest in the dignity of Rivendell. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The scene of Bill the Pony being left go at the gates of moria....they never showed the scene were they bought bill, so why have the scene were they let him go?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>More time. Everyone would get board of sitting around watching them buy a pony. “Big deal, so they buy a pony.” (Some might think) At least he was included! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Arwen calling the River to destroy the Nazgul just got me mad, the river is under the command of Lord Elrond, and none other...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I recall Gandalf and Glorfindal having something to do with it, but Arwen was just a pandering to feminists and people who wanted more girl action, without having to wait until Return of the King. That, and I think Liv Tyler wanted some extra screen time. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The scene of the gift giving was cut out of the final film, this cut I consider one of the most hurtful and wrong cuts that PJ made, not only does it explain the cloaks, Gimli's love for Galadrial, and a lot of other things later on in the trilogy, its just a great scene...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don’t recall any other expressions in regard to Gimli’s love for Galadriel. Again, I’ll reiterate, PJ really wanted the movie to make it to theaters as the Extended Edition. I think you should judge PJ based on the EE, and not what the studio made him submit as final for theaters. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Aragorn "letting" frodo go was one of the biggest mistakes PJ made in the first film, not only does it not go alnog with the story, but the involving of Aragorn in Frodos descision to leave just is very un Tolkien to me...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It works for me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The adition of the wild men attacking parts of Rohan in the begining, I dont care about any peasants getting killed, I care about orcs, Balrogs, Trolls and Nazgul being killed...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you ask me, you are a little inconsistent. You didn’t like the Nazgûl being battled, and yet you want more walking and pony-buying? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Eomer's "flight" from Rohan just got me mad, not only does it thouroughly mess up Helms Deep, but it doesnt fit with Eomer's character one bit...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It underscored how Grima was actually in charge of Rohan, pretty much. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The Ents stalling...I mean dear god, the movie is more than 3 hours, and still a lot of important and relevent things were cut out, and PJ has the nerve to have the Ents say "no" at first...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, that’s a debatable scene. Perhaps PJ was making a subtle stab at the United Nations? By the way, if you wouldn’t mind, please refrain from taking my Lord’s name in vain. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No mention of the Battles of the Isen, which once again cause Helms Deep to become an unTolkien mess, no mention of Erkenbrand, and no reason given why Theodred died...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Erkenbrand is one of various assorted characters which were excluded to leave more time. The Battles of the Isen was in the EE, so I rest my case with that... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Rohan's total lack of ANY army in TTT, in the book within minutes of Theoden's awakening, he had 1000 mounted riders of the Rohirrim outside his golden hall..not 300 old men and children...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They showed a considerable presence once all told at Helm’s Deep, not to mention RotK. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The taking of the women and children to Helms Deep, if there already not enough women and children in the caves in the book, PJ has to make the riding of the Riders into a refugee train...once again...I dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, a lot of other people DO care, and PJ wanted to get across that the innocent suffered in the oppression of Saruman. While on a massive scale of dark lords, Elves, men, orcs, etc., you have regular peasants, probably not too different from you and me, being forced into an alternate life because of Sauron. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Aragorn's close call....no reason for this, though the Warg riders were cool and you cant get made when extra fighting is thrown in, the "feigned death" of Aragorn just got me mad, I dont care if it gave PJ reason for the Arwen and Aragorn flashbacks, I didnt even like the flashbacks, which is my next point...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, any scene that had Arwen unnecessarily wasn’t an improvement, in my opinion, but that’s mostly personal bias against Liv Tyler. But I said it before, Aragorn’s near-death thing was just thrown in for fans like you and I who figured we knew every move before it was made. Likewise the Elves at Helm’s Deep (more or less). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The love story between Arwen and Aragorn was just plain awful, though I do know that Tolkien did not give PJ much to work with, PJ eally could of done a better job in TTT and RotK, (The story in FotR was alright)..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I just disapprove of Liv Tyler’s portrayal of Arwen anyway, but I’m not really complaining about it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Elrond's "Im a stubborn and overprotective father, forget my goal to return a king to the throne of Gondor, forget about saving humans and middle erath from the clutches of Sauron, I want my daughter to sail of the sea with me and thats final"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He was admittedly a little more passive in the books, but he was NOT forgoing his role to aid the future King of Gondor. He made that large ride to Dunharrow, after all. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No extra men at Helms Deep before the battle started, no mention of the scattering of Erkerbrand's men, instead it was replace by ELVES and a runaway son, probably the worst part of TTT...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Runaway son? Do you mean Éomer? First, he’s a nephew, and second, he didn’t run away, he was banished. People have already raised objections to the Elves, so I won’t go there. It departed from the book, yeah. But it was still cool. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>(Here is how the battle should of gone...early in the movie sohuld of been the battle of the Isen, Theodred killed, eomer runs into the 3 hunters, eomer comes back and is thrown in jail, the riders of rohan leave to make open battle, find the army is destoryed, make for helms deep, gandalf goes and reunites the army and comes at dawn, much less annouced, gimli sohuld of ben in the caves with eomer, theoden and aragorn should of had more people riding out with him, and not as much out of desperation, no elves, no giant explosives, and no 300 vs. 10000 stuff)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think most of the Helm’s Deep material is beautiful. The ride out the causeway is quite similar to the books...it was desperation, yet reckless heroism. My apologies, but I don’t think anyone could scarce have done it better. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Faramir...I dont are that his character was much better in the EE, I went to the theaters and paided 10 many times to watch the final version, and im angry...Faramir was supposed to be portrayed as a wise strong, fair and gentle man who even when the ring of power is within his grasp, refuses it and lets Frodo and Sam go....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which he did. Granted, he hesitated first, wishing for once to be able to please his father. In the EE, you can understand those emotions much better. Still a detraction from the bok <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Frodo Sam and Gollum going to Osgiliarth, it just made no sense...by then Faramir should of let them go and just gone there with his men, I have no problem with a bit of a cameo by osgiliarth in the movie, but Frodo and Sam there just got me mad (see above)..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry you didn’t like it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No Huorns....now that got me mad...there is no way every last single orc was killed by the Rohirrim, and thats why the Hourns needed to be there, they were the cleanup crew, they were what truely destroyed Saruman's army..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Two words, my friend: extended edition. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No talking with Saruman, no throwing of the palatir, no tempting both the king and Gandalf...nothing...at first I tohught it would of been taken care of in RotK, but that was not the case, and so now it is obvious to me that it should of been taken care of, and somehow PJ should of found the room in his movie for it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay, now six words: Return of the King Extended Edition. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No more shots of the actors children, its bad enough to see random extras cower in fear, but when its a cameo from a child or spouse of an actor, it just gets me mad, not to meantion a good 10 minutes were spent on shots of the helpless women and children..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Willkill, this movie was about more than just ugly orcs and beautiful women. It was a tremendous study in the human qualities such as mercy, justice, bravery, heroism, endurance, perseverance and so on. I think at some points you expect too much, and at others, you expect too little. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Nothing, absolutly nothing about Saruman, which wouldnt be so bad if he was taken care of in TTT, but the cutting out of one of the major bad guys without any attempt at an explaination just makes me mad...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>While I saw the point of removing him (it would feel too much like finishing old business...yet at the same time, since they went ahead to Isengard, they may as well have taken care of Saruman anyway), I agree it’s a poor lot for Lee and Dourif. Those same old words, though: Extended edition. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Smeagols past was an ok flashback, but it was too long and too annoying, I would of just like a couple minute explaination, but I guess PJ wanted to make the viewers pity Gollum less...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I thought it went on a little long myself. But still, PJ needed some exposition to intro RotK. And yes, they wanted to give you a feel for Gollum. He let his bad side take over, but he did have a good side. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Gollum turning Frodo against Sam was just unneccesary and bad, there was no need for it, and not only that, it got me mad, I already hated gollum, no need for me to hate him more...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You hated him because you read the books. For the rest of America, there was the turning of Frodo against Sam. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The endless staircase was WAY too close to minas morgul...but thats a small thing, but you would think someone would of seen the 3 small figures climbing up it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I didn’t think about that, but it’s a good point. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Theoden's reluctanse to go to the aid of Gondor, didnt make any sense, and this coupled with the amazing army that appears out of no where just got me mad, if they only had 300 men at Helms Deep, they should be riding to gondor with about 15 men...I really hate the excuse of "the other men were far away"...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It didn’t make too much sense for Théoden to be reluctant, but only because he immediately prepared for Rohan’s answer without hesitation. But if you recall, Théoden was issuing orders for all the men in the outlying villages to issue forth to join the army. It took a few days for them all to muster at Dunharrow. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No Rangers, no songs of Elrond, no nothing, making legolas, Aragorn and gimli brave the paths of the dead all by themselves, without horses...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sad, but still probably necessary. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The stupid green people attacking the orcs and saving the day, the dead were supposed to attack the corsairs and then go...and though 30 rangers attacking the orcs wouldnt be too exciting, maybe PJ could of had some of the besieged gondorians come with the rangers and attack...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It did seem a little odd for the Dead to swarm all seven levels of Gondor, or at least the first three. Still doesn’t bother me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No Prince Emrahil....and htis fact hurts me deep inside, probably because Prince Imrahil is by far the coolest character in the entire LotR trilogy...and I was looking forward to seeing the three warriors (eomer, imrahil and aragorn) meet in the middle of the battle after attacking on 3 different sides..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He is also very little mentioned in the trilogy (books). I know my parents have enough trouble with all the different names without characters that, when it all boils down, aren’t truly desperately needed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Denethor was AWFUL absolutly aful, I mean dear god, I dont know if it is the actor of the role that was written for him, but every little thing he did ****ed me off, first with hi s rambling until gandalf hit him, then with his eating, and then the pyre..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You just angered the almighty princess of Denethorism: Meela! Back, girl, back! (And again, if you wouldn’t mind watching the language) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Gandalf's dealing with denethor was almost as bad, first with the knocking him on the head, and then actually murdering him by pushing him into the flame...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you to some extent on this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Gimli holding the crown....just plain dumb..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Missed that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Legolas' oliphante surfing attack, the attack was fine, he just looked like a dumbass as he came down from the oliphante..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dude? Language? We both know that stunt was just put in there to expound on the Elven coolness that eeks from every pore of Legolas’s Elven hair. A little overmuch? Maybe, but it was cool. And besides, 200,000 delighted girls versus one unhappy dissenter? *Strokes chin* PJ had quite a choice before him, I must say. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No house of healing....one of the most importante parts of the movie cut out...no real reason other than Aragorns victory for him to get the crown...though throughout the movie it never is actually said that he is not the real king of gondor..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe I should just start chanting EE, EE, EE.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The love story and elrond again, I didnt think it was possible , but the flashbacks and the scenes with arwen were worse than in TTT...not to mention Elrond riding all the way into rohan just to deliver a sword just shows that PJ forgot about Anduril for a while and finally remembered he needed to put it in...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you truly believe PJ forgot Andúril, then you honestly understand nothing of the movie business. I alone understand very little myself, but these weren’t made one right after the other, but all together. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No faramir and eowyn love story, that got me really mad, because not only is it a great side story, it sorta brings closure to the story involving gondor and rohan, and giving way for the rest of the story to focus on hobbits..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, kind of a shame. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No mention of the wild men leading the rohirrim through the hills...this I thought was pretty bad, not only because it made PJ change denethor's belief from "rohan will be late" to "rohan will not come"...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There was a discussion on that topic elsewhere. There was an actor originally cast for Ghan-buri-Ghan, but I think either that concept was abandoned, or it might be a surprise extra for the EE. Again, when you boil it all down, I think it wasn’t exceedingly necessary — Théoden knows the way to Gondor. And I think it was a movie device for you to almost forget about Rohan’s coming until that glorious moment when the horn sounded. I might just as well complain that Return of the King BOOK left Aragorn too long after the Stone of Erech! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Celeborn boarding the boat into the west, just a useless change from the book, and also I didnt like how few people boarded the boat, I mean its not like any one of them knows how to sail in a boat, I was under the impression that a very large host of elves sailed west at the same time..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But at the same time, Bilbo, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn, and Gandalf all climbed on board the ship, and then you couldn’t see them any more so you could concentrate on Frodo. Maybe the others were out of view. Again, probably another effort not to confuse poor perplexed mainstream movie-goers with nameless faces that they don’t know whether or not they are someone to keep track of. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No Cirdan...now thats just mean, I wanted to see Cirdan...you dont see a bearded elf every day...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*Cocks eyebrow* I did not remember Cirdan having a beard. But you could see the dude, in the prologue. And I believe he was there in the shot at the end, standing by. But no beard... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Hardly any people were at the attack on the black gate, in the book it was 6000, in the movie it look like less than 1000...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That’s only what it looked like. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Gollum fighting an invisible Frodo just looked too strange, and not to mention Frodo pushing gollum off the edge got me angry, he just lost of a finger, he was in no condition to fight gollum for the ring...it should of been a shorter struggle and gollum should of fallen off...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I thought the invisible struggle looked just a little strange, but then again, which real-life video of invisible man versus emaciated hobbit are you comparing it to? And unless you have had your finger bitten off and know for sure that Frodo would not be able to get up and go after what was fast becoming Frodo’s Precious, especially with the extra strength that came from having Gollum steal it back, then you might not want to make that judgment. Yep, it was departing from the book. Again, it was to make you think Frodo had fallen, if only for a second. Though I’ll agree with the irony of Sam telling Frodo to “let it go, Mr. Frodo! Let it go!” in reference to the Ring, then telling him “Don’t you DARE let go” minutes later. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But all together, it wasnt that bad, and I still will be buying the DVD and EE of RotK, just because im a materialistic and hopelussly addicted tolkien fan...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you on some of these issues, but I don’t see the need to raise such an objection about it. The movies were still extremely, exceedingly, spectacularly, exceptionally, extraordinarily, tremendously, enormously, remarkably, outstandingly, terrifically, marvelously, stupendously, staggeringly, dazzlingly, wonderfully done, and I think Peter Jackson should be commended by us, not chastised. He did a great job, and deserves a lot of credit for the massive amounts of work he put in. As I said before, it was his sole responsibility to make Lord of the Rings function on so many different levels. Each of us takes something different from the books, each of us has his or her own imaginings...each of us has created an intimate sub-interpretation of it. He had to do justice to as many of them as he could, while still pleasing Hollywood critics, production executives, studio representatives, Tolkien purists, scholars, teachers, professors, and still make it great for mainstream America. Yeah, it wasn’t perfect. None of us are, and none of us could expect it to be. In all due respect, you could not have done better, indeed most would have done much worse. (Probably have Boromir’s lust extend to Arwen or something, and not just the Ring) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>PS, Feel free to comment or argue about any of the kazillion problems I have with the movies, ill be happy to destroy your arguement and then insult your mother =)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh yeah, I forgot. Your mother is an uruk.

Vuelve

01-23-2004, 09:24 PM

Forgive me on my Thrandiul mistake but still I don't like it how PJ made it seem like Celeborn was a ring brearer.In that scene they were standing in a perfect row and the line that was said gives one that assumption(I wish I could remember that line.ugh ).Thats just the interpertation that I think one would get from it.And I just thought of something else that irked me.PJ didn't say much about what Legolas and Gimli did after the ring was destroyed.I had to explain that to my friends.But besides a few other character changes, I was alright with the movies.Black and green on my computer screen, Vuelve

The Saucepan Man

01-23-2004, 10:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen was just a pandering to feminists and people who wanted more girl action, without having to wait until Return of the King. That, and I think Liv Tyler wanted some extra screen time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Knight, while I agree with much of what you have said, I must disagree with you here. Romance is a central element in most films, and one that most film-goers expect. And the romance of Aragorn and Arwen is the only one that spans all three films so, unless you want scenes of Rosie Cotton mooching around missing Sam, Arwen's role had to be expanded to bring this element out. She was not there to "pander" to "feminists" and "girl action" devotees. And the final decisions on Arwen's role would have been made by Jackson and the production team. Although, I recall seeing on one of the EE documentaries that Liv Tyler was instrumental in persuading them to remove Arwen's role at Helm's Deep, having read furious "anti-XenArwen" comments on LotR websites. Hardly the behaviour of someone desperate for more screen time. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> For the rest of America, there was the turning of Frodo against Sam. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't forget that these films are distributed outside America too. And please leave the language moderation to the moderators.

Gashberz

01-23-2004, 11:19 PM

-WillKill CHILL OUT! I think PJ did an excellent job..i mean cut him some slack he did the best he did and it was pretty damn good.P.S. if you insult my mother I'd have to give you a mild bout of dwarvish ranting.....

Lyta_Underhill

01-23-2004, 11:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arwen calling the River to destroy the Nazgul just got me mad, the river is under the command of Lord Elrond, and none other... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I recall Gandalf and Glorfindal having something to do with it, but Arwen was just a pandering to feminists and people who wanted more girl action, without having to wait until Return of the King. That, and I think Liv Tyler wanted some extra screen time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I must also agree with the necessity of making Arwen an actual character, rather than a mere suggestion, with only two brief appearances in the story. I am OK with the replacement of Glorfindel in the Flight to the Ford. I am even coming to terms with Arwen carrying Frodo on Asfaloth (even though she took Glorfindel's horse!). The only problem I still have with this scene is that there is no inkling that Frodo knows what is going on. Even had he been secure in Arwen's grasp, he could have at least heard the call of the Ringwraiths ("to Mordor we will take you!") along with their derisive laughs and risen out of the deathly swoon to defy them with his last strength. Even in Arwen's arms he could have done this, although it would not have had as much power as his lone stand against the Nine at the Ford in the book. So, I think my main problem with Arwen in that scene is not really her fault at all. It is the fact that she is the symbol of a large change in Frodo's character that bothered me greatly. I am coming to believe, however, that perhaps her words as she is holding the stricken Frodo no the other side of the Bruinen "what grace is given me..let it pass to him" may be a nod to her gift to Frodo at the end of ROTK, although it would take some reading into the text to make this so...I suppose I still have the ROTK EE to wait for, but I don't think that she gives Frodo anything, since he doesn't have it at the end....too bad!As for Arwen calling the Bruinen to flood, it seems more immediately logical and requires less exposition than explaining that this Elf-chick who is riding over the river has to wait for the command of two other guys (hey! how'd Gandalf get there?) to cross and then how'd these guys know when to call the river? It is much more direct. Of course, one could interpret it as Arwen simply saying the prescribed words to set off what Elrond and Gandalf have already set in place--an implied reliance on them without necessity of exposition at the time of crisis. Knight, your opinion of Liv-Arwen is legend here on the Downs, but I think Saucepan Man's points about the necessity of a romantic story axis and the necessity also of the female part of this axis to be sufficiently fleshed out are valid ones. It is a pity that the character of Arwen is made the scapegoat, because she is obviously added in in many places where she was not chronologically or physically present in the books. Sure, people complain about Haldir and the Elves at Helm's Deep, but not nearly as much. Personally, I find Elrond's words to his daughter about the inevitability of the outcome of her love for Aragorn, with the images of the fading Elf-realms and stone tomb of Aragorn in the future to be one of the most sublime sequences in the Two Towers movie. It captures an essence of fading, the quintessential nature of the Elves. While we're on the Arwen theme, I must also address the idea of her 'sickness' in ROTK, as, for me, it merely showed her adjustment to an irrevocable choice. She chose to be mortal, and thus she is become tied to the present of the world and the outcome of the War of the Ring bears more closely on her. I can see why this would be distressing to Elrond, but the flaw I see here is the reduction of the obvious idea--(Arwen's fate is tied to the fate of the Ring because she is mortal. All mortals' fates are tied to the Ring...) to a motivation for Aragorn to take up the sword Anduril and finally take up his responsibility. I somehow think this was a way of making the responsibility a personal one and somewhat cheapening the motivation of Aragorn for doing his duty. I do think that it can be overlooked to an extent, though, as the motivation for taking the extreme path (Paths of the Dead) is well accounted for by making it obvious that the Rohirrim are not strong enough to take out the attacking forces of Sauron without help. But, as for the actual 'sickness,' I see that as something that distresses Elrond, for it is strange to the Elves, but familiar for him, as his brother also made that choice. (Wow! Wouldn't it be strange to be in Elrond's shoes? Aragorn is something like his great-great-great-etc. etc. descendant through his brother, who died countless years ago...it just struck me as a real out-of-reality moment!) OK, getting off the track now...I think I'll stop here!Cheers! Lyta

The Saucepan Man

01-24-2004, 12:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> While we're on the Arwen theme, I must also address the idea of her 'sickness' in ROTK, as, for me, it merely showed her adjustment to an irrevocable choice. She chose to be mortal, and thus she is become tied to the present of the world and the outcome of the War of the Ring bears more closely on her. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I see your point, Lyta, but it was not explained like this and was, in my view, confusing to book and non-book filmgoers alike. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I somehow think this was a way of making the responsibility a personal one and somewhat cheapening the motivation of Aragorn for doing his duty. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then again, Aragorn had a personal motivation in the book, for Elrond would only let his daughter marry the reinstated King of Gondor.

Knight of Gondor

01-24-2004, 04:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Knight, while I agree with much of what you have said, I must disagree with you here. Romance is a central element in most films, and one that most film-goers expect. And the romance of Aragorn and Arwen is the only one that spans all three films so, unless you want scenes of Rosie Cotton mooching around missing Sam, Arwen's role had to be expanded to bring this element out. She was not there to "pander" to "feminists" and "girl action" devotees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not, by any means, any sort of anti-woman kind of person at all. I just disagree with what I would still consider to be a treat for the woman who didn’t want to wait for RotK to see their gender get to open up a can of whiporc. I’m reasonably happy with the romance portrayal, and would have been upset if this was something that wasn’t portrayed in the story. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And the final decisions on Arwen's role would have been made by Jackson and the production team. Although, I recall seeing on one of the EE documentaries that Liv Tyler was instrumental in persuading them to remove Arwen's role at Helm's Deep, having read furious "anti-XenArwen" comments on LotR websites. Hardly the behaviour of someone desperate for more screen time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If that is true, then I commend her. And I take my “wanting more screen time” idea from an article I read, not from personal accusation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Don't forget that these films are distributed outside America too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I understand, and please don’t be offended at that. I generally make sweeping generalizations of “the rest of America” without consideration for the other nations, but again, it doesn’t reflect any sort of bias. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And please leave the language moderation to the moderators.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I get offended by orc-talk, so I will express my wish not to see it, even with the good old stars blocking it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Knight, your opinion of Liv-Arwen is legend here on the Downs, but I think Saucepan Man's points about the necessity of a romantic story axis and the necessity also of the female part of this axis to be sufficiently fleshed out are valid ones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, I didn’t know it was legend. I’m not like a huge “OH MY GOSH, THERE’S ARWEN AGAIN, NO, NO, NO” kind of person by any means. I’m just one of the crowd that didn’t like Arwen’s increased role. I entirely agree that the romance was necessary; I don’t object to that at all.

Finwe

01-24-2004, 07:16 PM

Honestly, willkill, go get yourself a nice whiskey-and-soda. The movies were PJ's interpretation, and since they were an interpretation, they aren't going to be exactly like the Books. If you wanted to be regaled by a word-for-word account of the books, by all means, go to your nearest bookstore and buy the Trilogy on audio tapes. I think you'll enjoy that more.As a Book-fan, I disagree with the changes made to characters such as Faramir, but as a person, I understand and appreciate them. In the Books, we were given ample opportunities to understand the conflict between him and Denethor, but in the movies, we weren't. Try reading any of the books within the space of 2.5 hours. It is difficult, very difficult. It's also difficult to absorb and remember every bit of information. Look at the movies with that perspective. Don't look at them as Tolkien fans or Book fans, look at them as people.

Knight of Gondor

01-24-2004, 09:57 PM

We should all probably make it clear that we do NOT feel like we "will kill" Willkill because he doesn't agree with us. We just all happen really love the movies, and not find cause to objection so strongly about the differences. No hard feelings, Uruk Junior.

Lalaith

01-25-2004, 04:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen was just a pandering to feminists and people who wanted more girl action <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...but then XenArwen became SickArwen, thus pandering to anti-feminists ...so now everyone's happy?

dragoneyes

01-25-2004, 05:21 PM

Two things <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>the black riders look weak, stupid and scared<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I must disagree, my young cousin was banned from watching LotR because this scene gave him nightmares, granted he's five, but even he can tell if something is weak, stupid or scared.And lastly, you keep saying how all these extra people such as Imrahil ans Erkenbrand would make the movie better, but when I first watched FotR before reading the books, Boromir made his first appearance and I actually said "Oh no, not another man!" (for some reason I could get to grips with four hobbits, but two men was beyond me) I did pick it up in the end, hence my being here, but these small roles do nothing for the non-book readers and some book readers have very possibly forgotten about these people. There are so many people with small parts, do you hear me complaining about Robin Smallburrows being cut from the film? No, I lived with it, he's not important to the story, I got over it.Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of your points, quite a few actually, but you could have made them more interesting by finding some different way of saying 'that made me mad' (that's my creative writing side kicking in, feel free to ignore it).

willkill4food

01-25-2004, 05:45 PM

To begin, I would just like to say that in real life, I am not nearly as angry about any of these changes as it may seem, it is just as I watch the movies again and again, I have passed the "looking for every little detail" stage and am now in the "looking for every little flaw" stage, but dont get me wrong, I really do enjoy the movies and they make me proud to say Im a Tolkien fan...Meela - To me, they really arnt tiny details, they are small, yet important parts of the movie that PJ, for some reason or another (call it artistic freedom or one too many beers while writing the screenplay) has changed, added or lefted out...in reality, I am not that picky, it is just the more I think about it, the more I realize that PJ should of done this, or shouldnt of done that...maybe I just need a life...Armetiel - Now that I think about it, we do hear Haldir's name in FotR, but seeing him again in Helm's Deep doesnt add anything special, and yes, the viewer may recognize him from FotR, but it just erks me to think that Americans (and other audiences) need to be spoon fed their characters so they dont get confused...Kronos - please dont take me as a cold, arrogante, war mongering fool...but seriously, the viewer never gets to meet the women and children, or even get to know them, they are just nameless faces which are meant to portray the evilness and heartless reality of war. But once again, the more I think about it, the more I dislike those scenes (the attack of the wildmen and the refugees at Helm's Deep), not only because they deviate from the book, but because they are, in all essence, useless. If you ask me, the viewer already sees the effect of war on innocente lives, whether it is the 4 Hobbits cought up in the middle of all this, or the Ents left to defend themselves againt a gathering storm, the addition of a mom and her two kids just doesnt do anything for me, sure I feel sorry for them, but that is the extent of my feeling...and you should remember that instead of getting to see a sneak attack on Theodred and the army of Rohan, you get to see a scene that was repeated from the prolouge to FotR...and about the children in the caves of Helm's Deep, you must also remember that in the books, those caves were filled with fighting and instead of refugees, and I dont think one can really say that PJs reason for putting the children and mothers in the movie was to portray the effects of war, it was more to give some cameo time to family of the cast...Hama - Once again, EE just doesnt float my boat, I would like to see the numbers of the number of tickets sold to see the theatrical editions in the theatre, and the number of DVDs the theatrical edition sold compared to the number of DVDs the EEs sold...I bet you like less than 5% of people that saw LoRT saw the EEs, and that is why I am basing my "beef" with PJ on the theatrical version...Elrond - I agree to some extent, yes, if you want the "true" Tolkien experience then you have to read the books, but I cant stop thinking that because PJ chose to take some artistic freedom, then we will never see many parts of the books on screen, we may never see Tolkien's Faramir, or his Elrond, or Arwen, or his Denethor, and we will never even see GLorfindel, Erkenbrand, or Imrahil on screen, we will never see Gimli and Eomer fighting their way out of the Glittering Caves, we will never see the Eomer, Imrahil and Aragorn meet at the center of Pelanor Feilds where as only a few minutes ago, tens of thousands of enemies stood between them...we will never see that, and thats why I am as hard on PJ as I am...and that brings me to another point, Will LotR EVER been done again? will some other director 20,30,40, or 50 years later decide to remake it? Will it become alike to Shakespear in that every few decades someone does a different version of one of his plays?My answer, no, we will most likely never see another LotR atleast in out time, why? because even though I would like to compare the two, but Tolkien and Shakespear are NOT the same, shakespear wrote plays, which inherently are subject to different interpretations, while Tolkien's work really only has one interpretation, and for that reason we wont see another one, unless sometime in the future some director decides to make LotR 20th century edition (a la Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo decaprio) but if someone did end up doing that, replacing swords with guns (imagine Narsil being a Desert Eagle with "Narsil" written on the side, and Sauron didnt break Narsil, he just unloaded it after killing Elendil, but it had one more bullet and Isildur desperatly shot off the ring with the last bullet, and of course, all of this would take place in East LA) and making ME a town in southern Cali...then, you would see another thread started by me, but this time list would be "ad infinitum"..Rochararwn - <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> i think that peter jackson did a wonderful job for what he had to work with <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>...are you referring to the $300 million dollars, the 18 month long shoot, the entire landscape of New Zealand at his disposal and one of the most talented casts ever assembled (minus denethor)Saucepan Man - Im alright with you disagreeing and nitpicking at my points and arguements, but lay off the spelling man, thats just a low blow =).. Concering the wild men, I know that it indeed happened during the war of the ring, but I would much rather have seen the Battles of the Fords of the Isen (even tohugh they were not depitcted in the books, they did have a drastic influence on the rest of the storyline, as where the wild men attacking did not) than the wild men attacking... I did not say that Arwen and Aragorn were not in love, I said that the depitction of the love story by PJ is just horrible, and most of the elements in the mo0vies had nothing to do with the anything mentioned in the appendix..Cirdan...he was at the Grey Havens!! Where? I guess I have to go see the movie, again...Gollum and Frodo, I know the fight was the same as in the book, it is just maybe a little too weird for me, and not to mention Tolkien didnt really leavethat many notes as to exactly how the scene was to look..Frodo may of been trying to get his ring back, but one has to remember that he just had his finger cut off!!! And Gollum falling off into Mount Doom while celebrating about the ring just has such a sweet sense of Irony to me, an irony that Frodo fighting with Gollum lacks...Knight of Gondor, let the fun commence... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No mention that the Elven rings were made by Celebrindor, not Sauron, which just confsues the viewer as to why the Elves are almost untouched by their rings, while the 9 kings are now wraiths, and all 7 drawven ones are gone.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Where would be a good place to insert this particular fact? The prologue didn’t say that Sauron forged all of the Rings at all. And if they had tried to say it somewhere in the movie, it would be what I refer to as a “TTM”; using dialogue to convey story concepts to the audience that they wouldn’t actually need to tell the people they are talking to. (I call it TTM because of a book that used it all the time) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In the movie, there is no mention of the fact that though the Elven Rings are tied to the fate of the One Ring, they themselves were never touched by Sauron's Hand. It seems if Galadriel had said something about this fact at the Mirror of Galadrial, it would of been nice, but you are right to some extent, there was no real good place to mention this fact.. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes...not to mention almost the entire manner in which he escaped was either cut out or changed to an unrecognizable form.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Again, it’s a time issue. Can you imagine how much time it would take, even in theater time, for them to convey the fact that 17 years past? Besides, who said they didn’t? You saw Bilbo going away, Gandalf left for Gondor, researching, etc, the Black Riders leaving Minas Morgul, and so on. It COULD have been 17 years. But Frodo isn’t going to go “Well, Samwise, my somewhat drunk but loyal servant, what a lovely 17 years these have been since Bilbo left.” (An example of “TTM”, there) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Once again, I agree to some extent, it would be hard to convey that 17 years past, but also there is the fact that Gandalf wanted Frodo to leave the Shire, not altogether disappear, that and maybe some mention of Frodo's intention of moving to Buckland in order to hide his departure, but you are write that these would be hard to do, but Im not the screenwriter/producer/director, PJ is... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The way to Bree was way to short, I do believe that Tom Bombadil had no real pace in the movie, but still, it seems like just a stroll in the park to get to Bree...If maybe somehow they could of had the barrowdowns without tom bombadil, that would give an explaination to how Merry wounded the WiKi so badly, maybe Frodo could of saved the 3 hobbits from the Barrowwight, or something to that effect.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------People already complained about the walking that was already included in the movie, much less the books. If they had put more walking in to Bree, then others would complain of the too-boring walking scenes. PJ can’t please everyone. Besides, you should know that in movies, a large amount of walking, or time can take place without any indicator that it had. Barrow-Downs would have taken too long, and left more people going “HUH?” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Its the walking that I have a problem with in the first place, in the books a lot more happens, while in the movie it is just a casual stroll with a few nasty black riders after them...and though I know deep down in my heart that Tom Bombadil had no place in the movies, I think that the Barrowdowns could of been, and I think that a Barrowwight would not of bored the audience... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aragorn using another sword and a knife besides Anduril and not having Anduril be forged until RotK just got me mad, if Aragorn had the shards of Narsil at Weathertop in the movie, weathertop would not of been so horrible... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I’ve explained this several times before, but I agree with that change. Aragorn lived a rugged life for the sixty years or so that he wandered the Wild. He would not be able to have survived, carrying around a broken hilt of a sword! Plus, it makes more sense for the honorable heirloom of the house of Elendil to rest in the dignity of Rivendell. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe Aragorn shouldnt of had the shards of Narsil, but still the scene on Weathertop really makes a double standard for the Nazgul...at Weathertop they are fought off by one man with a torch and a sword, but in the rest of the movie they were practically invincible, I just wanted some explainaation as to why the nazgul fled so easily (a reference to their hate of fire) and maybe Frodo attacking would of been nice... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The scene of Bill the Pony being left go at the gates of moria....they never showed the scene were they bought bill, so why have the scene were they let him go? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------More time. Everyone would get board of sitting around watching them buy a pony. “Big deal, so they buy a pony.” (Some might think) At least he was included! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im not asking for the "pony-buying" scene to be in the movies, I just want to know if we had never seen, heard of, or knew the name of Bill the Pony, then why does PJ have them leave the pony behind at the gates of Moria...a waste or precious seonds...we could of seen the full end of Isildur but instead we are stuck with a Pony we have never heard of... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The adition of the wild men attacking parts of Rohan in the begining, I dont care about any peasants getting killed, I care about orcs, Balrogs, Trolls and Nazgul being killed... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you ask me, you are a little inconsistent. You didn’t like the Nazgûl being battled, and yet you want more walking and pony-buying? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You misunderstand me, I would of liked the Nazgul being battled if it made more sense and was consistant with the portrayel of the Nazgul in other scenes, I want more eventful walking, not just walking, and I want the pony entirely cut out...and the wild men just didnt do anything for me... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The taking of the women and children to Helms Deep, if there already not enough women and children in the caves in the book, PJ has to make the riding of the Riders into a refugee train...once again...I dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Well, a lot of other people DO care, and PJ wanted to get across that the innocent suffered in the oppression of Saruman. While on a massive scale of dark lords, Elves, men, orcs, etc., you have regular peasants, probably not too different from you and me, being forced into an alternate life because of Sauron. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I alteady felt that the oppression and suffering was already well enough conveyed, but once again, I dont really think that PJ added these parts in just for the effect it conveys about war, I cant forget the families of the cats that PJ put into the movie... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No extra men at Helms Deep before the battle started, no mention of the scattering of Erkerbrand's men, instead it was replace by ELVES and a runaway son, probably the worst part of TTT... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Runaway son? Do you mean Éomer? First, he’s a nephew, and second, he didn’t run away, he was banished. People have already raised objections to the Elves, so I won’t go there. It departed from the book, yeah. But it was still cool. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry about that, I did mean Eomer, I get his and Faramir's connection to their lords messed up sometimes, but still I did not like Eomer's banishment one bit, probably because I liked the things he did at Helm's Deep so much...and I do agree that the elves were "cool", but it just sort of is a domino effect, eomer was gone, so they needed elves at helms deep, so they also needed to change...it just goes on and on forever....and also, the elves at helms deep just go against everything that the elves stand for in the 3rd Age, and everything that Galadriel and Elrond believe, in the books and in the movies...and if we are going to abandon all reason and allow anything to pass no matter how for it strays from the books, then next The Elves of Mirkwood, the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain,a dn the Men of Bard would be riding to save Gondor at Pelanor Fields... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No more shots of the actors children, its bad enough to see random extras cower in fear, but when its a cameo from a child or spouse of an actor, it just gets me mad, not to meantion a good 10 minutes were spent on shots of the helpless women and children.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Willkill, this movie was about more than just ugly orcs and beautiful women. It was a tremendous study in the human qualities such as mercy, justice, bravery, heroism, endurance, perseverance and so on. I think at some points you expect too much, and at others, you expect too little. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I felt that the books themselves depicted the qualities that you mentioned above, and I did not feel that the addtition of and people who have had their lives changed for ever due to the war adds anything in the way of the qualities above, it detracts IMHO...and I felt that almost every part of the story conveys those qualities, from Frodo, Sam and Gollum, to Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas, to Merry, Eowyn and Theoden, to Pipping, Faramir and Gandalf...(I made them all into Trios...wow..hehe) and for me, seeing the men of Rohan and Gondor fighting for their lives, does more to move my heart towards pity than any poor peasants... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gollum turning Frodo against Sam was just unneccesary and bad, there was no need for it, and not only that, it got me mad, I already hated gollum, no need for me to hate him more... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------You hated him because you read the books. For the rest of America, there was the turning of Frodo against Sam. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In the movies, you really dont feel any pity at all for Gollum, and for me it is exactly because of Gollum turning Frodo against Sam...in the books the reader had to decide for himself whether to applaud GOllums death, or to Pity it...in the movies, it was already done for you... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Denethor was AWFUL absolutly aful, I mean dear god, I dont know if it is the actor of the role that was written for him, but every little thing he did ****ed me off, first with hi s rambling until gandalf hit him, then with his eating, and then the pyre.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------You just angered the almighty princess of Denethorism: Meela! Back, girl, back! (And again, if you wouldn’t mind watching the language) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am a quiet large Denethor fan in the books, but I do cant stand Denethor in the movie, he is too crude, too mean, too arrogante, too crazy and just too plain ignorant for my tastes... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The love story and elrond again, I didnt think it was possible , but the flashbacks and the scenes with arwen were worse than in TTT...not to mention Elrond riding all the way into rohan just to deliver a sword just shows that PJ forgot about Anduril for a while and finally remembered he needed to put it in... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you truly believe PJ forgot Andúril, then you honestly understand nothing of the movie business. I alone understand very little myself, but these weren’t made one right after the other, but all together. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not implying that PJ ACTUALLY forgot about Anduril, and I know that all 3 movies were made at the same time, so it would be almost impossible for him to forget...but I felt that Aduril was almost added in as a last minute thing, I mean, how did Elrond make it all the way to Rohan so fast? but most of all, why didnt it happen in FotR? There is no reason in my mind for PJ to wait and put it in in RotK... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Celeborn boarding the boat into the west, just a useless change from the book, and also I didnt like how few people boarded the boat, I mean its not like any one of them knows how to sail in a boat, I was under the impression that a very large host of elves sailed west at the same time.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------But at the same time, Bilbo, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn, and Gandalf all climbed on board the ship, and then you couldn’t see them any more so you could concentrate on Frodo. Maybe the others were out of view. Again, probably another effort not to confuse poor perplexed mainstream movie-goers with nameless faces that they don’t know whether or not they are someone to keep track of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im referring to all of those poeple boarding the boat, but my question is, which one of them knows how to sail? (most likely Gandalf or maybe Galadrial, who sailed from Valinor in the first age)...but I was under the impression that the boats that the elves boarded were giant and fair, not a tiny littly fishing boat...and I also thought that a very large host of Elves set sail for the west at the end of the 3rd Age, not just one boat...I would of liked to see the one boat join a giant fleet of elven boats at the grey havens... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No Cirdan...now thats just mean, I wanted to see Cirdan...you dont see a bearded elf every day... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------*Cocks eyebrow* I did not remember Cirdan having a beard. But you could see the dude, in the prologue. And I believe he was there in the shot at the end, standing by. But no beard... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cirdan had a beard, atleast in the books...the only bearded elf ever mentioned by Tolkein... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I agree with you on some of these issues, but I don’t see the need to raise such an objection about it. The movies were still extremely, exceedingly, spectacularly, exceptionally, extraordinarily, tremendously, enormously, remarkably, outstandingly, terrifically, marvelously, stupendously, staggeringly, dazzlingly, wonderfully done, and I think Peter Jackson should be commended by us, not chastised. He did a great job, and deserves a lot of credit for the massive amounts of work he put in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cant.....take.....so.....many.......big words......brain melting.....please...turn off.....thesaurus......just kidding =)PS, if you notice, I refrained from any "orc-talk" in this post...though I do think if you are going to be posting on the internet, one probably should have tougher skin, for not all forums are as clean and well modderated as BD...and I do respect the need for a clean and well moderated forum and I will keep my foul langauge in black speech and not english...-willkill

Lalaith

01-25-2004, 06:19 PM

I agree with many of your points, willkill, but not all. (Our chief point of disagreement being the frightened villagers, women and children, which I found a good addition.) And while I too loved and enjoyed those films, I don't think they were by any means perfect and I am glad that all posts in the movie forum don't chime in an almighty hallelujah chorus of gratitude to PJ - it would make terribly dull reading, for one thing. Lists like willkill's get us all talking, don't they? And incidently, while willkill's language is certainly exhuberant and somewhat free, grammatically speaking, I think to term it offensive is being overly precious...

Armetiel

01-25-2004, 07:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Armetiel - Now that I think about it, we do hear Haldir's name in FotR, but seeing him again in Helm's Deep doesnt add anything special, and yes, the viewer may recognize him from FotR, but it just erks me to think that Americans (and other audiences) need to be spoon fed their characters so they dont get confused...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not American,(although I know you said other audiences too ) and even though I don't get mixed up having had read the book many times, the rest of my family and friends (other than my bro) hadn't read the book and they all said on numerous occassions that the only thing they didn't like about the movie was that there were too many different characters and names and they were getting confused...And they did recognize Haldir when they came,, if he had been someone that was completely new to them, they would have been even more confused...I heard often enough from them "Who's THIS guy?" about characteurs that are just being introduced and I'd have to say "wait and see, he wasn't in it yet." To which they'd reply. "O, not ANOTHER new dude" (or something along those lines) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I alteady felt that the oppression and suffering was already well enough conveyed, but once again, I dont really think that PJ added these parts in just for the effect it conveys about war, I cant forget the families of the cats that PJ put into the movie... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Families of CATS? willkill? I don't remember these... However, I'll assume you mean CAST, and with that thought, I'll comment...I personally think it's Awesome that he included the families of cast members in the movie...Especially his own kids...I mean as a father it shows he's spending more time with them in letting them come to his work, and also, perhaps they would like to be actors, this is certainly a great way to help them start their career. And the fact that he also let's the other cast members have their families in the movies as well shows to me how much he values family life, and knows that the family connection is an important one...That said, I'm sure if it weren't family members in those shots, it would have been someone else. So why does it matter to us whether or not those ppl are related to the main cast or not. In fact probably some of the extra's were family members with each other too (but not family of the "big stars") Does it really matter? I mean I can see it mattering more if they did a terrible job at acting, but I can't say they did any worse than anyone else. And although having the woman and kids may not have added anything other than "pity for them" to you...it added a lot to me, and many others...I'm sure PJ was thinking of the ppl who would like them in the movie (the majority) rather than the select few who wouldn't. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Once again, EE just doesnt float my boat, I would like to see the numbers of the number of tickets sold to see the theatrical editions in the theatre, and the number of DVDs the theatrical edition sold compared to the number of DVDs the EEs sold...I bet you like less than 5% of people that saw LoRT saw the EEs, and that is why I am basing my "beef" with PJ on the theatrical version...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree that barely anyone has seen these, but maybe you should consider basing your "beef" with those that made him cut the parts out, rather than PJ, who wanted them in. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Im referring to all of those poeple boarding the boat, but my question is, which one of them knows how to sail? (most likely Gandalf or maybe Galadrial, who sailed from Valinor in the first age)...but I was under the impression that the boats that the elves boarded were giant and fair, not a tiny littly fishing boat...and I also thought that a very large host of Elves set sail for the west at the end of the 3rd Age, not just one boat...I would of liked to see the one boat join a giant fleet of elven boats at the grey havens...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My quess would be that Cirdan was sailing.\[ 9:02 PM January 25, 2004: Message edited by: Armetiel ]

ArathorofBarahir

01-26-2004, 03:49 PM

You want my opinion about our analysis of everything wrong with the movies? Well here it is: All I could come to was you just wanted to b*tch and moan. I mean if you are going to be that picky about it then why bother going to see it. Just be glad that it got made into live action movies.

willkill4food

01-28-2004, 07:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm not American,(although I know you said other audiences too ) and even though I don't get mixed up having had read the book many times, the rest of my family and friends (other than my bro) hadn't read the book and they all said on numerous occassions that the only thing they didn't like about the movie was that there were too many different characters and names and they were getting confused...And they did recognize Haldir when they came,, if he had been someone that was completely new to them, they would have been even more confused...I heard often enough from them "Who's THIS guy?" about characteurs that are just being introduced and I'd have to say "wait and see, he wasn't in it yet." To which they'd reply. "O, not ANOTHER new dude" (or something along those lines) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, sometimes I wish PJ had a slightly more inteligent audicence to appeal to so he didnt have to dumb down so many things... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And although having the woman and kids may not have added anything other than "pity for them" to you...it added a lot to me, and many others...I'm sure PJ was thinking of the ppl who would like them in the movie (the majority) rather than the select few who wouldn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I felt as though the theme of "the horrors of war and the loss of innocence" was already well enough developed without the extra shots of the helpless women and children, first through the 4 hobbits themsevles, through the shire (Including what Sam saw in the mirror of Galadriel), through Smeagol, and through many other characters, and I just felt that of all the parts that showed the horror of war, the parts of the children and women just was the worst, not to mention the longest and IMO, most unnecessary... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You want my opinion about our analysis of everything wrong with the movies? Well here it is: All I could come to was you just wanted to b*tch and moan. I mean if you are going to be that picky about it then why bother going to see it. Just be glad that it got made into live action movies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thats nice, now go away...-willkill

Armetiel

01-28-2004, 07:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm not American,(although I know you said other audiences too ) and even though I don't get mixed up having had read the book many times, the rest of my family and friends (other than my bro) hadn't read the book and they all said on numerous occassions that the only thing they didn't like about the movie was that there were too many different characters and names and they were getting confused...And they did recognize Haldir when they came,, if he had been someone that was completely new to them, they would have been even more confused...I heard often enough from them "Who's THIS guy?" about characteurs that are just being introduced and I'd have to say "wait and see, he wasn't in it yet." To which they'd reply. "O, not ANOTHER new dude" (or something along those lines)and _______________________________Yeah, sometimes I wish PJ had a slightly more inteligent audicence to appeal to so he didnt have to dumb down so many things... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And who, may I ask, is to say that my friends and family are NOT intelligent. (in fact, they are intelligent enough to spell the word) However, they can be intellegent and have not read the book, and with the amount that PJ had to leave out due to time restrictions, I can see how it would get confusing...especially since they only saw them one at a time a year apart. (they did not rewatch them, as I did, many times over.) Therefore, adding even more characters in, would confuse them more. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I felt as though the theme of "the horrors of war and the loss of innocence" was already well enough developed without the extra shots of the helpless women and children, first through the 4 hobbits themsevles, through the shire (Including what Sam saw in the mirror of Galadriel), through Smeagol, and through many other characters, and I just felt that of all the parts that showed the horror of war, the parts of the children and women just was the worst, not to mention the longest and IMO, most unnecessary... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>maybe, but as I said, your opinion there is the minority, and PJ was aiming for the majority.Anyways, i think the point was to show how it effected those who weren't involved and couldn't defend themselves. The hobbits obviously could, and did, defend themselves and were very strongly involved. As for what Sam saw in the mirror, you are right, that did a good job of showing it there, however, that is one little clip in the first movie, and if you watch them once each and a year apart, chances are you'll have forgotten that one small part.

Knight of Gondor

01-28-2004, 09:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Once again, I agree to some extent, it would be hard to convey that 17 years past, but also there is the fact that Gandalf wanted Frodo to leave the Shire, not altogether disappear, that and maybe some mention of Frodo's intention of moving to Buckland in order to hide his departure,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I recall that the transition from Minas Tirith to The Green Dragon implied a lot of time had passed. Especially since Frodo had to go digging for the envelope that contained the Ring. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> though I know deep down in my heart that Tom Bombadil had no place in the movies, I think that the Barrowdowns could of been, and I think that a Barrowwight would not of bored the audience...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In this case, I think you overestimate the audience. They’d most likely have been going “Huh, what’s that big hill? Who’s the ghost thingy?” and be totally lost. Plus, you and almost all other of the Rabid Fans Of Tom Bombadil would have been angered if he wasn’t given credit for the rescue out of the Wight’s tomb. How would they have been gotten out? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Maybe Aragorn shouldnt of had the shards of Narsil, but still the scene on Weathertop really makes a double standard for the Nazgul...at Weathertop they are fought off by one man with a torch and a sword, but in the rest of the movie they were practically invincible, I just wanted some explainaation as to why the nazgul fled so easily (a reference to their hate of fire) and maybe Frodo attacking would of been nice...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, they really don’t seem altogether that spooky at first, if you notice. (In the books) For instance, the one that shows up at Farmer Maggot’s house talks regular, and although he creeps Maggot out, he doesn’t make him cover his ears and hide. It’s a theory, but perhaps they weren’t that powerful until they returned unhorsed and unrobed to Sauron. And yeah, Frodo could have been a little more on the offensive, but he displayed a generally wimpy attitude the whole film. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I just want to know if we had never seen, heard of, or knew the name of Bill the Pony, then why does PJ have them leave the pony behind at the gates of Moria...a waste or precious seonds...we could of seen the full end of Isildur but instead we are stuck with a Pony we have never heard of...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If PJ had left out Bill, then trust me, many more fans of Bill would be angered. Why would we want to see the “full end of Isildur”? What else would you want to see beyond what the EE showed us? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I alteady felt that the oppression and suffering was already well enough conveyed, but once again, I dont really think that PJ added these parts in just for the effect it conveys about war, I cant forget the families of the cats that PJ put into the movie... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Remember, these movies had to function for more than just avid book readers. This is why we saw the oppression stuff. That, and it’s just good cinema – I liked it. As for the cats....meow meow. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I felt that the books themselves depicted the qualities that you mentioned above, and I did not feel that the addtition of and people who have had their lives changed for ever due to the war adds anything in the way of the qualities above, it detracts IMHO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again...I’d like to see the statistics on how many of the movie fans hadn’t read the books. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In the movies, you really dont feel any pity at all for Gollum,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg to differ. Actually, Knights don’t beg, so “I differ”. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I am a quiet large Denethor fan in the books, but I do cant stand Denethor in the movie, he is too crude, too mean, too arrogante, too crazy and just too plain ignorant for my tastes...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I didn’t particularly like the Flaming Plunge of Doom, nor the Staff Whack (is that in the video game, whack-a-Denethor?), nor even Shadowfax’s bout of boxing with the good Steward. (Although you must admit Denethor was already clearly in a suicidal frame of mind), but as for his crude, mean, and arrogant attitude . . . don’t know if you checked the books (I say that facetiously) but that’s pretty much who Denethor is. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I felt that Aduril was almost added in as a last minute thing, I mean, how did Elrond make it all the way to Rohan so fast? but most of all, why didnt it happen in FotR? There is no reason in my mind for PJ to wait and put it in in RotK...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Andúril was slated to be delivered to Aragorn at Helm’s Deep. We should be grateful every day that this didn’t happen. But there was a reason for having it in RotK, namely, to follow the story line that Aragorn was reluctant to take hold of his kingship. As for Elrond’s hasty ride...well, we never are told how long it takes to muster at Dunharrow, or how much time passes between the beacons of Gondor lighting, and the siege-laying. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Im referring to all of those poeple boarding the boat, but my question is, which one of them knows how to sail? (most likely Gandalf or maybe Galadrial, who sailed from Valinor in the first age)...but I was under the impression that the boats that the elves boarded were giant and fair, not a tiny littly fishing boat...and I also thought that a very large host of Elves set sail for the west at the end of the 3rd Age, not just one boat...I would of liked to see the one boat join a giant fleet of elven boats at the grey havens...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you missed the point of what I said when I said there could be others out of sight. By that, I meant other Elves that had skill in sailing. I can just hear Galadriel now. “Ahoy, Gandalf! Raise the main sail!” “Aye aye, Elf-queen!” “Captain!” (shouts Elrond) “Put ‘er a tad to starboard!” <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Cant.....take.....so.....many.......big words......brain melting.....please...turn off.....thesaurus......just kidding =)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nuts, he saw through my Thesaurus. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> PS, if you notice, I refrained from any "orc-talk" in this post...though I do think if you are going to be posting on the internet, one probably should have tougher skin, for not all forums are as clean and well modderated as BD...and I do respect the need for a clean and well moderated forum and I will keep my foul langauge in black speech and not english... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We appreciates it, we does. And I realize there are dirtier forums out there. That’s why I choose to hang out here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You want my opinion about our analysis of everything wrong with the movies? Well here it is: All I could come to was you just wanted to b*tch and moan. I mean if you are going to be that picky about it then why bother going to see it. Just be glad that it got made into live action movies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Arathor, Armetiel, he’s got a right to voice his opinion, and offer up his differences for discussion. Perhaps you should take Arathor's own suggestion; if you don’t like what he’s saying, then why bother to read it? (I already voiced a somewhat controversial opinion on the language, so I think that still applies...) (By the way, Arathor, I note that you are from Kentucky. Did you check out the post (I think it’s in N & N) called “lighting up”? It actually has to do with pipes and the Shire, and I make mention of Kentucky influencing Tolkien’s image of the Shire)

Armetiel

01-29-2004, 01:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You want my opinion about our analysis of everything wrong with the movies? Well here it is: All I could come to was you just wanted to b*tch and moan. I mean if you are going to be that picky about it then why bother going to see it. Just be glad that it got made into live action movies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arathor, Armetiel, he’s got a right to voice his opinion, and offer up his differences for discussion. Perhaps you should take Arathor's own suggestion; if you don’t like what he’s saying, then why bother to read it? (I already voiced a somewhat controversial opinion on the language, so I think that still applies...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Knight of Gondor, Just out of curiosity, who said I didn't like what he's saying? I am simply agreeing or disagreeing with his statements, just as you are. I never once said I didn't think he had a right to state his own opinions, but I think I have just as much a right as him.Also, I probably take as much offense to the the language as you do. I do not use that language myself, and never have.I am not quite sure why you seem to be tying me in with that quote by Arathor at all, but if you could explain it to me, please do.

Eorl of Rohan

01-29-2004, 05:11 AM

I don't know if I'm being rather obsessed, but I still don't like the movie. Firstly, I saw it in Korean version, and they translated terribly and confused everyone who wasn't able to listen to English.Secondly, what affected me most was the proud Denethor son of Ecthelion portrayed like... *shudder* and Faramir, instead of being wise and learned,,,,, thirdly, and greatest, THEY DID NOT PUT ANY POETRY IN. IT just ruined the whole movie.

willkill4food

02-02-2004, 11:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And who, may I ask, is to say that my friends and family are NOT intelligent. (in fact, they are intelligent enough to spell the word) However, they can be intellegent and have not read the book, and with the amount that PJ had to leave out due to time restrictions, I can see how it would get confusing...especially since they only saw them one at a time a year apart. (they did not rewatch them, as I did, many times over.) Therefore, adding even more characters in, would confuse them more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If they havnt read LotR, then they cant be that inteligent....just kidding...I just find it sad that audiences get confused so easily, add in a few new characters and everyone gets lost, but I do believe that PJ could of added in a few more characters in TTT and RotK. In TTT the only characters added in where Theoden, Wormtongue, Eomer, Faramir, Treebeard, and Eowyn...and in RotK only Denethor, Gothmog and the King of the Undead were introduced, and compare that with FotR, where not only the 9 members of the fellowship were introduced, but Isildur, Elrond, Arwen, Saruman, and many others... I dont think that a group of Rangers, Prince Imrahil, or Erkenbrand would of really confused the audience, but you never know, I often find myself overestimating the general public's ability to comprehend simple facts... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> maybe, but as I said, your opinion there is the minority, and PJ was aiming for the majority.Anyways, i think the point was to show how it effected those who weren't involved and couldn't defend themselves. The hobbits obviously could, and did, defend themselves and were very strongly involved. As for what Sam saw in the mirror, you are right, that did a good job of showing it there, however, that is one little clip in the first movie, and if you watch them once each and a year apart, chances are you'll have forgotten that one small part. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I just feel that the war refugees were too hollywood for LotR, and their addition just tries to make the motif of the horrors of war a little too obvious, I feel that it does not take a genious to realize that while LotR does glorify and glamorize certain parts of war, war itself is an evil and horrible thing, and I did not need helpless children and women to clarify that for me...Sure the hobbits could defend themselves, but it is not a question of whether they could defend themselves or not, it is about the fact that here are 4 helpless, small, peace loving Hobbits qho get caught of in the fortunes of this all, and here are these four small characters, fighting to preserve their home and way of life, and yet have no real control over what happens, they are just caught up in the wave of what is going on...I just dont like the women and children, if you havnt figured that out yet... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- though I know deep down in my heart that Tom Bombadil had no place in the movies, I think that the Barrowdowns could of been, and I think that a Barrowwight would not of bored the audience... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------In this case, I think you overestimate the audience. They’d most likely have been going “Huh, what’s that big hill? Who’s the ghost thingy?” and be totally lost. Plus, you and almost all other of the Rabid Fans Of Tom Bombadil would have been angered if he wasn’t given credit for the rescue out of the Wight’s tomb. How would they have been gotten out? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Probably right, but still, I would like atleast some explaination as to why Marry's sword ingures the witch king so badly, and at the same time I would like a little more on the way to Bree than dodging black riders on horses, but thats just me...probably none of my ideas would really work, but nonetheless, they are issues that I have with LotR and PJs version, and I just think if he could of somehow found a way to include some of the things that happened in the books on the way to Bree in FotR, I think it would of been better... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe Aragorn shouldnt of had the shards of Narsil, but still the scene on Weathertop really makes a double standard for the Nazgul...at Weathertop they are fought off by one man with a torch and a sword, but in the rest of the movie they were practically invincible, I just wanted some explainaation as to why the nazgul fled so easily (a reference to their hate of fire) and maybe Frodo attacking would of been nice... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Well, they really don’t seem altogether that spooky at first, if you notice. (In the books) For instance, the one that shows up at Farmer Maggot’s house talks regular, and although he creeps Maggot out, he doesn’t make him cover his ears and hide. It’s a theory, but perhaps they weren’t that powerful until they returned unhorsed and unrobed to Sauron. And yeah, Frodo could have been a little more on the offensive, but he displayed a generally wimpy attitude the whole film. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When the nazgul want to, they can appear like normal men, but when they are on the hunt they are very scary, strong, and just plain cool, but that is not how they are in FotR, especially on weathertop where they not only appear to think the heart of hobbits is in the shoulder, they just seem too whimpy. I know that their main weapon was fear, but they could atleast appear to have some inteligence and fighting ability...not to mention if Frodo would just stop crying in the corner and actually do something...but we alteast both agree that Frodo is too whimpy...-willkill[ 1:08 PM February 02, 2004: Message edited by: willkill4food ]

willkill4food

02-02-2004, 12:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just want to know if we had never seen, heard of, or knew the name of Bill the Pony, then why does PJ have them leave the pony behind at the gates of Moria...a waste or precious seonds...we could of seen the full end of Isildur but instead we are stuck with a Pony we have never heard of... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------If PJ had left out Bill, then trust me, many more fans of Bill would be angered. Why would we want to see the “full end of Isildur”? What else would you want to see beyond what the EE showed us? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I didnt realize that Bill the Pony had such a loyal following, I just considered him a pony...*runs from Bill the Pony fanclub*....but still, we are talking about two different audicences, first you talk about not wanting to confuse or anger the general audience, and now you dont want to anger the loyal fans...you cant play both sides...either you add things to make the Tolkien fans happy, or you dumb it down for the general audience...so either Bill the Pony stays for the Tolkien fans and confuses the general audience, or he goes and people make posts online saying "Where is Bill?"...and about Isildur's "full" end, I just want what was in the EE to have made it into the Theatrical edition, as I think it adds some effect to how people see the Ring...-willkill

Armetiel

02-02-2004, 01:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In TTT the only characters added in where Theoden, Wormtongue, Eomer, Faramir, Treebeard, and Eowyn...and in RotK only Denethor, Gothmog and the King of the Undead were introduced, and compare that with FotR, where not only the 9 members of the fellowship were introduced, but Isildur, Elrond, Arwen, Saruman, and many others...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lol, Good point, you are right here. So this must be the reason that my friends were so confused during FOTR but understood TTT and ROTK perfectly...Oh, and as for you just not liking the woman and kids...I had kind of figured that out

The Only Real Estel

02-02-2004, 03:16 PM

My list of defending FOTR <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I just want to know if we had never seen, heard of, or knew the name of Bill the Pony, then why does PJ have them leave the pony behind at the gates of Moria...a waste or precious seonds...we could of seen the full end of Isildur but instead we are stuck with a Pony we have never heard of...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It only makes sense for them to have a baggage pony along. As to the significance of the pony, they didn't go into the whole purchase of him at Bree, etc., so taking Bill out of the movie would only have gained them a minute at max. Most of the scenes he's in were shot for the other characters, so to have him left out wouldn't have changed the time of those shots. The only real screen time Bill gets is the 30 second Bill/Sam/Aragorn scene outside of Moria. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No mention that the Elven rings were made by Celebrindor, not Sauron, which just confsues the viewer as to why the Elves are almost untouched by their rings, while the 9 kings are now wraiths, and all 7 drawven ones are gone..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh, most people just forget about the dwarven & elven rings, & it worked fine that way. That's why I thought it was pointless to get that quick shot of Galadriel showing Frodo the Ring and saying, "This is Nenya, the Ring of Adament. And I am it's Keeper." Why show it? Especially if you're not going to expound on it any more than that . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes...not to mention almost the entire manner in which he escaped was either cut out or changed to an unrecognizable form..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True, but the directors didn't want us to see a 50 year-old rather large hobbit going on a long journey, he wanted someone younger & perhaps thinner than the typical hobbit. I don't know if you want to watch 3 movies of a 50 year-old rather large hobbit starring in them, but I'd rather not. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Weathertop was a disaster, not only do the black riders look weak, stupid and scared, but there is no mention of their fear of fire<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>if Aragorn had the shards of Narsil at Weathertop in the movie, weathertop would not of been so horrible...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>lol, I'd say it was pretty obvious by the ringwraiths reaction to Strider's fire brands that they were afraid of fire! Also, how would Aragorn drawing a broken sword please anyone but the book reading audience?[ 10:05 PM February 02, 2004: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ][ 10:18 PM February 02, 2004: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

The Only Real Estel

02-02-2004, 09:29 PM

My list of defending TTT <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Eomer's "flight" from Rohan just got me mad, not only does it thouroughly mess up Helms Deep, but it doesnt fit with Eomer's character one bit...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Although I would very much liked to have Eomer appear at Helm's Deep, I don't agree that he 'flew' from Rohan at all. Obviously he was forced out, & I don't blame him for gathering men & leaving. Besides, he was doing what we should have been doing under a coherant King, so no problem for me there. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>no mention of Erkenbrand, and no reason given why Theodred died...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I just assumed that Theodred died because of a nasty head wound, which I naturally assumed that he got in war, not falling off the gate of Edoras or anything like that . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>PJ has to make the riding of the Riders into a refugee train...once again...I dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But try looking at the women & children & the effect of war upon them threw their eyes...movies are always some much better if you put yourself in their place. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Faramir...I dont are that his character was much better in the EE, I went to the theaters and paided 10 many times to watch the final version, and im angry...Faramir was supposed to be portrayed as a wise strong, fair and gentle man who even when the ring of power is within his grasp, refuses it and lets Frodo and Sam go....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with you in not liking Faramir, & although the EE made him seem better, it by no means totally redeemed his character (in my opinion). And yet, look at your own words 'I went to the theaters and paided 10 many times to watch the final version'. If you went to the theaters & paided 10 (dollars, I assume) many times, than he must not have ruined the movies for you to badly !

The Only Real Estel

02-02-2004, 09:44 PM

My list of defending ROTK <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Theoden's reluctanse to go to the aid of Gondor, didnt make any sense, and this coupled with the amazing army that appears out of no where just got me mad, if they only had 300 men at Helms Deep, they should be riding to gondor with about 15 men...I really hate the excuse of "the other men were far away"...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's partially that the other people were to far away (in RotK, they had 3 days to come, in TTT they had less than half a day), but more the shortage of time. Why risk even 10-15 messangers when it's unlikely any men will come in time to help? You've just lost 10-15 men instantly right there... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Denethor was AWFUL absolutly aful, I mean dear god, I dont know if it is the actor of the role that was written for him, but every little thing he did ****ed me off, first with hi s rambling until gandalf hit him, then with his eating, and then the pyre.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It wasn't the actor, he played an excellent role, for the script he was given. It was the directors that over-played him a little bit, I wasn't to thrilled with his character on the whole (yes, I know I'm not defending anything here...unless you count me defending John Noble's acting ) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The love story and elrond again, I didnt think it was possible , but the flashbacks and the scenes with arwen were worse than in TTT...not to mention Elrond riding all the way into rohan just to deliver a sword just shows that PJ forgot about Anduril for a while and finally remembered he needed to put it in...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll agree that I thought the Arwen sideplot was darn close to a total waste of time in RotK, but you're over-exaggerating with the sword. Elrond rode to give Aragorn his sword because:a. It signified that he was accepting his destiny & taking a major step forward to accepting the throne. -&- b. Perhaps Elrond knew that Aragorn would need the sword in order to command the Dead? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No Cirdan...now thats just mean, I wanted to see Cirdan...you dont see a bearded elf every day...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It would've been cool to see him, but hey, if we're going to be talking confusing scenes, here's a prime example of one had it been in the movie (I've heard that people say Cirdan was there, but if so, I could swear he had no beard). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Gollum fighting an invisible Frodo just looked too strange, and not to mention Frodo pushing gollum off the edge got me angry, he just lost of a finger, he was in no condition to fight gollum for the ring...it should of been a shorter struggle and gollum should of fallen off...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Frodo pushing Gollum off? He didn't push him off, he was fighting madly to get the Ring back, & Gollum (& Frodo, really) fell off the edge in their battle, not because of a pre-meditated push. As to him just having got his finger bitten off...he was fighting to get 'his precious' back, considering how the thing had grown on him, it comes as no suprise to me that he fought as hard as he did. Hopefully I will not be in trouble with the ops for posting 3 times in a row, but I really didn't want to combine all the posts on the movies in to one endless post...I'll be lucky enough if anyone reads everthing as it is !

Knight of Gondor

02-03-2004, 09:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Knight of Gondor, Just out of curiosity, who said I didn't like what he's saying? I am simply agreeing or disagreeing with his statements, just as you are. I never once said I didn't think he had a right to state his own opinions, but I think I have just as much a right as him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You’re right, Armetiel, I think I read too much into your comment about being intelligent enough to spell the word. My statement was aimed mostly at Arathor. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In TTT the only characters added in where Theoden, Wormtongue, Eomer, Faramir, Treebeard, and Eowyn...and in RotK only Denethor, Gothmog and the King of the Undead were introduced, and compare that with FotR, where not only the 9 members of the fellowship were introduced, but Isildur, Elrond, Arwen, Saruman, and many others... I dont think that a group of Rangers, Prince Imrahil, or Erkenbrand would of really confused the audience, but you never know, I often find myself overestimating the general public's ability to comprehend simple facts...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not exactly. YOU know as well as I do that Elendil, Isildur, Gil-Galad, and Elrond were crucial members in the prologue. The audience looks and sees a bunch of people fighting. Gollum was probably not expected to surface again, but everyone saw him.In Fellowship, there are loads of hobbits. We’re only concerned with and introduced to Frodo, Bilbo, Merry, Pippin (who most can’t tell apart) and Sam. Oh, and Rosie. Then Gandalf comes in. (Almost any Tolkien illiterate who saw the movie remembers him) Then Saruman. Then nine Nazgûl, Barliman Butterbur and Strider. Then Arwen. Then Elrond. Then we have this huge council where we see a BUNCH of faces. Are they all important? Some? Which ones? There’s Legolas (“the elf-guy with the long hair” is often the description for mind-numbed audience members), Gimli (“the dwarf guy” , Boromir (“the other guy with the sword, that got killed” , Gandalf, (“Gandalf” , Aragorn (“Strider”, or, “the guy with the sword” or, in my parents’ case, “the heir” , plus Frodo and Sam, plus two hobbits they can’t keep straight. Next load of characters are Haldir, Galadriel, and Celeborn. This among the bunch of elves, a crowd from which the audience had no idea whether a defined character might step forth from at any moment. And what IS Boromir talking about in Lothlórien with Aragorn anyway? (When he references Gondor, and the strength of men)In The Two Towers, we had Frodo and Sam and Gollum, and they run into the Nazgûl (“I thought they were DEAD. These are those horse-rider guys?” , and then Faramir, with his Rangers. We see Anborn, Faramir’s man-at-arms so to speak. We focus on him a little. Is HE important? They don’t know! Meantime, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are chasing the two hobbits that we still can’t tell apart. Then, what’s this guy on a horse carrying another guy? And who is that stunningly gorgeous woman? Who’s the king? Why is he all old like that? Is this the city of men they were talking about? Eww, who’s that creepy guy? The guy with the helmet is being banished, huh? Who are these soldiers that rescue the two hobbits? They get picked up by a TREE?! Gandalf’s back? Cool. Is that soldier that takes the weapons at Rohan, who is he? There’s Gamling, and Hama. WE know their names, and their significance (or lack thereof) but the audience doesn’t. They get brain freeze just hearing them! And “Éowyn”? “Éomer”? (My parents said “Erin? Elmer?” Then we get a SECOND city of men introduced, with soldiers, and leaders, and stewards, what whatnot. AUGH! It’s all just too overwhelming! See what I mean? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Probably right, but still, I would like atleast some explaination as to why Marry's sword ingures the witch king so badly,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why shouldn’t it? (Speaking on defense of ignorant audiences everywhere) They have no clue why it shouldn’t hurt the Witchking. You could probably spin their heads with the tales that this guy actually fought against Arnor, which was actually a second kingdom like Gondor, which was divided into three realms as the result of a territorial and inheritance disputes, and subsequently destroyed. WE know that Amon Sul was a part of that, but all they see is a tower that’s kinda ruined. And if you told them that they were both descended from Númenor, which was seduced to destruction mostly by Sauron? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> When the nazgul want to, they can appear like normal men, but when they are on the hunt they are very scary, strong, and just plain cool, but that is not how they are in FotR, especially on weathertop where they not only appear to think the heart of hobbits is in the shoulder, they just seem too whimpy. I know that their main weapon was fear, but they could atleast appear to have some inteligence and fighting ability<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Willkill, old boy, read the book. I just read that scene not long ago, and Aragorn (“the heir” drove them off with just two flaming brands. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> we are talking about two different audicences, first you talk about not wanting to confuse or anger the general audience, and now you dont want to anger the loyal fans...you cant play both sides...either you add things to make the Tolkien fans happy, or you dumb it down for the general audience<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And yet, this daunting task was presented to Peter Jackson. It was his responsibility to maintain the complicated and intricate plot aspects for the die-hard fans (and did a fair job of it) while still making it understandable enough for Tolkien illiterates. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> so either Bill the Pony stays for the Tolkien fans and confuses the general audience, or he goes and people make posts online saying "Where is Bill?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think, despite my accusations that the audiences aren’t too smart when it comes to the intricacies of Tolkien, they can still surmise that they got Bill in Bree. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> That's why I thought it was pointless to get that quick shot of Galadriel showing Frodo the Ring and saying, "This is Nenya, the Ring of Adament. And I am it's Keeper." Why show it? Especially if you're not going to expound on it any more than that<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There, see? Perfect example. While some would go “why put that in there at all? We don’t get it!”, some go “why put it in, unless you expound on it more?” and some would say (if it wasn’t put in), “why didn’t we see any more of the scene with Frodo and Nenya?” It’s a really tough call, when you’ve got three or four differing viewpoints on the subject. I’m not saying that everyone’s ideas about what should have happened are either right or wrong, or criticizing them for having those opinions. I’m saying, it had to go one way or the other. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> no mention of Erkenbrand, and no reason given why Theodred died...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I missed this being said the first time around, and only saw it when The Only Real Estel mentioned it. Theodred’s death was made clear. In the EE, he fell at the crossing of the river Isen. When brought back, Éowyn recoils a little when she moves aside the sheet covering Theodred’s lower stomach area, and you can just barely see a bit of a wound there. She tells the king that his son is badly wounded. Later, she informs him that he is dead. Again, we need to judge Peter Jackson (if at all, less harshly) based on the Extended Edition, which was what HE wanted to have. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Hopefully I will not be in trouble with the ops for posting 3 times in a row, but I really didn't want to combine all the posts on the movies in to one endless post...I'll be lucky enough if anyone reads everthing as it is<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Aw, take heart, Estel, I read it all! And you don’t see ME getting in trouble for posting huge posts like I do!Willkill, maybe you should go watch all the DVD extras, and learn how much of a pain in the Bill this was for Peter Jackson to put together. He had to supervise all the shooting, after working on script, location-scouting, and cast-choosing. Supplementing and changing the script to conform to the book more, he also oversaw music, effects, editing...so many different levels on which this movie functions. I think PJ did an awesome (albeit not perfect) job on the movies. Poor guy only got a few hours of sleep each night for a couple of years. Though I agree he must be somewhat mental, wearing shorts like he does!!

Armetiel

02-04-2004, 12:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You’re right, Armetiel, I think I read too much into your comment about being intelligent enough to spell the word. My statement was aimed mostly at Arathor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>lol, so that's where you got it from...that was meant to be a joke, but perhaps it didn't come across as one over the computer where you can't type in a certain "tone"..willkill, if you thought the same as knight of gondor, then I apologize for them comment

Finwe

02-04-2004, 12:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Willkill, maybe you should go watch all the DVD extras, and learn how much of a pain in the Bill this was for Peter Jackson to put together. He had to supervise all the shooting, after working on script, location-scouting, and cast-choosing. Supplementing and changing the script to conform to the book more, he also oversaw music, effects, editing...so many different levels on which this movie functions. I think PJ did an awesome (albeit not perfect) job on the movies. Poor guy only got a few hours of sleep each night for a couple of years. Though I agree he must be somewhat mental, wearing shorts like he does!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hear, hear!

The Only Real Estel

02-04-2004, 02:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> but perhaps it didn't come across as one over the computer where you can't type in a certain "tone"..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>that's why I usually end up overusing smileys so badly, that's the only tone you can really put into posts . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I read it all!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow ![ 4:00 PM February 04, 2004: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

caligulathegod

02-05-2004, 09:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And I just thought of something else that irked me.PJ didn't say much about what Legolas and Gimli did after the ring was destroyed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You know, they really didn't go into that in the book, either. You have to delve pretty deep into the appendices for that. Did it really irk you that much?

caligulathegod

02-05-2004, 09:27 AM

Oh, yeah, I had to add how disingenuous it is to complain that stuff was left out or streamlined (not the same as dumbed down) for a three hour film and then refuse to acknowledge the EE versions. The theatrical versions were made with compromises necessary to bring it in at 3 hours and have it make sense for a general audience. The EE are not "definitive" versions or director's cuts. They were made specifically for the fans to address many of the problems you listed (other than the parts of the list that just repeat what the changes are. We know what the changes are. Why didn't you just say, "I didn't like that there were changes, period."?). If you refuse to count the EE versions, then you lose your right to complain. The TE that you paid admission for wasn't really made for you. It was made for a general audience. The EE was made for you, because you care about all the stuff that was left out. Can it address everything? No, of course not. The books take 55 hours to listen to unabridged on tape. Nor would you really want a word for word version. Go see "Gospel of John" for proof of that.[ 10:28 AM February 05, 2004: Message edited by: caligulathegod ]

The Only Real Estel

02-05-2004, 06:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you refuse to count the EE versions, then you lose your right to complain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>'Fraid not. The Theatrical version is the one that will be seen by most people, so it should not have things left out with the 'o, I'll get to those in the EE' idea. Besides, if the EE is the final version to us, what's the Theatrical release? A 3 & a half hour trailer (as I've put it many times)? Everyone has 'a right' to complain about both versions, but to say that we can't complain about the Original Version because the EE is the one we should go by is just plain nutty. No offense to you...

willkill4food

02-05-2004, 06:47 PM

wow....I am just plain POed right now.......wow...I just wrote a very very long reply to every post on here since my last reply...and then I click to add it...and the page doesnt load..so now I just lost like an hour of writting...ill come back in a few days when I am not tiring of writing and try again...wow...im mad...PS it took a lot of tries to write that without any "orc-talk"..-willkill

Knight of Gondor

02-05-2004, 09:59 PM

Willkill -I know how frustrating that can be, trust me! And sincere thanks for keeping it clean. Now I won't have to whack you.

Armetiel

02-05-2004, 11:35 PM

Sorry to hear about that...but since knight of gonder brought up the point of *whacking* I just thought I'd bring up now...I'm the administrator of "The official Pillow fight message board" meaning, i tend to *whack* *thwack* *kabam* ppl out of habit, so if anyone sees me doing this, it is NOT an insult, just a warning...it's actually more of a compliment than anything lol

caligulathegod

02-06-2004, 05:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 'Fraid not. The Theatrical version is the one that will be seen by most people, so it should not have things left out with the 'o, I'll get to those in the EE' idea. Besides, if the EE is the final version to us, what's the Theatrical release? A 3 & a half hour trailer (as I've put it many times)? Everyone has 'a right' to complain about both versions, but to say that we can't complain about the Original Version because the EE is the one we should go by is just plain nutty. No offense to you... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The films make sense s they are to people who have not read the books. If you are someone who cares about the stuff that was left out then the EE was made specifically for you. Joe Admission has the theatrical cut and Joe Tolkienfan has the EE. The EEs don't have the time limitation that the theatrical versions do. They can get more into character and add more deleted scenes. Be happy that they made these versions especially for you to address most of these issues.

The Only Real Estel

02-06-2004, 09:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Be happy that they made these versions especially for you to address most of these issues. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm happy that they did trot out the EE's, but the Theatrical release was not (or should not have been) made for 'Joe Admission' only, but for both types of Joes, which is why I comment on both releases.

caligulathegod

02-07-2004, 08:27 AM

Not everyone loves every aspect of the films. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. You do understand though that they had restrictions on what they could do? They were required to have a film about 3 hours and one that made sense to the average theatergoer. Actually, it was supposed to be in the 2 hour range but PJ managed to talk them into 3 hours. Any longer than 3 hours sitting in a theater you get diminishing returns. People's butts start to hurt. Also, it reduces severely the amount of showing a film can have. As much as we hate to admit it, this is a business. When a company invests US$300M plus for a film, they expect to be able to make a return on that investment. They took a huge gamble making all three at once and it paid off bigtime.The theatrical cuts were made for a general audience. Everyone, including Tolkien fans, can enjoy them. The thing about Tolkien was that his work has so much depth that a single 3 hour film can only scratch the surface. So, for the first time in history, an extended cut was made not for exploiting an existing but played out property, but to add in more depth for the fans of the original work. The theatrical cuts are the definitive editions and the EE are made especially for the fans. While there are many scenes that some folks might miss in even both versions, it is wrong to complain about scenes missing in the theatrical cut that have been restored for the fans' EE by saying that the EE should be ignored. At three hours, I felt that the TE seemed rushed. It would have even been worse had they tried to shoehorn everything into that three hours. Better to make the best film they could then fit more things and pace better in a version not hampered by show length. For home-viewing, such things as running time are not as critical. You can stop at any point or watch over a period of days, if one desired. So, in conclusion, if you are unhappy about alterations to adapt the book into film then welcome to the club. Even real life events get altered when translated into film. No book has ever made it into film without some compromises in adaptation (with a few arguably unwatchable exceptions-See Gospel of John where they filmed the book from the Bible word for word) However, it is disingenous to dismiss the EE entirely. If you are a person that cares about seeing the gift-giving scene that adds nothing to the plot but is a nice little scene that adds some richness to the story, then the EE was made SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU. Rejoice that someone thought enough of you to do that. Unlike, say, Apocolypse Now Redux which was made solely to wring a few more bucks out of a property that was pretty much played out.[ 9:29 AM February 07, 2004: Message edited by: caligulathegod ]

Hot, crispy nice hobbit

02-07-2004, 02:22 PM

Hiya guys(& gals) I just discovered this cool forum in this dark dank hole where people air their opinions on everything in LOTR. Well, here's my two cents on the movies:FoTR: As a Tolkien enthusiast(Who isn't?), I am generally content with the changes...except for some unremovable ulcers. The Arwen-Aragorn cutscenes bored me, but I guess they are necessary. Somehow, Gimli HAD to Hack the ring with that axe of his... Bothersome. What REALY disappoints me, however, is not Arwen, or the overkilling Legolas, nor even the jokers Merry and Pippin. It is the Nazgul... Every time I picked up and read the LOTR, I would get goosebumps on the back of my neck when I read about the Nazgul. Prof T knew that the Nazgul are the embodiment of Sauron himself, practically his nine fingers. They were indestructible, and who don't love villains that are invincible? The movie showed them to be nancy cultist boys who scream for mama the moment they see a bit of fire or sword. I mean c'mon! You won't know the power of Sauron unless you see what his servants can do to you. Having Arwen/Aragorn fighting them is still alright with me... just don't make them into wusses! The Balrog is very cool, but not cool enough to quell my annoyance with those rag dolls they called Nazgul. One of the scenes I really missed was Frodo escaping from Boromir. Much as I like how Boromir was portrayed, I am very disappointed that Frodo did not sit on the High Seat and surveyed the entire world... I mean, Prof T created that scene really exceptionally and it described the situation really well. But I guess they can't show that in the movies because Aragorn needs to make out with his lover.TTT This, in my opinion, is really the best of the series, even though there seem to be major loopholes to be taken care of. The battle at Helms Deep is great. They kept the battle in the Dark Night, and the atmosphere was Excellent. One thing that interests me is that with the dark night, it doesn't really prove that Urak-hai are super orcs. Now, I feel that Theoden should not be possessed; since that would mean that Saruman could have all of Rohan in his grasp even without waging war. I am somewhat disappointed that Eomer is given so little a role... Banished, and then suddenly popping up with Gandalf in the lead. On the other hand, those reinforcements led by Gandalf do seem a bit too many... I mean, first throw 300 against 10000, and then all of a sudden 6000 appear to save the situation?!? By the way, I don't think I like to see those elves coming down at Helm's Deep. I would indeed have prefered seeing the dwarves and the elves fighting and defending their own cities. The Ents were really quite excellent in the siege of Isengard, but Pippin and Merry never grew any taller. Now we come to what everyone hates: Faramir. I don't think I want to repeat what everyone had to say. The thing that disturbed me however, is the scene where Frodo tried to offer the ring to the Nazgul of winged beast. Let me assure everyone that after the incident of Weathertop and the river, the Nazgul NEVER came into close contact with the ring for once. If I am that Nazgul on the dragon, I would not have waited so long for Frodo to show me the ring. I would have grapped him at once and left. There are NINE Nazgul, and they were SO close to the ring... And they bailed out because of a few arrows?!? I am so utterly disappointed with this scene that I left for the restroom to recover from my shock. RoTK: By now I knew what to expect from our esteemed director when it comes to the Nazguls. The third movie, I guess, couldn't be worse. I was not disappointed by the Nazgul this time (though they are still wusses). Saruman! Just where did Saruman disappeared to?!? Treebeard did not say he is dead, Gandalf just said that he had no power. But WHERE is Evil Wizard that every one loves? Those of us who read the book knew that Saruman was killed by Wormtongue in the Shire, but the rest of the audience are going to think that there would be a sequel to this book just because they did not see Saruman die. Now, if I remember correctly, the director said that the action is going to be even more full then the TTT. I do not think so, unless you considered the closeups of rocks slung by trebuchets to be exciting. The Oliphaunts were good, but the Riders of Rohan are definitely stupid. I had no problem with the undead or even Elrond riding and giving Anduril to Aragorn. I was however, extremely disappointed to not see the parley scene between Gandalf and the Witchking. (Yet another slap on the face for the Nazgul) In actual fact, I am very much shocked to see that Gondor is so unprepared for invasion in the very first. Why would Boromir go down to Rivendell if not to seek allies in war? Why would his brother be ambushing Oliphaunts if Gondor is not prepared for war already? It may have been just me, but I really feel that there was something fundamentally fake about the whole war... Denethor refusing to light the war beacons, the way he send Faramir off, and Faramir just charging back to battle with twenty(?) horsemen?!? That would probably do wonders with the audience if you are targeting uninformed junkies, but even the atmosphere is wrong... I remembered that a cock called after the Witchking broke the gate down... which showed that it saw light amidst the darkness. Why do they managed to portray the darkness in Helm's Deep but want light for the Pelenor fields? Now, interestingly, the duel between the Witchking and Eowyn with Merry is excellent, and in my opinion the best scene in the entire show. Aragorn's invincible ghost army simply didn't cut any ice with me, I'm afraid. If they must portray the undead Nazgul as sissies, I don't see why the ghosts can be so powerful. I feel that Shelob is the second best scene in the film but Gollum should appear more in the scene to show his involvement. The history of Gollum, by the way, is another most memorable scene. Now after all is said and done, we had the grand finale... in which Frodo claimed the ring and stuff. They just couldn't let evil disolve itself: Frodo HAD to be a hero and shove Gollum down the volcano. I guess Hollywood hate to see bad guys die by their own hand... After this last insult, I am pretty much bored with all the dallyings and dillies. The Shire is intact; not surprising. Saruman just vanished into thin air. But nobody explained why Frodo could go across the sea with Bilbo and the Elves. By that time, though, nobody cared...I guess I am a little too harsh on the film-makers. I am not really in control: this input is made at 4.30am... I have not slept yet. So, if I had offended any with my opinion, I beg you all a thousand apologies! Me a newbie after all!

ArathorofBarahir

02-07-2004, 02:40 PM

Aaa, Knight of Gondor when I posted the following: "You want my opinion about our analysis of everything wrong with the movies? Well here it is: All I could come to was you just wanted to b*tch and moan. I mean if you are going to be that picky about it then why bother going to see it. Just be glad that it got made into live action movies." I was actually directing it towards willkill4food, not Armetiel, but the same goes for all, respect people's opinions to a certain extent. I have nothing against Armetiel's opinions, but willkill4food went to far all he did was complain, and I hate it when people b*itch and moan, if you want to b*tch and moan go somewhere else please. However willkill4food most of the points you made were good, but after reading the ones for FoTR, the rest just seemed like you just wanted to, wait what's the word oh yead, B*TCH! One more thing willkill4food please respect opinions, I respect yours and everyone else's. It's just your rant and raving got on my nerves a little to much, and I am only human so I apologize.[ 3:47 PM February 07, 2004: Message edited by: ArathorofBarahir ][ 3:58 PM February 07, 2004: Message edited by: ArathorofBarahir ]

caligulathegod

02-07-2004, 04:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> TTT This, in my opinion, is really the best of the series, even though there seem to be major loopholes to be taken care of. By the way, I don't think I like to see those elves coming down at Helm's Deep. I would indeed have preferred seeing the dwarves and the elves fighting and defending their own cities. The Ents were really quite excellent in the siege of Isengard, but Pippin and Merry never grew any taller. Now we come to what everyone hates: Faramir. I don't think I want to repeat what everyone had to say. The thing that disturbed me however, is the scene where Frodo tried to offer the ring to the Nazgul of winged beast. Let me assure everyone that after the incident of Weathertop and the river, the Nazgul NEVER came into close contact with the ring for once. If I am that Nazgul on the dragon, I would not have waited so long for Frodo to show me the ring. I would have grapped him at once and left. There are NINE Nazgul, and they were SO close to the ring... And they bailed out because of a few arrows?!? I am so utterly disappointed with this scene that I left for the restroom to recover from my shock. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Everyone seems to hate the Elves at Helm's Deep departure. I've really thought about it a lot and I don't mind it. Firstly, they really aren't going to have scenes depicting the Elves and Dwarves defending their own cities nor even the Elves battle at Dol Guldor. They just don't fit into the narrative. Why cut to battles that don't involve any of our characters? Even Tolkien didn't do that. He saved that for the appendices. Fans sometimes forget that a lot of the stuff we take for granted is actually in the ancillary material. Stuff like the Elves attack on Dol Goldur and the Elves and Dwarves defending their own cities, Sam joining Frodo in the West, and Gimli joining Legolas going into the West. None of that stuff is even in the books. We can't fault the filmmakers for not including stuff that even Tolkien put only in the Appendices (Tolkien's own EE, as it were). Also, when you think about it, who are the most important creatures in Tolkien's entire legendarium? Hobbits? Nope. Elves. The books have a great unspoken presence of Elves because they are mentioned a lot, but they really don't appear in The Two Towers at all. We know from the Appendix that they were indeed active during the period, so why not take a bit of dramatic license and involve them in the story? Also, we are supposed to be so sad because the Elves are leaving but other than a 2 minute segment at the beginning of the first film, we never really get to see what makes them so great. So, here, we get to bring in a bit of the appendix into the main story and also give the film an Elvish presence that would otherwise be missing. I think it was inspired to bring in the Elves. Merry and Pippin do indeed get taller. It's in the EE of the Two Towers. That adds nothing to the plot but it's a nice scene, so it's in the EE. Faramir. Again, see the EE. They really make the character much more interesting than he is in the books. They give him a more dynamic arc and he never really does anything the book Faramir wouldn't do. They just made him more conflicted on how he arrives at the decision. I love the bit how he's just trying to please his father but then he realizes that there is more at stake than his own situation. Again, quite inspired. Also, the Fell Beasts that Faramir shot with the arrows are not magical. They are living animals. Why wouldn't they be affected by an arrow in the throat? All it took was one well placed arrow to kill Smaug in The Hobbit. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> RoTK: By now I knew what to expect from our esteemed director when it comes to the Nazguls. The third movie, I guess, couldn't be worse. I was not disappointed by the Nazgul this time (though they are still wusses). Saruman! Just where did Saruman disappeared to?!? Treebeard did not say he is dead, Gandalf just said that he had no power. But WHERE is Evil Wizard that every one loves? Those of us who read the book knew that Saruman was killed by Wormtongue in the Shire, but the rest of the audience are going to think that there would be a sequel to this book just because they did not see Saruman die. Now, if I remember correctly, the director said that the action is going to be even more full then the TTT. I do not think so, unless you considered the closeups of rocks slung by trebuchets to be exciting. The Oliphaunts were good, but the Riders of Rohan are definitely stupid. I had no problem with the undead or even Elrond riding and giving Anduril to Aragorn. I was however, extremely disappointed to not see the parley scene between Gandalf and the Witchking. (Yet another slap on the face for the Nazgul) In actual fact, I am very much shocked to see that Gondor is so unprepared for invasion in the very first. Why would Boromir go down to Rivendell if not to seek allies in war? Why would his brother be ambushing Oliphaunts if Gondor is not prepared for war already? It may have been just me, but I really feel that there was something fundamentally fake about the whole war... Denethor refusing to light the war beacons, the way he send Faramir off, and Faramir just charging back to battle with twenty(?) horsemen?!? That would probably do wonders with the audience if you are targeting uninformed junkies, but even the atmosphere is wrong... I remembered that a cock called after the Witchking broke the gate down... which showed that it saw light amidst the darkness. Why do they managed to portray the darkness in Helm's Deep but want light for the Pelenor fields? Now, interestingly, the duel between the Witchking and Eowyn with Merry is excellent, and in my opinion the best scene in the entire show. Aragorn's invincible ghost army simply didn't cut any ice with me, I'm afraid. If they must portray the undead Nazgul as sissies, I don't see why the ghosts can be so powerful. I feel that Shelob is the second best scene in the film but Gollum should appear more in the scene to show his involvement. The history of Gollum, by the way, is another most memorable scene. Now after all is said and done, we had the grand finale... in which Frodo claimed the ring and stuff. They just couldn't let evil disolve itself: Frodo HAD to be a hero and shove Gollum down the volcano. I guess Hollywood hate to see bad guys die by their own hand... After this last insult, I am pretty much bored with all the dallyings and dillies. The Shire is intact; not surprising. Saruman just vanished into thin air. But nobody explained why Frodo could go across the sea with Bilbo and the Elves. By that time, though, nobody cared... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, most of your disappointments will be dealt with in the EE coming in November. If you didn't know about most of those scenes, you wouldn't have missed them. So since you do care about them, you will be catered to with a version that is not required to stay within a certain running time. I really don't understand your reaction to the Nazgul. Even in the books they aren't very proactive. Their main weapon is supposed to be to inspire fear. PJ actually made them more imposing than in the book. In the book they have conversations with Shire hobbits that don't seem much threatened by them. They just think that they are "Funny customers". They think it's odd that they wear all black but aren't particularly frightened of them. I think you might have just built them up a bit too much in your imagination.Saruman's story was over. Since they didn't include the Scouring of the Shire, then his denouement would be irrelevant. We'll get to see what happened to him in the EE. In the Theatrical version it doesn't matter. He's no longer a threat in the story. I agree that it's regrettable that we missed the scene, but I understand why it's gone. It really would have been anticlimactic after the high note that The Two Towers ended on and he's irrelevant to the proceedings in The Return of the King. Darkness at Pellenor fields is problematic. Yeah, it would have been cool and true to the book. However, as a practical matter, it would be a nightmare to light a set like that. Even in the dark, you must have lighting to see the action. The set/location was just too big to do it effectively. They had to compromise so that the scene would read on film.Was Gollum even that much of a presence in that scene of Shelob? Seems like I remember him pretty much disappearing in that section of the book only to come back as a surprise. Also, Frodo did not shove Gollum in the Crack of Doom. He was fighting to get the Ring. It was just them ramping up the emotion in a scene. It was indeed the grand climax of the saga and they felt it needed a bit more emotion than just a guy dancing and slipping. Like that or not it's your decision and you have your right to your opinion but you shouldn't mischaracterize what actually happened. Yeah, the Shire was intact. They made a decision to not include the Scouring of the Shire. How many complaints have you heard about the protracted ending? Imagine if they had gone onto another 20 plus minutes of the hobbits going back to fight the Shire foes? The film's primary story was the destruction of the Ring. Other subplots and sub-themes unfortunately have to be sacrificed. There's no way they could possibly include the entire book experience in a three hour film. They had to decide what was the most important story and themes to include and that, unfortunately was one of the ones that didn't make it. As to Frodo going to the West. Well, maybe that could have been explained better, and perhaps it will in the EE. But considering that it happens after the climax, they are just trying to get out of the story as quickly as possible. People resent the scene anyway. I'm just happy that PJ stuck to his guns and included as much as he did, Tolkien bereft audiences be damned. How could you really explain it satisfactorily, anyway? Go into an explanation on why the Elves are going into the West and why Men aren't allowed to go? You have to bring in the Silmarillion to really get into that. Tolkien gets enough superficial criticism for supposed racism. Imagine if they had gone into less than thorough explanation of why Elves get to sit in the front of the bus and get to go to cool places like the West while men are segregated. There's just so much backstory that there's just no way to include it all in a three hour film. You, as a book reader understand why, so why do you need the film to tell you? All the non bookreading public need to know is that he is going to paradise with Bilbo and the Elves. They really don't need long explanations on why it is so unique that Frodo is allowed to go. Please don't think I am attacking you specifically. Most of what you are saying has been said before and I'm just addressing these quite common opinions from the book fans. I love the books as much as anybody, but I understand why they did the things that they did and it grieves me every time I read some book fan being so disappointed because the films did not match their imagination. There's no way it ever could. What they did come up with is so magical in its own way that it is such a joy to watch. It's just such a shame that people can not get over such minor deviations from the Scripture and enjoy the films for what they are. No film has ever made it to the cinema as intact as some people seem to believe that these should have. The films could have been soooooo much worse. If you had seen them before reading the books, then you would love them and then upon reading the books, your experience would be enriched. Don't think of the films so much as compromised versions of the book. Look upon the books as just deeper and more rewarding experiences of their own. The glass is half full.[ 11:06 PM February 07, 2004: Message edited by: caligulathegod ]

The Only Real Estel

02-07-2004, 05:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's just your rant and raving<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not to knock on you, either, but I would rather read a post of nitpicks than a post with at least 5 mentions of 'b*itching & moaning' in it...but maybe that's just me.

Knight of Gondor

02-07-2004, 10:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> What REALY disappoints me, however, is not Arwen, or the overkilling Legolas, nor even the jokers Merry and Pippin. It is the Nazgul... Every time I picked up and read the LOTR, I would get goosebumps on the back of my neck when I read about the Nazgul.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I rarely have such reactions to books, even ones as awesome as Tolkien’s. But in the movie, the spine-tingling screams issuing from the emissaries of Sauron are quite scary...especially when they hit that certain pitch that rings in your ears a few seconds after the actual sound waves cease to be projected from all six theater channels. But I especially find the soundtrack to enhance the Nazgûl spookiness. When first introduced on the misty night near Hobbiton, and on track 5 of The Fellowship of the Ring soundtrack, it is like the musty, dark, long-dormant yet newly-awakened evil that are the Ringwraiths. The rapid, scale-climbing violin is the perfect tune for the shivers that run up the backs of those that see or hear the Ringwraiths. While PJ couldn’t sit there and describe to you the Ringwraith fear, I think he did an admirable job in the trilogy. And besides...who says the fear is the same on the big screen as it is in person? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> They were indestructible, and who don't love villains that are invincible? The movie showed them to be nancy cultist boys who scream for mama the moment they see a bit of fire or sword. I mean c'mon! You won't know the power of Sauron unless you see what his servants can do to you. Having Arwen/Aragorn fighting them is still alright with me... just don't make them into wusses!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Nazgûl were not indestructible...check near the end of the book Return of the King. They did not scream for Mama when they saw fire or sword...but they fled from fire, both in the movies, and in the book on Amon Sul. Arwen didn’t fight them, she fled them. Aragorn fighting them is taken verbatim from the book, except that he wielded a real sword, not two torches. I have already discussed the idea of Aragorn’s *other* sword than Narsil. Take a look at the actions and reactions of the Nazgûl early on in the books. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Much as I like how Boromir was portrayed, I am very disappointed that Frodo did not sit on the High Seat and surveyed the entire world... I mean, Prof T created that scene really exceptionally and it described the situation really well. But I guess they can't show that in the movies because Aragorn needs to make out with his lover.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He did escape Boromir. He did climb to the top of the seat, and while it didn’t show the whole world (how on earth was PJ supposed to portray THAT on the screen?)I’ll make this comment again; you were upset about some missing things, but if some of the love scenes between Aragorn and Arwen (and you’d lose a sizable hunk of the female viewing audience not to have at least one kiss, or a love story — not to mention the charge that LotR is a “guy movie” would run rampant) were removed, then others would complain. It’s a catch-22, and PJ was stuck calculating which of the majority would prefer what. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> On the other hand, those reinforcements led by Gandalf do seem a bit too many... I mean, first throw 300 against 10000, and then all of a sudden 6000 appear to save the situation?!?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Boromir and Gandalf most likely rallied more soldiers from the outlying lands. As I recall, Aragorn told Théoden in Meduseld that Éomer was riding with three thousand. Perhaps I recall wrongly, but that’s how I remember it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Ents were really quite excellent in the siege of Isengard, but Pippin and Merry never grew any taller.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Somehow I have a feeling I’ll utter these two words again before this discussion is resolved: Extended Edition. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Now we come to what everyone hates: Faramir.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well! I like him! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The third movie, I guess, couldn't be worse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>:-0 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But WHERE is Evil Wizard that every one loves? Those of us who read the book knew that Saruman was killed by Wormtongue in the Shire, but the rest of the audience are going to think that there would be a sequel to this book just because they did not see Saruman die.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Shame that PJ left him out of TTT:EE (he explained that decision in the behind-the-scenes stuff), but not everyone loves the dude. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> but the Riders of Rohan are definitely stupid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Beg yer pardon?! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In actual fact, I am very much shocked to see that Gondor is so unprepared for invasion in the very first. Why would Boromir go down to Rivendell if not to seek allies in war? Why would his brother be ambushing Oliphaunts if Gondor is not prepared for war already?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dispute the claim that we here in Gondor were not ready. Yet at the bidding of our proud and despairing Steward, we were not as ready as we should have been. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Frodo HAD to be a hero and shove Gollum down the volcano. I guess Hollywood hate to see bad guys die by their own hand...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A slight departure from the book, but Frodo was NOT shoving — he was trying to get his Precious back. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But nobody explained why Frodo could go across the sea with Bilbo and the Elves. By that time, though, nobody cared...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps not the full reason (that he’d borne such a heavy burden) but if you’d listened, someone said something like “the Elves have granted Frodo a great gift; a place on one of the ships.” <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I guess I am a little too harsh on the film-makers. I am not really in control: this input is made at 4.30am... I have not slept yet. So, if I had offended any with my opinion, I beg you all a thousand apologies! Me a newbie after all!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Beware, for few sensible utterances can be made at 4:30 AM. None of your post, of course, is taken personally, and I hope none of mine is. I’m just tackling the issues that you raise. If you would, I know my posts are long, but I deal with a great many of the objections Willkill raised, if you would be obliged to read them.Also, welcome to both you and caligulathegod, who I seem to echo a little, but that’s okay. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I was actually directing it towards willkill4food, not Armetiel, but the same goes for all, respect people's opinions to a certain extent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I understood that when I read it, Arathor. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I have nothing against Armetiel's opinions, but willkill4food went to far all he did was complain, and I hate it when people b*itch and moan, if you want to b*tch and moan go somewhere else please. However willkill4food most of the points you made were good, but after reading the ones for FoTR, the rest just seemed like you just wanted to, wait what's the word oh yead, B*TCH!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You respect Willkill’s right to his opinion...please respect his right to opine on the subjects. I’ll say this again. If you don’t like what he wrote...why cuss him out about it? Just leave it alone. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I respect yours and everyone else's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then please respect my opinion as well...because my objections to orc-talk have not changed. (Willkill seems to respect them, even at the height of frustration) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Not to knock on you, either, but I would rather read a post of nitpicks than a post with at least 5 mentions of 'b*itching & moaning' in it...but maybe that's just me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Gandalf: "The Only Real Estel stands alone."Knight of Gondor, riding up on horse: "Not alone." *Draws reproduction of Narsil*

Hot, crispy nice hobbit

02-08-2004, 01:59 AM

Gee, I am back for more in the morning I know that I am a Nazgul raver last night; I still am, but I think I mean what I said when I said that the Nazgul are indestructible, though I should have added "except by prophesy, destruction of the ring and prolonged exposure to songs about Elbereth". Sure, they fled from Aragorn who was wielding a couple of firebrands, but they fled unscathed, except for the Witchking who got hurt by Frodo's utterance In the film, the one of the Nazgul remained behind for some reason, and got set on fire! Now, in the book we are told that the nine Nazgul attacked Gandalf at night, and there were a great fire show on Weathertop just before Frodo & co. arrived. Yet, Gandalf could not withstand against all the nine, and was chased after by just four! Do I see some imbalance of physical and magical power down here?Oh, that scene where the Frodo OFFERED the ring to the Nazgul: I am not talking about the winged beasts. Nazgul cannot be hurt by normal weapons except when induced by prophesy (not that we are told that in the film) One thing I am certain of is that the Nazgul really did not see the ring any more after Weathertop, and I am completely smashed by that scene alone. Here we have the Ringbearer practically giving the ring to the Nazgul and that Nazgul just sit there waiting for an arrow to pierce his mount so that he can fly off?!? It just plainly does not make any sense!By the way, the Nazgul did not just use fear as a weapon, though it worked best most of the time. The Witchking used his sorcery to break Frodo's sword and make him dumb and Black Breath is even more horrible. But obviously, with everyone so interested instead on the Aragorn's ghost army, no one would be bothered about these minor tidbits.Urm, I guess I really need to tone down my voice on this... it is not very nice to whine about the films even when if I like the book. I guess I am the only one about who like to whine on the Nazgul though

Lyta_Underhill

02-08-2004, 12:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Go into an explanation on why the Elves are going into the West and why Men aren't allowed to go? You have to bring in the Silmarillion to really get into that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A good point, caligulathegod (great name, by the way, and also welcome!). I think that the problem I had with the Grey Havens was not who gets to go and who doesn't per se, but the fact that Frodo is not singled out in the hobbits' return to the Shire. All four hobbits are shown as somewhat alienated and Sam appears to be the only one who jumps right back into Shire life. It does not show the difference in the interface with the "average Shire hobbit" between Frodo and the other three hobbits. To me, it is not made clear that Frodo's life in the Shire AFTER the War of the Ring is absolutely untenable. It doesn't address the great need of Frodo to find healing that life in the Shire cannot provide. He just seems to up and leave one day. I can't help but hold out hope that there will be one extra scene that will differentiate Frodo from his friends and show how rarified he has become, illustrating his need to pass West with the Elves. Cheers! Lyta

caligulathegod

02-08-2004, 01:25 PM

Hi. Thanks. (for the record, I get the name more from Robert Graves "I,Claudius" & "Claudius the God" and Suetonius' "The Twelve Caesars" rather than the porn film.)Yeah, I hope that the EE can maybe go a bit more into it. I'm surprised they got as much as they did into the ending. If you read most non-readers' reactions, they seem to believe that the movie should have ended at the most "Hollywood" point when everyone bowed to the Hobbits. I love that PJ went ahead and included the Grey Havens. It shows an underlying respect for the source, contrary to the naysayers belief. This seems to be a fairly civil forum. I just came over from tolkienonline.com where every single thread becomes yet another war between "Purists and Revisionists". It's pretty tiresome to read the same arguments over and over. It's also sad when people let slight departures ruin the movie experience for them. It's not necessary to love the films, but to continually argue over some hypothetical version is pointless. Short of a 55 hour version, what we got was about as close as could be expected.

Knight of Gondor

02-09-2004, 09:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I mean what I said when I said that the Nazgul are indestructible, though I should have added "except by prophesy, destruction of the ring and prolonged exposure to songs about Elbereth".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well...I must say Éowyn wields prophesy pretty well! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Sure, they fled from Aragorn who was wielding a couple of firebrands, but they fled unscathed, except for the Witchking who got hurt by Frodo's utterance <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who says they fled unscathed? And why do you roll your eyes that the Witchking was wounded by Frodo’s cry? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Now, in the book we are told that the nine Nazgul attacked Gandalf at night, and there were a great fire show on Weathertop just before Frodo & co. arrived. Yet, Gandalf could not withstand against all the nine, and was chased after by just four! Do I see some imbalance of physical and magical power down here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I recall, Gandalf drew them off that way. And Aragorn battled five of them. Gandalf was not beset by five, but nine. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Nazgul cannot be hurt by normal weapons except when induced by prophesy (not that we are told that in the film)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The prophesy itself did not bear any affect on how the Witchking died. It was merely a prediction of HOW the Witchking was to die...not by the hand of living man. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> By the way, the Nazgul did not just use fear as a weapon, though it worked best most of the time. The Witchking used his sorcery to break Frodo's sword and make him dumb and Black Breath is even more horrible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Go back and read the description of the Nazgûl. Fear is their main weapon. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Urm, I guess I really need to tone down my voice on this... it is not very nice to whine about the films even when if I like the book. I guess I am the only one about who like to whine on the Nazgul though<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I bear you no ill will, but yeah, I think you’re probably one of only a few. [IMG][ 10:13 PM February 09, 2004: Message edited by: Knight of Gondor ][ 10:17 PM February 09, 2004: Message edited by: Knight of Gondor ]

The Only Real Estel

02-16-2004, 10:14 PM

especially on weathertop where they not only appear to think the heart of hobbits is in the shoulder

It clearly states in the book that Frodo was only saved because he resisted to the last. Besides, since the tip of the knife broke off (& would work it's way towards his heart...), he Nazgul had no need to strike again.

Knight of Gondor

02-18-2004, 10:01 PM

Well! I guess the logic of Estel and I drove the objectors off like Ringwraiths from fire! :D

The Only Real Estel

02-19-2004, 12:00 PM

Well! I guess the logic of Estel and I drove the objectors off like Ringwraiths from fire!

:p lol :cool:

Oroaranion

02-19-2004, 02:35 PM

The Only Real Estel

02-19-2004, 06:09 PM

OK, i went to see RotK for the third time today. but, for the first time i realised that Pippin, and i think Faramir turned up at the Black Gate. they should be in the Healing Houses, where Faramir would have met Eowyn etc.

Actually it was Merry that should've been at the houses of healing, right? I can only guess that they sped up Faramir's healing, since rumour is that he & Eowyn are in the RotK EE version a lot more (although I'm not getting my hopes up on anything)...

Well! I guess the logic of Estel and I drove the objectors off like Ringwraiths from fire!

Hopefully we're not crashing the topic, it is techinically a thread for lists of wrong things in the movies...but I can't allow myself to let justifiable things be used as punching-bags ;).

Kransha

02-19-2004, 07:33 PM

Alright, my opinions, then.
First movie first (including known extensions)

The Fellowship of the Rings:
I think this one worked very well introducing characters and such but it didn't impress on me the sheer size of Middle-Earth. As we see more in the second and third movies, there's a lot more to Middle-Earth than nine companions. This may just be me, but FotR seemed like a Shire and Shire border drama, even though there was the obvious excursion outward. I disliked the Arwen/Aragorn mega embellisments and was annoyed by the fact that she replaced many elves of Imladris, and stole one's horse (Asfaloth, being that horse). The Nazgul worked for me, except for a bit. I believe the first meeting with the Nazgul near Bree was fear-inducing, but it just moved too fast from there. Rivendell and the council went well for me and I got what I required, even though the dialogue was pressed. The next issue I have is with Lurtz, skipping straight over Moria, which seemed to flow almost perfectly. Obviously there is sense in creating a stronger, more proficient uruk-hai champion to fell Boromir, but it was unnecessary. The end and pulling together of the storyline to initiate a sequel was good enough for me.

Now then, some additions to that.
I, like most of us probably, missed ol' Tom Bombadil. I do not fault PJ for removing him considering the time and boredom issues. I did, though, miss the Barrow-Downs and our favorite wights. I believe that if the unneeded cutscenes between Arwen and Strider could've been cut to easily replace a few of these parts. For one, the Barrow-Downs. One could leave out Bombadillio and have the hobbits escape another way. This incident, I always thought, shows the first time the hobbits really have to deal with something so out of the ordinary and quite frankly terrifying. It's sort of a Halfling wake-up call. Instead, PJ went straight to Nazgul interludes. Also, paste Glorfindel or even Figwit over Arwen whenever her scenes get pointless just to please us Tolkeinites.

I'll consider TTT and RotK after Carpal Tunnel Syndrome has left me.

Shizuku

03-04-2004, 03:50 PM

As I read through this thread it occurs to me that complaints voiced re: PJ's movies usually fall into two categories: 1) diversions from the book and 2) basic ideological differences. For the 1st type of complaint, I agree with many here who have reminded us that PJ was working with FILM, including all its constraints. But wait, you might argue, he made some changes that were totally unnecessary with regards to making the story "work". In these cases, I think we're dealing with complaint type 2. PJ made changes not only because he HAD to, he made changes to support the themes he wished to emphasize in the films.

I'm done with complaining about leaving characters out, etc. because to some extent I understand that PJ could NOT have included everything and he had to keep his average moviegoer's attention. But I think I have a just complaint against some of PJ's undergirding themes. For example, one MASSIVE theme throughout the films is the weakness of humans. This, I consider, as PJ's theme and not actually the main theme of Tolkien for the 3 books. For this reason, the dignity of all human characters are toned down a notch - some far more than a notch. Aragorn, rather than eager to reclaim his kingom, is portrayed as a wandering exile hesitant to receive his proper authority. Faramir we all know about... Theoden, rather than a kindly king who honors his oaths is a griper who consistently complains how Gondor hasn't helped Rohan any (a friend of mine, a non-Tolkienite, commented, "Why bother exorcising him? He's just as unwilling to help after.") and Denethor, rather than a subtle and political mind in dangerous times become a flaming ball flying off the "runway of Minis Tirith" (seriously, the 1st time I saw that part of the city I though: okay, who's going to jump off there?). The reason for these changes, I think, can be related to the ideological environment we're living in. When Tolkien wrote these books, heroes still existed. It was still acceptable to honor a king, to give somebody glory and to have that person accept his full authority. Here, in our cynical postmodern times, we cannot accept a character without some flaws. We don't believe anyone can be THAT noble or good etc. We're skeptical of people who would willingly take on a role of power. PJ is making a film during these times - he's thinking: are people going to like Aragorn if he's going to do all these things to win back his kingship? Hmmm..maybe I should tweak him, maybe people will find his character easier to swallow if he doesn't REALLY want to be king, if he starts out really humble. etc. etc. I think we can apply this kind of thinking to most of our problems with the movies because PJ is simply writing for a different type of audience that Tolkien. For those of us who like the heroism of the books, the movies create a problem: we ask, why does everyone have to be so ridiculous or ignoble? (see Gimli, Faramir, Ents, etc.) and I think this theme issue lies at the heart of the problem.

Anarion

03-04-2004, 08:48 PM

There was a longer stay and big feast at Rivendell..
Arwen at the River, I think was Glorifindel in the book..
There was a 'special' relationship between Galadriel and Gimli..
They left out Bombadil and GOLDBERRY...
Gimli was made a comic character...
Legolas is the son of a King, but in the film takes on the aspect of 'an archer'...
The idea of the burial mound(barrow) is important in European History...
They never mentioned The Elessar, which Galadriel used to grow Lorien and which Arwen uses as an ornament...
The idea of the White Tree is treated in passing, as if it had only a vague significance. In the end, Gandalf takes Aragorn into a mountain and shows him the young sappling which is the hope of Middle Earth in the Fourth Age...
In the book, Eomer becomes King of Rohan, Eowyn marries Faramir who becomes Prince of Ithilien...
They left out the scouring of the Shire where the Hobbits become heroes and Wormtongue kills Saruman(Very important part)...
But Most importantly: Except for the little ditty Gandalf croaks in the first Shire scene, there isn't a single song or poem sung or recited all the way through until Aragorn in the final scene, which I don't remember in the book. The Poetry means so much, both as an inspiration and to the story line and spirit of Middle Earth because it had been a special gift of the Noldor..

Reg Pither

03-05-2004, 03:11 AM

Shizuku - excellent post that hits the nail right on the head! :)

The saddest thing of all is that PJ felt the need to lessen all the heroic elements of the book in order to appeal to the ubiquitous 'modern audience'. As I said in a previous post, I'm still baffled why he thought it was necessary when he's dealing with a book that is still a huge best seller, being read, enjoyed, even loved by this same 'modern audience'. Why the need to change what is already successful?

If it is simply to appeal to non-readers, then I feel he is tragically underestimating the intelligence of the movie-going public, and their desire to see good old-fashioned heroism. After all, this is a fantasy film set in a quasi-medieval world, not some gritty drama set in the modern world. It needs characters with an instinctive sense of Good in order to function as Tolkien intended. It's a very sad day for all of us when heroism and nobility are seen as traits to be played down rather than celebrated. :(

Hot, crispy nice hobbit

03-05-2004, 09:07 AM

Heh, people, the Nazgul raver is back.

But I'm not back to reave about Nazgul. Seeing so much E-V-I-L Reports about the LOTR winning 11 Oscars really made me sat back and regroup my views. I revisited the FoTR, TTT and RoTK and felt that, while PJ may not have made a really good impression on me or some others, he definitely deserved much more than uncreative criticsms on our part. Why not just give the fellow an applause and a pat on the back for doing a good job?

Squeezing a saga like LOTR in one making is not an easy job, and I definitely rate him much higher than those of his critics who had neither the patience of sitting to read LOTR, nor the energy to varify his creative works.

So, cherrio!

Morima

03-10-2004, 01:28 PM

Do anybody feel the same as me on this?

When I heard that LotR:RotK had received 11 Oscars, I was honestly NOT thrilled about it. I remember when the first movie came out; I was over the moon. Then one year later when seeing TTT, I realized I didn't care too much about it anymore. And after RotK, -- even though it's a grand and magnificent movie! -- I'm just left ... Unimpressed.

Why? I dunno to the point. But what I feel is that even though the movies are merely based on the books, and even though i realize that certain changes had to be made to make it work as movies, I think too much was changed needlessly. All in all I feel that the movies were PRIMARILY made for those who haven't read the books and/or only wants to drool over Legolas and Aragorn.

My two cents in a list.
-- Clichées. I think the movies are riddled with them. For example; to me the journey through the Dead Marshes was one of the creepiest scenes in the book, but it was made into something boring and almost pathetic with the ghost in the water, 'stretching his arms out to grab Frodo' ... Bleh!
-- As for Elijah Wood, he is, IMHO, NOT a good cast for Frodo, who is supposed to be around fifty at this point, not seventeen, and certainly have more expressions than 'agonizing suffering'. But I'll leave it at that with the cast.
-- Although the fighting scenes were magnificent, they were long, e. g. with Legolas' acrobatics on the mûmak. Now that was a great scene, but maybe that one (amongst several others) rather belonged to the extended version, whereas The Houses of Healing and Saruman getting killed were sorely missed in the theater version.
-- Saruman didn't appear at all after we saw him bobbing about on his balcony in TTT. My deepest sympathies to Christopher Lee. The same with master Wormtounge. All I can say is ... ***??
-- Some may thing that it's strange that I say so, but the Orcs did not impress me at all! I think they were like any other monster in any other movie with monsters. BUT NOO! I THINK LOTR SHOULD BE DIFFERENT! :(

Enough with the shouting ... because all in all there were great scenes as well, and great details that I recognized and appreciated. But to me it didn't redeem any of the few points listed above. And I can go on and on about it.

I'll wait and see for the Extended Edition, ... but in the meantime I'll rather sit down with the Books!

Here's a comic i did in 5 mins after having received the sad news about saruman's absence. Yes i get emotional :P

http://www.akibenetah.net/files/I_need_to_kill_you_now__PJ_.jpg

Iris Alantiel

03-10-2004, 09:27 PM

Actually, I was really excited to see RotK win as many Oscars as it did. I actually cheered out loud when they got Best Director and Best Picture (my housemates must have hated me that night). I think that, despite all of the grousing and complaining over all that had to be changed or left out (and I'm the first to get mad about certain changes), Peter Jackson did a really good job and deserves to be rewarded.

Yes, there were things that could have been done better. Of course there were. But in spite of all those little things, when I look at the big picture of the trilogy, it really felt as if I was actually witnessing the world of Middle Earth that I've grown up loving. Jackson really captured the spirit of ME well, at least IMHO. What's more, I think he did a fairly good job striking the right balance between pleasing the hardcore Tolkienites and making a movie people could appreciate even if they hadn't read the books - not an easy task, I might add!

I agree with you about one thing - I'd also rather sit down with the books than sit through the movies. But as far as I'm concerned, the books shouldn't really come into the discussion of the movie's Oscar winnings (except maybe in the Adapted Screenplay category). As I understand it, the point of the Oscars isn't to judge how well the movies adhered to Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth; they're to reward movies that were well made, independent of the book they were taken from.

But then all that is just my opinion, and you're certainly entitled to yours.

Knight of Gondor

03-10-2004, 10:04 PM

Just thought I'd mention, for people who have complaints about the movie, just about every one of them was raised and discussed in this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9638 ) post.

I was happy with how many Oscars RotK got. I wish FotR and TTT had won some, though. At least, more than it did...

Gorwingel

03-11-2004, 12:16 AM

Yes, I do have to agree with Knight of Gondor. These complaints have been heard before, and they can all be discussed in their proper places in the Barrow-Downs forum.

And to add... I do to understand many of your complaints about the films, for I also agree with many of them (even though I very much love the films).

But I was very pleased about the Oscars. It was nice that they actually rewarded the true best film of the year, instead of one that none of the actual public ever saw.

The Mushroom

03-25-2004, 05:11 PM

Okay, I didn't have time to read through this entire thread so forgive me if I'm repeating things that have already been said. Here goes...
I LOVED the movies! The only things that really bugged me were the things that were internally inconsistent (not necessarily the things that were changed from the books). The two things that stick out are:
1. Entmoot. The ents didn't decide to go to war at the entmoot, and then suddenly when Treebeard sees the chopped trees they all rush off to attack Isengaurd. Seems a little hasty to me, and they made the point in the movie that the ents are NOT supposed to be hasty.
2. Sam leaving Frodo. "Don't you leave him, Samwise Gamgee." I think it was against Sam's character to leave Frodo, especially when Frodo was just about to enter the most dangerous stage of the quest, and with a very unsavory character no less (who Sam had guessed was planning to murder them both).
But whatever. I'm so thankful the movies turned out as well as they did!

Cibbwin

03-25-2004, 08:52 PM

Shizuku, ye see the problem with that, it's much easier for people to relate to someone who has human fears and faults. It's a simple fact of life that no one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. It's much more believable for Theoden to be angry at Gondor. He's been watching his people die, and Gondor didn't answer his call for help, so why should he? Besides, in the movies, at least, they did not send an official plea of help until the Beacons, and Theoden rode after they were lit.

Aragorn's strength in the books is much more different than the movies. In the books, I saw him as the kind of loud hero. In the movies, he's much more quiet. And who can blame movie Aragorn for resisting his rule? He knows what happened to Isildur. And yet, he resists the ring. He lets Frodo go.

Eowyn, I've heard people say, is much less stoic. I don't necessarily see that. Of course she's a bit warmer around Aragorn, she loves him. Of course she's a bit warmer around Theoden, she's so joyful that he's well and strong again.

What I'm saying is, it's not just because of people's cynicism, it's reality. People are not always gonna be strong and brave and fearless. I love heroes as much as the next, but people need characters to relate to.

Knight of Gondor

03-26-2004, 10:13 PM

Shizuku, I think you make a really good point!

There was a longer stay and big feast at Rivendell..

Just because they didn’t show it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. In movies, it’s a little difficult to show the passing of time. But with shots of Frodo and Sam exploring Rivendell, and with the Council, and with Aragorn’s slight encounter with Boromir in Elrond’s library, it’s somewhat evident that time passes. Heck, for the extended edition, that’s where disc one ends! Kind of like the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. There’s a lot of space in between! :)

Arwen at the River, I think was Glorifindel in the book..

You’ve got a lot of people that join you there...but if you only “think” it was Glorfindal...!

There was a 'special' relationship between Galadriel and Gimli..

Repeating this again, but if you’re going to judge PJ for his adaptation, then judge it by merit of the extended edition, which might just as well be called the Director’s cut. Peter Jackson showed the special relationship between Gimli and Galadriel there. Granted, he did not show the three hairs, but in the behind-the-scenes, the actor who plays Gimli, John Ryce-Davis explains the cinematic difficulties of showing three hairs to the audience.

They left out Bombadil and GOLDBERRY...

A common lament. Check out TheOneRing.net’s pictures of those two, however.

Gimli was made a comic character...

There was already a bit of humor contained in the contest for who can kill the most. They just embellished Gimli’s role a bit, to add the comic relief. (Probably for the kids who don’t belong watching it anyway)

Legolas is the son of a King, but in the film takes on the aspect of 'an archer'...

So how are they going to describe his lineage. “Greetings, Lord Elrond,” says Legolas. “Oh, hello Legolas, the prince, son of the king Tharanduil, the king of Mirkwood, and a darn good archer,” says Elrond. If you look above, I refer to this as “TTM” (based on a book that used these a lot), using dialogue to explain events and circumstances to the audience, dialogue that would not take place in the ordinary world because the two individuals already KNOW what’s happened.

The idea of the burial mound(barrow) is important in European History...

Hey, you’re right. I wonder if that’s why they showed the burial of Theodred.

<<They never mentioned The Elessar, which Galadriel used to grow Lorien and which Arwen uses as an ornament...>>

I believe you are confusing a couple of jewels here. The Evenstar was Arwen’s ornament. The Elessar was the green stone that Galadriel gave to Aragorn, and I believe she used Nenya to aid in the growth and protection of Lórien.

The idea of the White Tree is treated in passing, as if it had only a vague significance. In the end, Gandalf takes Aragorn into a mountain and shows him the young sappling which is the hope of Middle Earth in the Fourth Age...

Believe me, no one is more upset about seeing that beautiful white tree look like a tilting geezer. It should, at the least, have been straight and pretty. Either way, there was so much to cram in, I can just barely understand PJ’s need to shorten it all. I hope to see more of it in the EE.

In the book, Eomer becomes King of Rohan, Eowyn marries Faramir who becomes Prince of Ithilien...

Éomer became the king. Éowyn did marry Faramir. They just can’t show Éomer becoming king very well (audience could get a little confused; two crownings?), and they probably will expound a little on Éowyn and Faramir.

They left out the scouring of the Shire where the Hobbits become heroes

I thought that was a bit of a bad move. I understand that many complained of “too many endings”, but from the behind-the-scenes stuff, PJ explains that he pretty much never intended to do the scouring, pretty much because he didn’t like it. I think that wasn’t a good reason, but for others, it will pass.

and Wormtongue kills Saruman(Very important part)...

Extended Edition, coming this fall.

But Most importantly: Except for the little ditty Gandalf croaks in the first Shire scene, there isn't a single song or poem sung or recited all the way through until Aragorn in the final scene, which I don't remember in the book. The Poetry means so much, both as an inspiration and to the story line and spirit of Middle Earth because it had been a special gift of the Noldor..

“Hey ho to the bottle I go, to heal my heart and drown my woe! The rain may fall, the wind may blow, though there still be many miles to go! Sweet is the sound of the falling the rain, and the stream that runs from hill to plain, but better than rain or rippling brook:
is a mug of beer inside this Took!”

You can drink your fancy ales, you can drink 'em by the flagon! But the only brew for the brave and true comes from that Green Dragon!”

“Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare þe ure maegen lytlað”

I'm still baffled why he thought it was necessary when he's dealing with a book that is still a huge best seller, being read, enjoyed, even loved by this same 'modern audience'. Why the need to change what is already successful?

It’s probably necessary to remember that the films succeed as they are, despite the disappointments and protests from Tolkien big-time fans like us.

If it is simply to appeal to non-readers, then I feel he is tragically underestimating the intelligence of the movie-going public, and their desire to see good old-fashioned heroism.

I agree that the crowds do want to see heroism and chivalry again (as Mirando Otto put it, “ 'Lord of the Rings' reveres things I think society is aching to go back to [such as] honor, loyalty and dignity - qualities we tend to forgo so quickly for money.”), but I do not think he underestimates audiences. Remember, he’s been in this business for a while, albeit in the very corner of the spotlight. And a lot of run-of-the-mill movie goers don’t want to have to think about what they watch. For them, it’s mindless entertainment. PJ knew he had to target those people while still remaining as true as he could to us fans.

It needs characters with an instinctive sense of Good in order to function as Tolkien intended. It's a very sad day for all of us when heroism and nobility are seen as traits to be played down rather than celebrated.

That’s a pretty acute observation, Reg. And a lady by the name of Megan Bashem (spelling?) wrote an article about how the whole big picture of the general Good vs. Evil theme was overlooked (intentionally, Basham believes, and I agree) to keep the cast, crew, and audience more comfortable with their worldview that there is no such thing as a true, concrete sense of Right and Wrong. (Such a thing would mandate a Creator of Right and Wrong, which they don’t believe in, and really don’t want to) Instead, friendship, loyalty, naturalism, heroism, etc. are the themes that the cast/crew tout as prevalent throughout the books, without mention of the deeper spiritual themes of redemption, victory over evil, sacrifice, etc. Such values are entirely inert unless Someone created them.

I'd also rather sit down with the books than sit through the movies.

I think that’s a difficult thing to say for sure. I’m sure lots of people who would disagree, and would rather watch the action unfold quicker and more entertainingly on screen. (I mean, hey, like it or not, fights are much more exciting to watch then to read about, no matter how good the writer is) Most, like me, would probably want to do either, depending on their frame of mind. Since the books are more accessible for me (and I’m always reading in spare time), I’d probably opt for the movie, which I don’t usually have time to sit down and watch all the way through whenever I want.

*Brandishes sword* Who else wants to object to the movie? :)

Anarion

03-27-2004, 05:59 AM

Just because they didn’t show it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. In movies, it’s a little difficult to show the passing of time. But with shots of Frodo and Sam exploring Rivendell, and with the Council, and with Aragorn’s slight encounter with Boromir in Elrond’s library, it’s somewhat evident that time passes. Heck, for the extended edition, that’s where disc one ends! Kind of like the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. There’s a lot of space in between!

Aragorn and Boromir? Shouldn't that have been Aragorn and Bilbo?

You’ve got a lot of people that join you there...but if you only “think” it was Glorfindal...!

If you only mean: "hey"...!

Repeating this again, but if you’re going to judge PJ for his adaptation, then judge it by merit of the extended edition, which might just as well be called the Director’s cut. Peter Jackson showed the special relationship between Gimli and Galadriel there. Granted, he did not show the three hairs, but in the behind-the-scenes, the actor who plays Gimli, John Ryce-Davis explains the cinematic difficulties of showing three hairs to the audience.

That wasn't Danny DeVito? Is that why Galadriel didn't say a single word to Gimli in that movie?

A common lament. Check out TheOneRing.net’s pictures of those two, however.

Like a comic book?

I believe you are confusing a couple of jewels here. The Evenstar was Arwen’s ornament. The Elessar was the green stone that Galadriel gave to Aragorn, and I believe she used Nenya to aid in the growth and protection of Lórien.

See: the two legends of the Elessar. What is the relationship between the White Ring(Galadriel's) and Sea Longing? Evenstar refers to...?

Believe me, no one is more upset about seeing that beautiful white tree look like a tilting geezer. It should, at the least, have been straight and pretty. Either way, there was so much to cram in, I can just barely understand PJ’s need to shorten it all. I hope to see more of it in the EE.

The sapling, or the tree that was destroyed?

Éomer became the king. Éowyn did marry Faramir. They just can’t show Éomer becoming king very well (audience could get a little confused; two crownings?), and they probably will expound a little on Éowyn and Faramir.

Theoden indicated Eowyn. When was the wedding? Two crownings or two Realms?

Knight of Gondor

03-27-2004, 10:49 PM

Aragorn and Boromir? Shouldn't that have been Aragorn and Bilbo?

Please keep in mind that this movie wasn’t created for the sole enjoyment of you and Tolkien Purists everywhere.

Also please keep in mind that this topic is to remain friendly, though we may disagree. I read your comments as sniping and derogatory, but will not respond in kind.

That wasn't Danny DeVito? Is that why Galadriel didn't say a single word to Gimli in that movie?

“And what gift would a Dwarf ask of the Elves?” – Galadriel, to Gimli, in extended scene ‘Farwell to Lórien’.

A common lament. Check out TheOneRing.net’s pictures of those two, however.

Like a comic book?

:rollseyes

The sapling, or the tree that was destroyed?

We won’t see the sapling I know, so I just mean the tree.

Theoden indicated Eowyn. When was the wedding? Two crownings or two Realms?

Right. Such astute and picky viewers as yourself will surely not miss those details, but for the rest of America, who is not as smart and thorough as you, they stand a good chance of getting confused. Which would you have: LotR with very small success (low budget, poorer casting and quality, and general acceptance of the public accompanied with every little detail the way you would have done it? Or a few details that would have pleased you being left out, and having it be the top trilogy in the world?

Please go back and re-read this topic, as I am only repeating myself again.

Anarion

03-28-2004, 01:27 PM

Please keep in mind that this movie wasn’t created for the sole enjoyment of you and Tolkien Purists everywhere.

Also please keep in mind that this topic is to remain friendly, though we may disagree. I read your comments as sniping and derogatory, but will not respond in kind.

“And what gift would a Dwarf ask of the Elves?” – Galadriel, to Gimli, in extended scene ‘Farwell to Lórien’.

:rollseyes

We won’t see the sapling I know, so I just mean the tree.

Right. Such astute and picky viewers as yourself will surely not miss those details, but for the rest of America, who is not as smart and thorough as you, they stand a good chance of getting confused. Which would you have: LotR with very small success (low budget, poorer casting and quality, and general acceptance of the public accompanied with every little detail the way you would have done it? Or a few details that would have pleased you being left out, and having it be the top trilogy in the world?

Please go back and re-read this topic, as I am only repeating myself again.

What is the difference between question and commentary?
Examine subjectivity and objectivity in relation to human attitude and response. View political theories, patriotism as compared to anachronism and interrelated religious and philosophical ideas. :D

Lalaith

03-28-2004, 04:27 PM

for the rest of America
You're right, the film wasn't made just for Tolkien purists. But it wasn't made just for Americans, either.

Knight of Gondor

03-28-2004, 05:31 PM

Yes, I've already been reminded once that LotR has opened for (and has been loved by) audiences that live in other countries. I just love mine so much, I tend to forgot about the others, ha ha! :)

Nonetheless, I don't believe I made that particular error again, did I?

The Saucepan Man

03-28-2004, 06:00 PM

Arwen at the River, I think was Glorifindel in the book..

You’ve got a lot of people that join you there...but if you only “think” it was Glorfindal...!
Actually, it wasn't Glorfindel in the book either. Frodo was on his own. Glorfindel simply lent him his horse.

I thought that was a bit of a bad move. I understand that many complained of “too many endings”, but from the behind-the-scenes stuff, PJ explains that he pretty much never intended to do the scouring, pretty much because he didn’t like it. I think that wasn’t a good reason, but for others, it will pass. Actually, I think that Jackson is on record as saying that this is one of his favourite chapters. He left it out for cinematographical reasons, which stand up pretty well to scrutiny in my book. The destruction of the Ring and defeat of Sauron is the climax of the film, indeed the trilogy of films. It simply wouldn't have worked to have another mini-climax following that. Quite apart from the timing issue. There is a prevalent view among reviews that I have seen (presumably by critics who have not read the books) that the ending was 15 minutes too long. By all standard film-making conventions, RotK should have ended with Aragorn's coronation, Arwen's appearance and the honouring of the Hobbits. So let's be thankful we at least had the Grey Havens. :rolleyes:

And a lady by the name of Megan Bashem (spelling?) wrote an article about how the whole big picture of the general Good vs. Evil theme was overlooked (intentionally, Basham believes, and I agree) to keep the cast, crew, and audience more comfortable with their worldview that there is no such thing as a true, concrete sense of Right and Wrong. (Such a thing would mandate a Creator of Right and Wrong, which they don’t believe in, and really don’t want to) Sorry, in what way was the Good v Evil theme not covered? The free peoples are good, and they are fighting a war against Sauron, who is evil. Seems pretty straightforward to me. In fact, I have read a number of articles complaining that the films are too simplistic in their portrayal of good and evil (elves and hobbits: good; orcs: evil) and that it therefore has nothing relevant to tell us about the complex world in which we live. Yes, the films are not overtly religious in their portrayal of good v evil (and rightly so, in my view), but then neither is the book. Nevertheless, many of the values which Tolkien held dear (which were influenced by his relious beliefs), and which are espoused in the book, seem to me to be present in the films.

And a lot of run-of-the-mill movie goers don’t want to have to think about what they watch. For them, it’s mindless entertainment. PJ knew he had to target those people while still remaining as true as he could to us fans. I do think that you may make a good point here. There is far more emotional investment in a book than in a film. Most films demand no more than 3 hours of someone's time, whereas a book will demand a lot more. So I think that it's understandable that people expect far less "thought-provoking" content from films, particularly big budget productions aimed at the mass market, than they do from books. Books also require less in terms of sales to recoup their production costs than films, certainly those requiring the kind of investment necessary to bring Middle-earth to life. So, again, I think that it's understandable that those involved in making the LotR films aimed for mass, rather than specialist, appeal.

Knight of Gondor

03-28-2004, 10:00 PM

I can understand where some people might think that LotR is actually TOO concretely right and wrong. (Especially with that line about having to fight a war, even though you don't feel like risking it? Peace activist Mortenson, grit your pearly whites!) The movie itself couldn't have been more clear about right and wrong. It's just a shame that the writers and staff don't like that idea quite so much.

Please see this link: http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000860.html If this does not bring you to it, visit the base website, Boundless.org and go to archives, type in Megan Basham's name, and find the article "Tolkien versus Jackson". I will not post it here because that is a side issue, off-track from fault-finding in the movies. Nevertheless, I found it to be an excellent article.

Lalaith

03-29-2004, 05:39 AM

Knight of Gondor, it's a very interesting article, (although I personally disagree with it!) Perhaps you should start another thread in the movie forum to discuss it.

Miriel Undomiel

04-07-2004, 12:40 PM

Jackson did an exellent job with the movie. How much can we Tolkienfans expect?
If it wasn't for Jackson there would proboably be a tenthousen times worse movie. If another director had taken the job of filmatizing the book, he might just look at the project as a job. Jackson has put tens of years into this trilogi because he wanted to. New Line Cinema didn't throw the book in PJ's face and say: ''do whatever you like, just make it good enough to sell.''

As for time passing in movies: just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen!!!!!! The Hobbits ate very much, so what do you think happened a few hours after a meal? Just because we didn't see anyone sneaking behind a bush, doesn't mean they kept it in until the war was over! It's a movie, not some crazy reality about elves and hobbits!

starkat

04-07-2004, 12:43 PM

I think the theatrical versions are good. and the EE's are better.

Miriel Undomiel

04-07-2004, 01:14 PM

I think the theatrical versions are good. and the EE's are better.

:D Excellent way to put it, Starcat! Nice and simple... I totally agree! :D

Knight of Gondor

04-08-2004, 08:41 PM

*Ehem* Well, if you abridged me a whole lot, that's basically how I feel too. :)

starkat

04-09-2004, 05:12 PM

Hey, if you want anything profound out of me, you'll have to visit with me at Narnia web site. I'm better at keeping things short then I am at expounding my full reasons. :-)

TheBladeThatWasBroken

04-09-2004, 08:37 PM

Geez... this is really getting quite annoying...
The dude took eight years of his life to adapt a thousand-something pages book, ya can't expect him to follow every, single, darn word! If so, he'd probably have to make one movie for every three or four chapters, and seriously, who'd want to sit through all of Tom Bombadil's silly songs? At least he actually took the time to make the films, let's see you do better, and if ya don't like it, then just don't watch it! They actually gave some excuses concerning some of the changes, and most of those excuses are really acceptable... but if you're just too stubborn to accept them, then like my history teacher used to say: "Too bad, so sad, tear :( "

Knight of Gondor

04-12-2004, 09:04 PM

Yeah, but they have the right to critique the movie. I just get to defend it! :) I have a few issues with the movie too, of course, I think it is far from perfect. I just think that this version is pretty much the best that Hollywood could have given us.

The Only Real Estel

05-08-2004, 07:31 PM

Geez... this is really getting quite annoying...

I agree with that. At times it does get annoying, but there's no problem with a little intelligent critisicm.

At least he actually took the time to make the films, let's see you do better, and if ya don't like it, then just don't watch it!

I don't agree with that. If all you had to say was 'you couldn't do it any better, so it must've been good & above reproach', then life would be to easy.

They actually gave some excuses concerning some of the changes, and most of those excuses are really acceptable... but if you're just too stubborn to accept them

Some of the excuses are acceptable, some of them are tolerable. Some fo them are stupid. But just because someone doesn't agree with the excuses they give doesn't make the person stubborn, it just means that they either don't buy the excuse or they don't agree with it, & they're entitled to that.

Geez... this is really getting quite annoying...

But you have to look at it from the other side, too. It might get annoying for you to hear nitpicking, but it also might get annoying to them to be accused of being stubborn & ungrateful.