Picky, Picky, Picky.
 

I've been gathering for quite a while now, some little nit-picky, carpy complaints by Tolkien purists (or presumably Tolkien purists). Some, of them I find rather funny, just to see how minor these little complaints are, and they act like it's the end of the world. Here are a few of them...

"Gandalf's light to drive off the Nazgul should have been brighter. It says in the book it is a blinding flash of light. Jackson underexaggerated Gandalf's light making it look like a dinky flashlight."

"ERROR IN THE MOVIES! Legolas' eye color changes from blue to green? How come?" (I'm sorry to the person who wrote this, but I find myself too busy watching the wonderful scenery then paying attention to the eye color of people).

"Narsil was only broken in two pieces, not 10."

"Elendil was too short, he should have been taller."

"Boromir's hair was too light, he was like the rest of the Gondorians, black hair."

I find all these nit-picky and meaningless complaints by people. So, what sort of picky, picky, picky, complaints have you found from others?

None of the above changes from the book really annoy me. I'm far more ticked off that the Gondorians seem to come across as incompetant cowards who can't even take out a little 5'4" Snaga by themselves. Is this nit-picking?

No, because I don't see a reason behind it. Why make the Gondorians look like dumb tables? (well the main reason is because I think the same way, lol).

Nice to finally know I'm not entirely alone in that view.

I do agree with you, the scenery is much better than legolas' eyes but, i do admit i was somewhat upset with how they made boromir's hair... :rolleyes: (That's just one, mostly I was upset about trees...i wanted to see more ents... :D )

To add to this list, here is some sampling from my friend, who is indeed, 100% a puritan when it comes to tolkien...


"What?! What! What happend to Tom Bombadil! the Old Forest! Damit, it is important to the story!"

" What happened to saruman and gandalf's little talk after the ent raid? Hmm? or Saruman's trip into the shire?"

" Pippin's not that drunk!" <--- they admire him... I sense alittle fan defense...

" Why doesn't frodo sing in the prancing pony?!"

...And much more... That, i will not try to recreate on here. Even though, it is funny to poke at... :p

~An Easy going Ka~

To me it seems a little nit-picky when people complain about Barad-dur appearing to be so close to the Black Gates. Sure it's quite a divergence from the book as far as geography is concerned, but it's not really a big deal and it helps add impact to the scene of the tower's destruction (with the characters being able to actually see it and all).

No, it isn't. Tolkien said so himself. :p Bombadil was featured purely for sentimental reasons, not because he was important to the story. (Check in Letters! It's there!)

I agree with Boromir and Neurion about the Gondorian soldiers; they really got a raw deal. I really hate how Gandalf had to tell them to shoot the trolls instead of the towers. :rolleyes: It's when people start picking about hair colour that I get a bit annoyed. Just let it go!

~ Saphy ~

Thanks Saphy! Now I can let that fact be my daily 'sentence stopper' to my friend and watch how their entire day will be ruined... Nah, i think i'll just bug them about it. Repeatedly...

Thanks for the fact!

~ Undoubtly Devious Ka~

Well, I am going to play Devil's advocate here and ask "Why the hell not?" If Faramir has brown hair in the film I am going to point it out and ask "Why?" Why shouldn't I be allowed to complain?

I think the problem is that people confuse levels of seriousness. No, people do not need to get upset about minor changes, but neither do people need to get upset when people point them out.

This is, after all, a Tolkien discussion board. We will get into the finer points that 'normal people' would not think about. Call me a pedant and I will smile back. :p

My friend is an uber-extreme puritan. She now refuses to watch the beginning of Fellowship with Gandalf and Frodo when they are driving up to Bag end and Gandalf sets of fireworks for the little hobbit children. She always runs away screaming," There were no fireworks there!!!! AAAAHHHHHHHH!!!"

Sapphire, Here we go again..........

Main Reason why Tom Bombadil / Old Forest were CRITICAL to the story. (many others, but I've already mentioned these on another thread)

Merry gets given a sword of Westernesse by Tom after they're saved from the barrow-wights. Without this, we have a domino affect on the rest of the story. Let me explain......

No sword, no defeat of the Witch King. That is a FACT.

No defeat of the Witch King, probable defeat of the West at the Pellenor Fields.

Defeat at the Pellenor Fields, no diversionary tactics by Gandalf and Co which could have lead to a possible sighting by Sauron of Frodo and Sam.

Most importantly to me, no defeat of the witch king, then no quarrel between the two hunter orcs that Frodo and Sam stumble across, and I propose that these orcs would have easily tracked down the hobbits if it was not for their fight. Hobbits killed or captured, Ring found, delivered to Sauron, and End of Story.....

Essex is right.

It always bugged me that Merry's blade was never explained (the fact that it was the single most damaging blade to the Witch King in the world). That's not a minor detail.

And concerning Faramir's hair (which was most definitely too light), it's not that it gets in the way of the story or anything, it's just that they could've gotten it right so easily so why didn't they? Just slap a freakin' black wig on the guy. Little things like that get me worked up because it would've been so easy to get them right, but they didn't! Why?!

It's like doing well on a difficult test and then forgetting to put your name at the top. It's plain stupid. It boggles the mind.

I'm not debating the neccessity of the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs; I'm just saying that the character of Bombadil, himself, wasn't critical. Tolkien could have inserted another character, with similar powers, in his place without damaging the story. The reason that the character was Tom Bombadil is that Tolkien had already written stories concerning him, and therefore it was for sentimental reasons that he was the one placed in the Old Forest to aid the hobbits. I do, in fact, completely agree with what you say about Merry's sword. In the movie, the swords are given to them by Aragorn; who's to say those blades are the same type that were found in the barrow? Therefore, it still works in the movies. *rimshot*

...

Okay, I have officially heard the pickyness to end all pickyness. At another board, someone complained that "the arrow that Legolas shot Grima with, wasn't fletched right for an elven arrow."

*blink blink* And? Why on earth would you complain about that? "Stop the presses, Legolas had an improperly fletched arrow!" I don't really think it matters. It's amazing what some people choose to complain about. I can see how you can point out changes from the book, but this is a bit silly.

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~

I think the main reason people come up with these ridiculous complaints is that they watch the movies TOO many times, and therefore to find some completely minor and unnessecary mishap is to their great satisfation.
They probably wanted to come up with something that hasn't been complained about before, and of course everything's been complained about so they find something that nobody WOULD complain about, which doesn't deserve a complaint in the first place.

Also, about Bombadil and the old forest. One reason why they should have included this in the movies was to lighten up the scene a bit. With all these dark and gloomy scenes (which are, as it is, essential to the story) there could have been a bit of.... almost comic relief, for a moment. But ofcourse it was simply impossible to fit all this in, so I think it is quite accounted for.

That's not entirely true, Dragon. I am one of those people who have watched the movies too many times(about 20 for FotR), and I agree that these little grievances are pretty pathetic.

As far as bringing in Tom Bombadil to lighten the mood, I don't think that would be a good idea. I don't know if he was trying to do it, but PJ kinda butchered the comic relief, especially with Gimli. It just ended up making him look like a clown, and I thought it made him appear a little on the dumb side. I shutter to think what people would think of Tom Bombadil if they had done that to him.

Now, Pathetic Grievances:

"Arwen didn't ride with Frodo in the book."

"The ringwraiths attacked behind Weathertop, not on it."

"Boromir died in the Two Towers, not in the Fellowship!"


BTW, Dragon, Wheel of Time ROCKS! :D

Welcome to the Downs, Dragon! I love The Wheel of Time! (Not as much as LotR though) ;)

Hee hee... tables.

Wow, Essex. Thanks for pointing that out! I never realized that. :)

That's not a "pathetic grievance".

Arwen shouldn't have appeared in the same camera shot as Frodo until he was in Rivendell.

Right now I currently quite weary from the amount of death that is happening around me in my life to spend time searching for some but I am very annoyed with the pathetic comments some people write. As I have written in other threads the transition of book to film requires some changes, for example even though I love the Scouring of the Shire I can easily see why it was left out. Because of the way that the RotK was set up, that scene would seem VERY anti-climatic. That is understandable though, the fact that people lose their heads over stuff like how many pieces Narsil was in, is beyond me. btw i have heard that one a LOT, and plus what low-life would spend time actually counting the shards on Pause.

Let's just say the makers of the films knew what they were doing and if they did somthing we think is wrong, well, this must be for some reason we don't understand, and leave it at that.

I think that Dragon Reborn has it about right (welcome to the Downs, by the way). I have watched the films only a handful of times each and I seem to have far less complaints than most. :D

There is, I suspect, also an element of people trying to prove that they are bona fide book fans by trying to find every minor detail that varies from the story presented in the book. My own view is that, if one is sufficiently confident in one's appreciation of the book, then one should be able to accept differences in the films. They are, after all, only an adaptations. Unless something doesn't work within the films (ie gives rise to an internal consistency) then I have don't have a problem with it.

With one exception, of course. My dislike of those Lemming-Hyenas is purely subjective. I was so looking forward to seeing Wargs and I didn't see anything resembling a Warg until Grond came along. :mad: :rolleyes:

It seems as if there are two extremes being caricatured.

1. The obsessive nit-picker.

2. The ferocious defender of the faith.

Accept that discussion is fun and just go and get a hot chocolate or something...

;)

Which one am I? ;)

OK I pick, but then I pick about every film which is based on a much-loved book. I have to say, the LotR films are the ones which have managed the transition best of all those such films I have seen, and I do love them. But I still pick. Leave me alone, I enjoy it! :p Well, in the spirit of the thread I shall offer up my worst/best picky moment - criticising the unkempt state of the gardens in Hobbiton. :eek:

I agree with Saucepan the movie fans get such a hard time when they gush about Orlando Bloom or whatever, that they probably feel that they need to prove themselves and therefore they find reasons to be nit-picky about the movies.

(I wrote this in third person reffering to these unknowns as 'they', I should probably include myself in this statement ;) )

Because then we would have no discussion sub-forums like The Movies! :) But seriously, there's nothing wrong with discussion or debate, just as long as it is intelligent & not wholly centered on minuscule things. Now of course we get into an arguement about what is minuscule & what is relevant, but that is a can of worms that I am not willing to open. :p

You may not have opened it but you have certainly left it sitting dangerously on the edge of the table...

;)

I for one enjoy cans of worms so let's get started on this one! I propose that there is no alteration so small that it is not worth speaking about.

Well, I wouldn't really say that. Some (okay, many) alterations had to be made so that the films would be shorter and understandable. Some of my favorite parts from the book(Old Forest, Scouring of the Shire) were cut from the movies, and it did at first really torque me off. But it doesn't make a huge difference to the whole story. The two tales are basically side plots that have little real effect on the story. (Except for Merry's sword, as Saphy pointed out earlier.) They would just add time, and in the end, it would make the movies less desirable for someone new to Tolkien

But if they had put every detail into the movies, we'd be watching some 20 odd hours rather than 11.5. I wouldn't really mind, but that's the main reason that they had to cut so much of it. Thank God for the Extended Editions! :D

I am going to sewer Jackson.
 

Here`s one for you, as a member of The Tolkien Society I object to the sewer scene`s, I thought they should have smelled more ghastly, I couldn`t smell anything

I agree, most of it seems like nit-picking, but there were some changes that I was dissapointed in. Like how Faramir takes Frodo to Gondor. Honestly, where did that come from? :rolleyes: If I remember correctly, he wasn't even tempted by the ring was he? I think it ruined Faramir's character and made it seem that all men are easily corrupted which isn't true. That's just my $0.02 anyway.

who knows, maybe I'm nit-picking too. :p

Well don't forget that Aragorn turns the ring away in Fellowship at Amon Hen, but I understand what you're saying.

The mere desire can corrupt
 

The One Ring is the ultimate corrupter, it use`s the desire for power. Boromir was doomed the moment he saw it, he wanted to destroy Sauron so much, to save his city, he wasnt a bad man, he was just weak. The desire for the Ring was enough to corrupt Saruman. It would have destroyed Denethor. Inner fortitude and morality were the reasons for saving Aragorn and Faramir, neither of these two wanted great power, and for reasons of good old down to Middle-Earth sense, Samwise Gamgee saw straight through the temptations the Ring gave him. The old saying power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If any of The Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using his own dark arts, he would set himself on Sauron`s throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear.

I think the TTT EE version did a pretty good job of explaining things, and I have mostly gotten over the Faramir business (if only because I'm trying to keep the movie & book versions seperate, for the most part). But I am not interested in Philipa Boyen's (one of the writers) explanation. She esentially says that they couldn't have Faramir the way he was in the book because they'd spent all of the first movie & a half trying to show how powerful the Ring was, & how Frodo could barely resist it; and if Faramir was like he was in the books, it would strip the Ring of all the power they were trying to build up. I disagree with this on several counts. Most importantly, it did nothing of the sort (for me) in the books. Granted, literature and film are two completely different things, but I think that excuse doesn't apply in this particular case. Secondly, as was already brought up, they had Aragorn refuse to take it (barely) at the end of the Fellowship, so Faramir would not join any exclusive club. Add on to that that the Ring does not hold nearly as much power over anyone when he (or she) has not spent a great deal of time around it (it took It a long time to finally wholly corrupt Boromir, if only for a fateful moment), & you see that it is no great stretch for Faramir to pass on it. Having said all that, I repeat that it is the writer's 'reasons' (excuses) for movie Faramir that bother me the most about the character.

No nits picked here
 

Although I have no problem with Faramir taking the Hobbits to Osgiliath (he let the Ring go eventually, after all, even if it was for rather strange reasons), I would hardly describe this as a nit-pick. It is an issue that merits (and has received much) substantive discussion in any analysis of the differences between the film and the book.

Here's some other nit-picks:

"The Hall of Meduseld was gold in the books, why didn't I see any gold in the movies?"

"Everybody knows that Wormtongue cut Saruman's throat; he didn't stab him in the back like the movies shows."

For my money, one of the nittiest picks of all is the complaint that the wargs did not look enough like wolves. :D ;) :eek:

*Fordim ducks flying saucepan*

No flying saucepans here ...
 

:D

Touche!

I don't disagree. It's a purely emotional thing. When I heard that there would be Wargs and Warg-riders in the film, I was so looking forward to seeing them. But they were such a disappointment that it has become one of my major gripes about the films. :rolleyes: :D

And ROTK EE would have been given a 15 or 18 rating. As all films would have been if Orc blood was red.....

I verily believe that there are those people that can tend to be quite "nit-picky," as one would call it. I know that it can even be irritating sometimes to others who are not so picky, but I think that we ought to respect everyone's opinion. No one should get on anyone's case (in a disrespectful manner, that is) for what they post. One can disagree, of course, in a polite manner, but one should always be mindful of others. At least, in my humble opinion.

Refering back to Boromir's original post, although I think the comment about Gandalf's staff light to be rather trivial, I can still see what this person meant. To have been able to see a truly beautiful, bright blinding light (like the aura around Arwen when Frodo first sees her) would have been quite inpirational.

Well, I'm not really that nit-picky when it comes to the movies... but I guess I have made comments about the Hobbits' hair color. Frodo's is great, but I thought that the other's were too light. I was mainly irritated with Merry's, but that's also because I thought it was too light for Dominic Monaghan's complextion. Haha... talk about nit-picky! :)

But, hey, some of the best jokes and parodies come out of nit-picking :)

Is it just me, or was there something wrong about the Mouth of Sauron? He didn't seem right to me...

Thought it might help this thread...

http://www.essex1.com/people/thompsn...ist_vs_fan.jpg

I found it amusing...

~Ka~