[willkill4food]

<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><P>If they havnt read LotR, then they cant be <I>that</I> inteligent....just kidding...<P>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. <BR>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...<BR>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...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> maybe, but as I said, your opinion there is the minority, and PJ was aiming for the majority.<P>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.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>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...<P>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...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> 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...<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>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?<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>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...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> 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...<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>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.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>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...<P>-willkill<p>[ 1:08 PM February 02, 2004: Message edited by: willkill4food ]