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

[Morima]

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

[Iris Alantiel]

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]

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 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...

[Cibbwin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Knight of Gondor

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.

[Gorwingel]

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]

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!