Problems with the movie... - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

01-21-2002, 06:03 AM

1. Why was the Eye of Sauron a vertical slit of fire? In the book, it is a lidless eye that roves ceaselessy across Middle-Earth, searching and searching. The movie eye was not scary at all; in the book, the Eye is the most terrifying thing of all.2. Where (in Lord of the Rings or Tolkien's other writings) are the hobbits described as having pointy ears and as having big hairy feet (as opposed to normal-sized hairy feet)?3. Why was Isengard pronounced 'Eyezengard' in the film? Tolkien's guide to pronunciation (Appendix, LoftR) seems to suggest it should be pronounced 'Issengard'.4. And, yes, I agree, Sam in the book goes with Frodo out of loyalty and of his own free will. The film seems to imply that he goes because Gandalf told him to.5. Yes, I also thought Lothlorien was sundappled and golden.Apart from that: wonderful! Changes to plot, deletion of Tom Bombadil, etc.: makes it more movie-friendly. Sticking too slavishly to a book can destroy the independent life of a film.[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: lobelia ]

01-21-2002, 06:03 AM	#26
lobelia Guest Posts: n/a	1. Why was the Eye of Sauron a vertical slit of fire? In the book, it is a lidless eye that roves ceaselessy across Middle-Earth, searching and searching. The movie eye was not scary at all; in the book, the Eye is the most terrifying thing of all.<P>2. Where (in Lord of the Rings or Tolkien's other writings) are the hobbits described as having pointy ears and as having big hairy feet (as opposed to normal-sized hairy feet)?<P>3. Why was Isengard pronounced 'Eyezengard' in the film? Tolkien's guide to pronunciation (Appendix, LoftR) seems to suggest it should be pronounced 'Issengard'.<P>4. And, yes, I agree, Sam in the book goes with Frodo out of loyalty and of his own free will. The film seems to imply that he goes because Gandalf told him to.<P>5. Yes, I also thought Lothlorien was sundappled and golden.<P>Apart from that: wonderful! Changes to plot, deletion of Tom Bombadil, etc.: makes it more movie-friendly. Sticking too slavishly to a book can destroy the independent life of a film.<p>[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: lobelia ]