What are your most hated parts about the L.O.T.R movies? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Essex · 09-26-2005, 08:55 AM

Reg, yes I can see that idea working with Sam getting lost. I think Jackson was trying to show in one scene the depth that the Ring had taken Frodo - and the guile and dnager of Gollum - thousands of words that tolkien expertly crafted about the 3 travellers story would not have made a viable movie for many film goers - yes, for us tolkien fanatics we would have lapped it up, but new line would never have let him make a movie 54 hours long (plus all the time for 'action') - the reason why I say 54 hours is the length of time it takes for the audio book for the unabridged lotr to be read out.

anyway, so boyens and walsh crammed up all these feelings into one scene (for me anyway)

PS the reason of Pacing is a valid one. But maybe the reason why tolkien wrote the books like they were was (and I may be shot down in flames here) was kindof like the same reason. To go from one book with the hobbits trudging along, almost dying, to scenes of mayhem and fighting would not have worked.

If the story was shown in say 6 movies, then we could have a book per movie, but again, other than us die hard fans, who would go to see sam and frodo trudging through mountains for a few hours?

Neurion · 09-27-2005, 05:40 AM

There are quite a few things PJ did that I'm not overly fond of (turning Fell-Beasts into Ray Harryhausen-esque pteranodons straight out of One Million Years B.C. is one of the absolute worst, right up there with making the Gondorian infantry the disposable, why-do-they-wear-armour-if-it-doesn't-work Stormtrooper cannon-fodder that they come off as), but I think his sins of omission are almost as bad.

I'm quite certain that with a decent trimming of extraneous belching dwarves, pallid Elf-princesses mysterious tied to the Ring, shieldmaidens of Rohan stealing dreams from Ranger captains, surly, phosphorescent ghosts and warg attacks, there would have been room for more actual book material, such as the Knights of Dol Amroth, Imrahil, Beregond, maybe even the Dunedain.

Case in point: Why does Denethor have a sort of assistant named "Irolas"? Why not Hurin of the Keys, or some other actual character from the books?

Ardeth Bay · 09-27-2005, 11:00 AM

Yes, He definitly shouldn't have left out imrahil.
His knights are like half the gondorian army in the first place

Folwren · 09-27-2005, 02:12 PM

Frodo sending Sam away was definitely the worst part that he changed. The other things...you know, lots of the things named here are pretty trivial. Some characters that he left out he simply didn't have time for. But for Frodo to tell Sam to go away and have that whole scenerio is without excuse. It didn't save him any time, it time is what he wanted to save, and it certainly didn't help Frodo's character. It was a totally non-Tolkien. You couldn't get farther from the books. Well, maybe you could've, but not much farther.

-- Folwren

Essex · 10-06-2005, 11:46 AM

Neurion, re

Quote:

there would have been room for more actual book material, such as the Knights of Dol Amroth, Imrahil, Beregond, maybe even the Dunedain.

everyone seems to be viewing these films as being made just for us rabid book readers - if they were, then new line would be out of business today.

What would the people in the list above bring to the Movie?

Knights of Dol Amroth - just more armies from another part of Gondor - this would just confuse the movie goers

imrahil - what does this guy actually add to the books let alone the move! yes, I know he was briefly in charge of Minas Tirith for a while during or after the battle (wasn't he?), but hey, that's not too exiting is it?

Beregond - yes, and I enjoyed these scenes in the books, but do you think we could have had these scenes work as Jackson is building the tension up with Frodo & co struggling up the mountains, rohan getting ready for war, and Gandalf pumping up the gondorians? i don't think so unfortunately.......

Dunedain - their main use in the book was to deliver Elrond's thoughts on which way Aragorn should go via the paths of the dead - but in the film jackson had gandalf deliver the line, so no real use for them either...........

yes, this is quite a flippant reply, but I'm trying to make sense of why these were left out, and I think they are valid 'excuses'.

totally agree with jacson using new character names though - there's no point in that!

Neurion · 10-06-2005, 10:11 PM

Going by your line of reasoning, one might not at first conclude that the correct course of action would not be to reduce the trilogy's protagonists down to the barest skeletal essentials, i.e. Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn, as some games have done.

SarumanCymraeg · 05-27-2006, 09:15 AM

I think you have to take the movies almost seperately from the books. They have to be enjoyed at their own level. Personally, although some bits of the films (normal and EEs) aggrivated me, I thought they were really, really enjoyable and skilfully directed. However, there's two things that truly annoy me about the films.

1) Saruman: in the books we know that Saruman is in fact a traitor to both the White Council and Sauron. Although in the movies he's obviously a traitor to the Council, to me the movies don't convey this, and he is portrayed almost as a good ally to Sauron.

2) The Elves and Dwarves don't seem to be troubled at all by Sauron and Mordor. Rivendell Elves are still free to go to the West if they want to, such as Arwen would in the movies, and this is utter nonsense. There was no escape for the Elves, Rivendell, Lorien and Mirkwood were all under siege (and the sending of aid to Helm's Deep, along with Elrond's visit to Dunharrow, was stupid). Also, we don't really see anything of the Dwarves.

The only clue to wider troubles in in the RotK EE when Legolas says to Gimli that war is already upon the Dwarves (or vaguely hints at it, really). This would be a perfect oppotunity for someone (Legolas, I guess) to maybe have a mini-speech about the brewing battles in Dale and Lorien, and showing us that, after all, this is not just a war of Men, as it is portrayed.

09-27-2005, 05:40 AM	#2
Neurion Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Standing amidst the slaughter I have wreaked upon the orcs Posts: 258	There are quite a few things PJ did that I'm not overly fond of (turning Fell-Beasts into Ray Harryhausen-esque pteranodons straight out of One Million Years B.C. is one of the absolute worst, right up there with making the Gondorian infantry the disposable, why-do-they-wear-armour-if-it-doesn't-work Stormtrooper cannon-fodder that they come off as), but I think his sins of omission are almost as bad. I'm quite certain that with a decent trimming of extraneous belching dwarves, pallid Elf-princesses mysterious tied to the Ring, shieldmaidens of Rohan stealing dreams from Ranger captains, surly, phosphorescent ghosts and warg attacks, there would have been room for more actual book material, such as the Knights of Dol Amroth, Imrahil, Beregond, maybe even the Dunedain. Case in point: Why does Denethor have a sort of assistant named "Irolas"? Why not Hurin of the Keys, or some other actual character from the books? __________________ ____________________________________ "And a cold voice rang forth from the blade. Yea, I will drink thy blood, that I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly."

09-27-2005, 11:00 AM	#3
Ardeth Bay Newly Deceased Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 10	Yes, He definitly shouldn't have left out imrahil. His knights are like half the gondorian army in the first place __________________ Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow; The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow....

09-27-2005, 02:12 PM	#4
Folwren Messenger of Hope Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a tiny, insignificant little town in one of the many States. Posts: 5,076	Frodo sending Sam away was definitely the worst part that he changed. The other things...you know, lots of the things named here are pretty trivial. Some characters that he left out he simply didn't have time for. But for Frodo to tell Sam to go away and have that whole scenerio is without excuse. It didn't save him any time, it time is what he wanted to save, and it certainly didn't help Frodo's character. It was a totally non-Tolkien. You couldn't get farther from the books. Well, maybe you could've, but not much farther. -- Folwren __________________ A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. - C.S. Lewis

10-06-2005, 10:11 PM	#6
Neurion Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Standing amidst the slaughter I have wreaked upon the orcs Posts: 258	Going by your line of reasoning, one might not at first conclude that the correct course of action would not be to reduce the trilogy's protagonists down to the barest skeletal essentials, i.e. Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn, as some games have done. __________________ ____________________________________ "And a cold voice rang forth from the blade. Yea, I will drink thy blood, that I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly."

09-26-2005, 08:55 AM	#1
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 886	Reg, yes I can see that idea working with Sam getting lost. I think Jackson was trying to show in one scene the depth that the Ring had taken Frodo - and the guile and dnager of Gollum - thousands of words that tolkien expertly crafted about the 3 travellers story would not have made a viable movie for many film goers - yes, for us tolkien fanatics we would have lapped it up, but new line would never have let him make a movie 54 hours long (plus all the time for 'action') - the reason why I say 54 hours is the length of time it takes for the audio book for the unabridged lotr to be read out. anyway, so boyens and walsh crammed up all these feelings into one scene (for me anyway) PS the reason of Pacing is a valid one. But maybe the reason why tolkien wrote the books like they were was (and I may be shot down in flames here) was kindof like the same reason. To go from one book with the hobbits trudging along, almost dying, to scenes of mayhem and fighting would not have worked. If the story was shown in say 6 movies, then we could have a book per movie, but again, other than us die hard fans, who would go to see sam and frodo trudging through mountains for a few hours?

05-27-2006, 09:15 AM	#7
SarumanCymraeg Pile O'Bones Join Date: May 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 19	I think you have to take the movies almost seperately from the books. They have to be enjoyed at their own level. Personally, although some bits of the films (normal and EEs) aggrivated me, I thought they were really, really enjoyable and skilfully directed. However, there's two things that truly annoy me about the films. 1) Saruman: in the books we know that Saruman is in fact a traitor to both the White Council and Sauron. Although in the movies he's obviously a traitor to the Council, to me the movies don't convey this, and he is portrayed almost as a good ally to Sauron. 2) The Elves and Dwarves don't seem to be troubled at all by Sauron and Mordor. Rivendell Elves are still free to go to the West if they want to, such as Arwen would in the movies, and this is utter nonsense. There was no escape for the Elves, Rivendell, Lorien and Mirkwood were all under siege (and the sending of aid to Helm's Deep, along with Elrond's visit to Dunharrow, was stupid). Also, we don't really see anything of the Dwarves. The only clue to wider troubles in in the RotK EE when Legolas says to Gimli that war is already upon the Dwarves (or vaguely hints at it, really). This would be a perfect oppotunity for someone (Legolas, I guess) to maybe have a mini-speech about the brewing battles in Dale and Lorien, and showing us that, after all, this is not just a war of Men, as it is portrayed.