Good Changes

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

SpM, well back in the day knights would bring several horses with them onto battle (2-3 usually).

... as every film-goer knows ...

I think that having the Witch-King switch from horse to fell beast during the battle would have risked causing confusion. And a fell beast is both more spectacular (visually) and more terrifying than a horse, even a black steed.

Perhaps the Mouth of Sauron should have ridden out on a fell beast too - the Aragorn could have lopped its head off, rather than the Mouth's.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fordim

The wargs look great

Grrr ...

I love the concept of a battle with Warg-riders, it's just that ... [censored].

[Anguirel]

Hmmm. I'm going to find this mildly difficult, but not insuperable.

Grima Wormtongue in general, and in particular his gaining of the bower speech. I enjoyed Grima's hyperbolic, almost comic, power over Theoden, and so had no objection to the infamous Beard of Theoden either.

Also...controversial...I don't in retrospect mind the changes to Faramir's plotline in the least, as they are consistent with the book character.

[Essex]

what about the Pumpkin scene at the end of ROTK?

lovely scene, the hobbits have saved the world and are now back to normal sitting in the pub. all the other hobbits are far more interested in a big pumpkin rather than what our hobbits have done, even though as Gandalf says they are "Grown indeed very high; among the great you are"

Very clever piece of filming from PJ and co

and of course the 'you bow to no one' scene building up on Aragorn bending down on one knee to them at the field of Cormallen and transposing this to Minas Tirith and having the whole of the city bow down to them. I cried like a baby the first time I saw it in the Cinema. My FAVOURITE part of the whole film Trilogy

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

If the "no flaming" rule wasn't in place, I wouldn't dare post this...

I honestly think that Arwen's expanded role in the movies works fairly well. There are some glitches, and she does sometimes seem to appear a little too frequently, but overall, it makes filmmaking sense.

I like that she was the one to take Frodo to the Ford (It would have been preferable for Frodo to ride alone, but if someone was going to take him, I'm glad it was Arwen. Honestly to have Glorfindel appear out of nowhere wouldn't make storytelling sense, since he pretty much vanishes afterward.

Arwen needs screen time. Aragorn's love can't be some mysterious figure off to the side. It just doesn't work for some girl to show up at the end of ROTK and marry him. She needs to be a presence all along, so I think that works quite well in the movie.

I also think that the Scouring of the Shire is better left untouched. From a filmmaking perspective, it's best to let the action fall again after the climax, to let the resolution follow through to the end of the movie instead of having another peak as soon as the Hobbits return. It would leave the audience bemused and wondering what, exactly, that part was there for. It does nothing to further the plot, and in fact works to backtrack the plot. Just when you think it's over, you have to build up to another conflict, another battle, and then you can carry on to the end. In the book, it's not so bad. It's not nearly as jarring as it would be at the end of the movie. Just one of those differences between page and screen.

And besides, I think it's nice to have a little corner of LOTR completely untouched by PJ's image of it through the movies. It's not that the movies have taken over my imagination, but fundamental things are changed from my first perceptions. So it's nice in a way to have some things left out entirely from that perspective.

I also understand Faramir's character changes. I was angry in the beginning but by the time I'd finished my second viewing of TTT, I had realized that what happened made movie sense: it kept the pacing and tension up, as opposed to letting that fall and risk loss of momentum towards the end. It also makes character sense by the end (helped by the TTT EE.) Book Faramir and Movie Faramir are two different people, but both are valid for different reasons. When on a reading marathon, it can be nice to take a break from fear and tension in a storyline, because you've still got hundreds and hundreds of pages to go before you reach the real end...but in the TTT movie, there isn't so much time between the capture of the Hobbits and the end of the movie, and they needed a way to keep the picture from losing steam at a crucial moment.

I'm not sure as this is a change, as chronologically it's in the proper place, but the move of Shelob from TTT to ROTK made a lot of sense, too. Chronologically, where they put the spider in the movie is about where she was in the books. So perhaps it's more of a correction than anything else. The split at the end of TTT is in an awkward place, because all three were meant to be read as one long book. At least in the movies, there is some slight resolution: Frodo sees the light, as does Faramir, and the Hobbits are released. Isengard is destroyed, and the good guys win out at Helm's Deep. Then there's the bait, in order to get moviegoers to come back the next year: a dark hint at Shelob.

[Farael]

It is not exactly a change, but I thought it should be mentioned... I really like the way the characters fight, specially Aragorn. He is the King of Gondor, the Ranger... and yet he punches, head-butts and hacks his way through the enemy lines. No dancing like a ballerina while seemingly effortlessly cutting through orc after orc after Mouth Of Sauron.

I think it's very realistic.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

I really hope I'm not venturing into "flaming" territory, but I want to be very blunt here. You can’t really, IMHO Say that something done to LOTR is a good change. There are only three kinds of changes, interesting ones, necessary ones, and ones that just make you go; what the…..huh?!?!? For example Tom Bombadil is a cut that only makes sense, as good a part as it is, it can be removed with out really damaging the story in any way, and saves time as do many others and i respect those. If I had to do the same I only hope I could do as good ajob that way. The rest just seem unnecessary, like stings scabbard done in brown instead of black or anything else like that. Why do it?? I just don't get it.



Sorry if I offend, Just MHO.


-EDIT

I do like this one though, for the same reasons.

Originally Posted by doug*platypus

Boromir was a thoroughly more likeable character in the movies than the book. This makes "filmic" sense to me in that it makes his descent to ring-hungry bully at the end of FOTR is all the more tragic.

EDTI Again!

I was just thinking about other peoples comments about Boromir and remembered just how much I really did like him in the film. I did like the way he was done in the film, and that makes my previous statements rather awkward....

[doug*platypus]

As posted on the "other" thread (link provided by Fordim in first post), there are two changes to the books which I actually approve of (what's that, like 0.000001%?).

Boromir was a thoroughly more likeable character in the movies than the book. This makes "filmic" sense to me in that it makes his descent to ring-hungry bully at the end of FOTR is all the more tragic.

Secondly, PJ changing (or making obscure) the exact nature of pipeweed. It's "the finest weed in the South Farthing" and Gandalf's "love of the halfling's leaf" slows his mind in Saruman's estimation. It's a very humorous change, in my opinion, and a welcome one, although it begs to ask the question "would the Professor have approved"? No, quite probably!

BTW, let me know if I'm coming completely out of left field with the weed comment. IMHO the movie certainly seemed to allude to illicit substances. Lawks, I hope this kind of talk doesn't get me banned!! Well, it was nice knowing you all...