My list of everything wrong with the movies (Not EE) - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

willkill4food · 01-22-2004, 06:46 PM

now, I am not doing this post to be a complainer, its just that one has to realize that NO ONE will EVER make LotR EVER AGAIN. This was our final chance to see it done right, and though PJ did an extraordnairy job, I still have a lot of beef with him about some of the liberties he took with the Trilogy...here is the big list I have with everything that went wrong with all 3 movies..FotR: <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Elendil was portrayed as a suicidal fool, when in the books he and Gil-Galad wound Sauron many times before finally being killed. <LI>"The power of the ring could not be undone", what the heck does that mean? In the books Sauron attacked too early not realizing that the Elves had become stronger while he was away, and he didnt count on such fierce resistance from the Men of Numenor. Sauron come out from Barad-Dur when he had no chance left at all, victory was assured when Sauron came out. <LI>No mention that the Elven rings were made by Celebrindor, not Sauron, which just confsues the viewer as to why the Elves are almost untouched by their rings, while the 9 kings are now wraiths, and all 7 drawven ones are gone.. <LI>Isildur's end was cut short in the final version, not showing the part where the ring betrayed Isildur, which really helps show the evilness and "tricksyness" of the ring. <LI>No Dwarves left the Shire with Bilbo on the night of his party, I wanted to see Dwarves!!! <LI>The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes...not to mention almost the entire manner in which he escaped was either cut out or changed to an unrecognizable form.. <LI>Merry and Pippin suddenly show up in the fields with Frodo and Sam, without any hint that they are very good friends with Frodo, making the two young hobbit's choice to go join the fellowship even more irrational (if thats possible) and confusing... <LI>The way to Bree was way to short, I do believe that Tom Bombadil had no real pace in the movie, but still, it seems like just a stroll in the park to get to Bree...If maybe somehow they could of had the barrowdowns without tom bombadil, that would give an explaination to how Merry wounded the WiKi so badly, maybe Frodo could of saved the 3 hobbits from the Barrowwight, or something to that effect.. <LI>No poem about strider, "All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost" is an entire explaination of Strider in 1 sentance, not to mention it is easily one of the most memorable lines in all of LotR... <LI>Weathertop was a disaster, not only do the black riders look weak, stupid and scared, but there is no mention of their fear of fire, and none of Frodo fighting back. <LI>Aragorn using another sword and a knife besides Anduril and not having Anduril be forged until RotK just got me mad, if Aragorn had the shards of Narsil at Weathertop in the movie, weathertop would not of been so horrible... <LI>The scene of Bill the Pony being left go at the gates of moria....they never showed the scene were they bought bill, so why have the scene were they let him go? <LI>Arwen calling the River to destroy the Nazgul just got me mad, the river is under the command of Lord Elrond, and none other... <LI>The scene of the gift giving was cut out of the final film, this cut I consider one of the most hurtful and wrong cuts that PJ made, not only does it explain the cloaks, Gimli's love for Galadrial, and a lot of other things later on in the trilogy, its just a great scene... <LI>Aragorn "letting" frodo go was one of the biggest mistakes PJ made in the first film, not only does it not go alnog with the story, but the involving of Aragorn in Frodos descision to leave just is very un Tolkien to me...</UL> tTT<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The adition of the wild men attacking parts of Rohan in the begining, I dont care about any peasants getting killed, I care about orcs, Balrogs, Trolls and Nazgul being killed... <LI>Eomer's "flight" from Rohan just got me mad, not only does it thouroughly mess up Helms Deep, but it doesnt fit with Eomer's character one bit... <LI>The Ents stalling...I mean dear god, the movie is more than 3 hours, and still a lot of important and relevent things were cut out, and PJ has the nerve to have the Ents say "no" at first... <LI>No mention of the Battles of the Isen, which once again cause Helms Deep to become an unTolkien mess, no mention of Erkenbrand, and no reason given why Theodred died... <LI>Rohan's total lack of ANY army in TTT, in the book within minutes of Theoden's awakening, he had 1000 mounted riders of the Rohirrim outside his golden hall..not 300 old men and children... <LI>The taking of the women and children to Helms Deep, if there already not enough women and children in the caves in the book, PJ has to make the riding of the Riders into a refugee train...once again...I dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them... <LI>Aragorn's close call....no reason for this, though the Warg riders were cool and you cant get made when extra fighting is thrown in, the "feigned death" of Aragorn just got me mad, I dont care if it gave PJ reason for the Arwen and Aragorn flashbacks, I didnt even like the flashbacks, which is my next point... <LI>The love story between Arwen and Aragorn was just plain awful, though I do know that Tolkien did not give PJ much to work with, PJ eally could of done a better job in TTT and RotK, (The story in FotR was alright).. <LI>Elrond's "Im a stubborn and overprotective father, forget my goal to return a king to the throne of Gondor, forget about saving humans and middle erath from the clutches of Sauron, I want my daughter to sail of the sea with me and thats final" <LI>No extra men at Helms Deep before the battle started, no mention of the scattering of Erkerbrand's men, instead it was replace by ELVES and a runaway son, probably the worst part of TTT... (Here is how the battle should of gone...early in the movie sohuld of been the battle of the Isen, Theodred killed, eomer runs into the 3 hunters, eomer comes back and is thrown in jail, the riders of rohan leave to make open battle, find the army is destoryed, make for helms deep, gandalf goes and reunites the army and comes at dawn, much less annouced, gimli sohuld of ben in the caves with eomer, theoden and aragorn should of had more people riding out with him, and not as much out of desperation, no elves, no giant explosives, and no 300 vs. 10000 stuff) <LI>Faramir...I dont are that his character was much better in the EE, I went to the theaters and paided 10 many times to watch the final version, and im angry...Faramir was supposed to be portrayed as a wise strong, fair and gentle man who even when the ring of power is within his grasp, refuses it and lets Frodo and Sam go.... <LI>Frodo Sam and Gollum going to Osgiliarth, it just made no sense...by then Faramir should of let them go and just gone there with his men, I have no problem with a bit of a cameo by osgiliarth in the movie, but Frodo and Sam there just got me mad (see above).. <LI>No Huorns....now that got me mad...there is no way every last single orc was killed by the Rohirrim, and thats why the Hourns needed to be there, they were the cleanup crew, they were what truely destroyed Saruman's army.. <LI>No talking with Saruman, no throwing of the palatir, no tempting both the king and Gandalf...nothing...at first I tohught it would of been taken care of in RotK, but that was not the case, and so now it is obvious to me that it should of been taken care of, and somehow PJ should of found the room in his movie for it... <LI>No more shots of the actors children, its bad enough to see random extras cower in fear, but when its a cameo from a child or spouse of an actor, it just gets me mad, not to meantion a good 10 minutes were spent on shots of the helpless women and children.. </UL>RotK <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Nothing, absolutly nothing about Saruman, which wouldnt be so bad if he was taken care of in TTT, but the cutting out of one of the major bad guys without any attempt at an explaination just makes me mad... <LI>Smeagols past was an ok flashback, but it was too long and too annoying, I would of just like a couple minute explaination, but I guess PJ wanted to make the viewers pity Gollum less... <LI>Gollum turning Frodo against Sam was just unneccesary and bad, there was no need for it, and not only that, it got me mad, I already hated gollum, no need for me to hate him more... <LI>The endless staircase was WAY too close to minas morgul...but thats a small thing, but you would think someone would of seen the 3 small figures climbing up it... <LI>Theoden's reluctanse to go to the aid of Gondor, didnt make any sense, and this coupled with the amazing army that appears out of no where just got me mad, if they only had 300 men at Helms Deep, they should be riding to gondor with about 15 men...I really hate the excuse of "the other men were far away"... <LI>No Rangers, no songs of Elrond, no nothing, making legolas, Aragorn and gimli brave the paths of the dead all by themselves, without horses... <LI>The stupid green people attacking the orcs and saving the day, the dead were supposed to attack the corsairs and then go...and though 30 rangers attacking the orcs wouldnt be too exciting, maybe PJ could of had some of the besieged gondorians come with the rangers and attack... <LI>No Prince Emrahil....and htis fact hurts me deep inside, probably because Prince Imrahil is by far the coolest character in the entire LotR trilogy...and I was looking forward to seeing the three warriors (eomer, imrahil and aragorn) meet in the middle of the battle after attacking on 3 different sides.. <LI>Denethor was AWFUL absolutly aful, I mean dear god, I dont know if it is the actor of the role that was written for him, but every little thing he did ****ed me off, first with hi s rambling until gandalf hit him, then with his eating, and then the pyre.. <LI>Gandalf's dealing with denethor was almost as bad, first with the knocking him on the head, and then actually murdering him by pushing him into the flame... <LI>Gimli holding the crown....just plain dumb.. <LI>Legolas' oliphante surfing attack, the attack was fine, he just looked like a dumbass as he came down from the oliphante.. <LI>No house of healing....one of the most importante parts of the movie cut out...no real reason other than Aragorns victory for him to get the crown...though throughout the movie it never is actually said that he is not the real king of gondor.. <LI>The love story and elrond again, I didnt think it was possible , but the flashbacks and the scenes with arwen were worse than in TTT...not to mention Elrond riding all the way into rohan just to deliver a sword just shows that PJ forgot about Anduril for a while and finally remembered he needed to put it in... <LI>No faramir and eowyn love story, that got me really mad, because not only is it a great side story, it sorta brings closure to the story involving gondor and rohan, and giving way for the rest of the story to focus on hobbits.. <LI>No mention of the wild men leading the rohirrim through the hills...this I thought was pretty bad, not only because it made PJ change denethor's belief from "rohan will be late" to "rohan will not come"... <LI>Celeborn boarding the boat into the west, just a useless change from the book, and also I didnt like how few people boarded the boat, I mean its not like any one of them knows how to sail in a boat, I was under the impression that a very large host of elves sailed west at the same time.. <LI>No Cirdan...now thats just mean, I wanted to see Cirdan...you dont see a bearded elf every day... <LI>Hardly any people were at the attack on the black gate, in the book it was 6000, in the movie it look like less than 1000... <LI>Gollum fighting an invisible Frodo just looked too strange, and not to mention Frodo pushing gollum off the edge got me angry, he just lost of a finger, he was in no condition to fight gollum for the ring...it should of been a shorter struggle and gollum should of fallen off... </UL>But all together, it wasnt that bad, and I still will be buying the DVD and EE of RotK, just because im a materialistic and hopelussly addicted tolkien fan...-willkillPS, Feel free to comment or argue about any of the kazillion problems I have with the movies, ill be happy to destroy your arguement and then insult your mother =)BTW sorry about the bad grammar and spelling mistakes, no spell check =([ 7:50 PM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: willkill4food ]

Knight of Gondor · 01-22-2004, 09:55 PM

Willkill -I agree the movies were not 100% accurate to the books. I must confess I didn't take the time to read everything you wrote, because I know a good deal of the book-to-movie problems. But I think you need to cut Peter Jackson a little more slack. Many people set up for themselves some rather impossible goals which Peter Jackson could not hope to reach. Remember, out of millions, he had to try to please as many as possible, while still pleasing the rest of mainstream America and the rest of the world, who are not Initiated. Some things I agree with changing, as I've said before, such as the regular sword Aragorn carries. As for the others...I really think we should be grateful that Lord of the Rings actually entered Hollywood and came out as unscathed as it did!

Olorin · 01-22-2004, 10:21 PM

I agree with everything you said. Most of the stuff was completely pointless. PJ could have kept it accurate and not hurt the movie in any way. I think he just diminished several characters by making changes.

Armetiel · 01-22-2004, 10:47 PM

^just so you know, some of the things that are missing (like the gift giving) are in the EE edition, and had to be cut because of screen time, however Jackson still filmed them and they are still in the movie although, you are right, it would explain a lot and it's not a scene i would have cut, from the Theatrical version either no one really is going to remember who elendil is anyways, if they haven't read the book...personally, yes tom bombadil should have been in at least the extendend version, as well as the old forest, but you don't really NEED those parts to understand what's going on..so yeh, time limits call for change, it can't be helpedDwarves going with Bilbo, Jackson probably didn't want to hire another couple actors for such a small part that doesn't really effect the story, and it's not like he completely took out dwarves (however I would have liked to see a bit more of Gloin like in the book)as for "the power of the ring could not be undone" well, really it couldn't. That's why Frodo has to destroy the ring so many years later... As too Celebrimbor, I think PJ is trying to NOT confuse the audience who haven't read the book by throwing too many names at them that aren't going to appear elsewhere in the movieAs to saying good bye to bill, well not only did you not see them buying him, he's not even with them on Caradhras...so yeh, I'd say cut the scene, in fact cut the pony when they first leave rivendell too, unless you want to put him in all the scenes...but please..one way or the other lolas for weather top, I thought the blackriders looked pretty scared of the fire...but I agree with the Anduril bit.TTT, I LOVE the scene with the peasants ..personally i thought it a great addition.The stalling of the ents was stupid, i was a bit annoyed at that.The woman and children go to helm's deep in the book, so why not in the movie...personally i think having them in it was a GREAT idea, so it's not all battles (which there are already too much of)The whole warg thing and Aragorn almost dying was dumb, but hey it's not supposed to be just like the book and they took out the warg scene from the fellowship, so why not add one here.Elrond's roll is there because he did not approve of Aragorn's and Arwen's relationship. (In the book)Personally i liked the elves at helms deep, however they shouldn't be there if he was being true to the book, which he wasn't, so it doesn't matter. however, Haldir should not have been killed as he lives in the book. And personally i agree with leaving Earkenbrand out, too confusing, stick with ppl we already know (confusing to ppl who haven't read the book i mean)I HATE that Faramir didn't let Frodo and Sam go and brought them to Osgiliath, that part was HORRID.I think the Huorns are in the EE. cut for screen timeagain, i think it's great that the kids were in the movie so often, and I don't care WHOSE kids they are lol as long as they are in it.ROTK Saruman will be in EE, however I don't think he should have been cut, and still I've heard that in EE, it's going to be some big showdown between him and Gandalf..what's all that about...Smeagol turning frodo against Sam was def. uncalled for...it's my least fav partthe figures weren't seen on the stair because of the elven cloaks i guessFaramir and Eowyn's story will prob be in the EEas for the boat, it doesn't say in the book that Celeborn WASN"T with them does it? i could be wrong...if you want a REALLY pointless change, howabout in the book they were 14 days from rivendell at weathertop, and only 6 in the movie...(or something like that)anywayz, i'd comment more but i gotta go now..[ 11:58 PM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: Armetiel ]

Silmiel of Imladris · 01-22-2004, 10:51 PM

WillKill I think you just need to relax. In my opinion most of the changes you described were pretty minor compared to the Elves at Helms deep, Arwen, and Faramir's character change. Of course everyone is going to have little things that tick them off but they are not worth making a big deal over. Even some of the things in the books ticked me off too but I ingrored them and kept reading. Oh and.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes...not to mention almost the entire manner in which he escaped was either cut out or changed to an unrecognizable form..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It took 17 years for me to get though that part of the book for it bored me so. I am completely grateful it was not put it.

zb · 01-23-2004, 02:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Merry and Pippin suddenly show up in the fields with Frodo and Sam, without any hint that they are very good friends with Frodo, making the two young hobbit's choice to go join the fellowship even more irrational (if thats possible) and confusing...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I disagree. I think this is a case of 'showing, not telling' - most audience members with an iq higher than their shoe size will either: a. have read the books and know who M&P are; or, b. realise that the reason why the hobbits all get along as if they know each other is beacuse they do, indeed, know each other.I think sometimes we forget that movies can imply events and relationships without having to show them.I also don't see why "one has to realize that NO ONE will EVER make LotR EVER AGAIN" - I can think of many books/plays which have been made into multiple movies. Shakespeare's stuff being the most obvious answer, but also Animal Farm and The Secret Garden, off the top of my head. We'll just have to wait another 20 years, that's all.

Essex · 01-23-2004, 04:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How on earth can you show this in a movie without a narrator. It worked fine in the cartoon version as the narrator explained it, but what can Jackson do? Could he 'age' the hobbit characters using prosthetics by 17 years, and then be stuck with this 'look' for the rest of the film? I think not.How they alluded to the time difference was to show Frodo having to find the Ring (still in the envelope) in the box it was kept in. I've learnt to live with most of the minor changes to the films. If you want a fantasy film that is pretty much exactly like the book, then watch HP and the Philophoser's Stone (Sorcerer if you're American, why on earth did they do that?) HP1 is an incredibly boring film because it sticks so tightly to the book (which is an exxelent read). Sometimes it just doesn't work out well when this is done........

willkill4food · 01-23-2004, 11:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>^just so you know, some of the things that are missing (like the gift giving) are in the EE edition, and had to be cut because of screen time, however Jackson still filmed them and they are still in the movie although, you are right, it would explain a lot and it's not a scene i would have cut, from the Theatrical version eitherno one really is going to remember who elendil is anyways, if they haven't read the book... personally, yes tom bombadil should have been in at least the extendend version, as well as the old forest, but you don't really NEED those parts to understand what's going on..so yeh, time limits call for change, it can't be helpedDwarves going with Bilbo, Jackson probably didn't want to hire another couple actors for such a small part that doesn't really effect the story, and it's not like he completely took out dwarves (however I would have liked to see a bit more of Gloin like in the book)as for "the power of the ring could not be undone" well, really it couldn't. That's why Frodo has to destroy the ring so many years later...As too Celebrimbor, I think PJ is trying to NOT confuse the audience who haven't read the book by throwing too many names at them that aren't going to appear elsewhere in the movie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It really doesnt matter what was filmed, it matters what ends up on screen, and the gift giving scene just adds so much to the trilogy..Elendil just happens to be one of the greatest men ever, and seeing up shout, jump forward and die was a blow to all Tolkien fans, just a few more seconds of him actually fighting hand to hand with Sauron would of made me happy, and if somehow it could of been filmed so that Isildur didnt come off ias an arrogant, foolish, petty man who the only thing he did was cut the ring, then I would of been crying in happyness during that scene...As for the dwarves, I just cant get enough of them, they are just so cute and snuggly with their big beards, axes and 4ft 6 height... "But the power of the Ring could not be undone" makes it sound like even if all of Sauron's forces were destroyed (which they almost were) then still he could not be defeated (which is BS), Sauron was destoryed even before his ring was cut from his hand...In the movies the viewer has no idea that the elven rings are any different, so if maybe just some small reference that the Elven Rings of power were not made by any help from Sauron and his hand never touched them, it would of made more sense to the viewer who is thinking "why are the Elves immune from Sauron?" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>TTT, I LOVE the scene with the peasants ..personally i thought it a great addition.The woman and children go to helm's deep in the book, so why not in the movie...personally i think having them in it was a GREAT idea, so it's not all battles (which there are already too much of) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The women and children are already there in the book, as Erkenbrand lived in Helms Deep during these dark days...but do we really need to be reminded every 5 minutes that the fate of all of Rohan (women and children included) relies on this battles? I didnt, and I doubt the average viewer really felt anything more than pity for these people...and I barely felt pity (probably because I knew they would win) But again, PJ cut out Saurman's humbling in order to show the faces of his children and some of the acotrs children...not cool... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Elrond's roll is there because he did not approve of Aragorn's and Arwen's relationship. (In the book) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Elrond approved of their relationship, but would only let Arwen marry the King of Gondor and Arnor, for Elrond forsaw that Aragorn would be the last cheif of the dunedain, either he would claim the thrown, or he and his line would disappear...he was just adding in a little incentive for Aragorn... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Personally i liked the elves at helms deep, however they shouldn't be there if he was being true to the book, which he wasn't, so it doesn't matter. however, Haldir should not have been killed as he lives in the book. And personally i agree with leaving Earkenbrand out, too confusing, stick with ppl we already know (confusing to ppl who haven't read the book i mean) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We didnt even now Haldir's name until he showed up at Helms Deep, and if we are going to introduce new characters, new armies, and other stuff, it might as well be the characters, armies and stuff that is in the book...I am not that mad that Elves were at Helms Deep, I am mad because that battle could of been the battle to make all other movie battles look like GI Joe fights, but instead it was ruined (IMHO)... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Faramir and Eowyn's story will prob be in the EEas for the boat, it doesn't say in the book that Celeborn WASN"T with them does it? i could be wrong...if you want a REALLY pointless change, howabout in the book they were 14 days from rivendell at weathertop, and only 6 in the movie...(or something like that) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again, another thing cut and left for EE, and for what? So we can see Sam crying a few seconds longer when Frodo sends him away? This story needed to be in the theatrical version, and thats why I hold it against PJ...(Next reply) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> WillKill I think you just need to relax. In my opinion most of the changes you described were pretty minor compared to the Elves at Helms deep, Arwen, and Faramir's character change. Of course everyone is going to have little things that tick them off but they are not worth making a big deal over. Even some of the things in the books ticked me off too but I ingrored them and kept reading. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not really making a BIG deal, I did write a huge, giant, long post, but thats really all...of course a lot of the things were minor, but also they were pointless and unnecesary, and thats why I am mad, PJ had $300 million to do this, he could of made an effort to keep some thing with the story ling just for because...and the changes to practically every character are what **** me off, not only because the things they do are so unlike them in the books, but also because they just focred PJ to make more minor changes to the script, its the domino effect...btw, it took me a long time to get past the first few chapters too... anyways, gotta go this second, be back in a day or two for the next few replies...-willkillbtw, thanks for the replies, it makes me feel loved.....or hated...

Meela · 01-23-2004, 12:04 PM

You need a stiff drink.I don't think people should see the films at all if they're going to be that picky...I would say more, but I'm tired of picking at tiny details and defending good pieces of film making. Just because one line or one extra man in the corner is missing, it is not worth the fuss.

Armetiel · 01-23-2004, 01:27 PM

[/quote]We didnt even now Haldir's name until he showed up at Helms Deep, and if we are going to introduce new characters, new armies, and other stuff, it might as well be the characters, armies and stuff that is in the book...I am not that mad that Elves were at Helms Deep, I am mad because that battle could of been the battle to make all other movie battles look like GI Joe fights, but instead it was ruined (IMHO)...[/quote]we know he name...it's in FOTR when he greets them in Lothlorien (at least in EE) but even if you don't know EE, if you've read the book you know his name, and if you haven't, well you still know who he is because at the very least, you know his FACE from FOTR.

Kronos · 01-23-2004, 03:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I dont care about any peasants getting killedI dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dear God.....

Hama Of The Riddermark · 01-23-2004, 03:24 PM

Many, Many, MANY of these issues are dealt with in the EEs...

Elrond of Rivendell · 01-23-2004, 04:57 PM

Well, I think if we keep ourselves overfixed to the books, we could generate a list ad infinitum. Still this is not my intention, although I recognize that I also disliked some parts of the movies. The general opinion however is a very good one, I still can enjoy watching FotR for instance, to be sure. I am honestly thankful to Peter Jackson for offering us this great work of movie-making (and not of literally 1:1-adapting Tolkien's works, which would be quite impossible, given the length, both in the space (cf. distances in Mordor) and in time (cf. the 17 years) of the latter). I think the best method of enjoying Peter Jackson's movies is to remind what they are after all: movies. If you want to have a Middle-Earth congruent with Tolkien's writings, then I regret, you have to read the books. There is no other way. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen calling the River to destroy the Nazgul just got me mad, the river is under the command of Lord Elrond, and none other... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>E.g. this doesn't disturb me at all. The Nazgul are rebuked by some powers emanating from Elves (and Gandalf, as it is said in the books), is it really THAT important whether the force behind them was Elrond or his daughter (and therefore very close to his kin and even probably detaining the same powers)? - Honestly, I don't think so. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Ents stalling...I mean dear god, the movie is more than 3 hours, and still a lot of important and relevent things were cut out, and PJ has the nerve to have the Ents say "no" at first... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here I have to admit that this was a very nice prolongement of Treebeard's saying "No one cares about the forests any more, no one is on my side". I think an Entmoot leading to enthusiastic Ents marching into war would not have been credible in the movie. Remember that even in the books, the Entmoot is an event of long duration, without the usual black/white reasoning (Oh yes, Saruman is evil, we must destroy him). Peter Jackson tried to represent this by letting the Ents firstly refuse their participation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The taking of the women and children to Helms Deep, if there already not enough women and children in the caves in the book, PJ has to make the riding of the Riders into a refugee train...once again...I dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I could not disagree more. What Tolkien wanted to show us in his books throughout his books, is the dramatic consequences of a cataclysm like a great war. (I remember reading or hearing somewhere that some battles are depicted in allusion to the trenches of World War I.) So I see the women and children crying and suffering, as shown by Peter Jackson, as of the same mind, which I greatly appreciate. We should not forget after all that Tolkien's books are a little bit more complex than mere orc-slaughtering. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Elrond's "Im a stubborn and overprotective father, forget my goal to return a king to the throne of Gondor, forget about saving humans and middle erath from the clutches of Sauron, I want my daughter to sail of the sea with me and thats final" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For this point, I refer to what has been said on this board before: Peter Jackson has - IMHO - not tried to come with a stubborn Elf, full of disdain for the human race, but he presented us a loving father, caring for his daughter, after having lost nearly all his kind. In fact, I would almost use the word "human(e)" to describe his feelings. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Gollum turning Frodo against Sam was just unneccesary and bad, there was no need for it, and not only that, it got me mad, I already hated gollum, no need for me to hate him more... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this was quite a difficult decision for Peter Jackson to take. As it is, Gollum had to die at the end, but whereas in the books, his character can be dealt with throughout 700 pages or more, with appendices and so on, the movies only have a (very limited) space of time to do a complex character analysis. Therefore, Peter Jackson had to depict Gollum towards the end of the movies as fully evil, so that his death could be "accepted" even by non Tolkien-readers. Just imagine the uproar of horror and indignation to be heard if Gollum would have died after scene like the "name-giving" by Frodo. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No Rangers, no songs of Elrond, no nothing, making legolas, Aragorn and gimli brave the paths of the dead all by themselves, without horses... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, they are not necessary in the movies. It is Aragorn only and alone who can enter the Paths of the Dead. He doesn't need any companion for his deed. Btw, I am sure, if more Rangers had shown up, some people would have used this fact to point at the chronological inconsistency. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Denethor was AWFUL absolutly aful, I mean dear god, I dont know if it is the actor of the role that was written for him, but every little thing he did ****ed me off, first with hi s rambling until gandalf hit him, then with his eating, and then the pyre.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here again, not disposing of some entire chapter-lengths to deal with Denethor, Peter Jackson had to transform this character. Okay, I agree, the changes in this particular figure were quite deep, but I agree now with them, seeing that after all there are two Denethor's: the one from the books and the one from the movies. You simply must not juxtapose the two of them.So I repeat that I recommend accepting Peter Jackson's movies as what they are: movies. This term - in my eyes - clearly implies the artistic licences of a skillful director. I still hope for another version of LotR-Movies, not because PJ's are bad, but simply I think that a book like this deserves more than one movie-adaptation.Greetings, EfR[ 6:00 PM January 23, 2004: Message edited by: Elrond of Rivendell ]

01-23-2004, 07:22 PM

i think that peter jackson did a wonderful job for what he had to work with. he made everything seem so real. and these movies were not just to please the LOTR reading fans, they were to please non-readers as well. and since non-readers tend to like different things, he took some liberties to be a people-pleaser. but the only problem that i have with any of the movies was in return of the king, i was REALLY looking forward to see the houses of healing, hopefully they'll be on the extended version!

Elrond of Rivendell · 01-23-2004, 07:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> he took some liberties to be a people-pleaser. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmm, I wouldn't use this term, as it usually stands together with quite negative connotations. I would rather affirm that Jackson tried (and succeeded for the most part) to "deliver" an understandable insight-view of Tolkien's Middle-Earth even to non-Tolkien-addicts. But for the most part I agree with your points, although I will be waiting for the EE (Houses of Healings), as for the moment, I am not that sure what people are really expecting. I must admit that I found this particular chapter in the books quite boring. Don't accuse me of anti-romantism! I simply believe that the scenes at the Houses split the dramatic moments of Pelennor and Morannon in a unduely way. Greetings, EfR

**The Saucepan Man** · 01-23-2004, 07:57 PM

Willkill4food, please please please stay away from the films - for the sake of your blood pressure. Well, I agree with most of what has been said in response. Excellent post in particular from Elrond of Rivendell. They key point, I think, is this: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think the best method of enjoying Peter Jackson's movies is to remind what they are after all: movies. If you want to have a Middle-Earth congruent with Tolkien's writings, then I regret, you have to read the books. There is no other way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you really want to enjoy the films, then you have to accept that these are, in many cases, not the same characters or events that are depicted in the book. They are based on them, but they are not the same. Although I don't consider it a matter of regret that people have to read the book to get the real story. I consider that a good thing. My personal opinion (as someone who has been a fan of the book for over 25 years) is that these films are masterpieces of film-making. They work for me on so many levels. Visually, they bring Middle-earth to life in a way that I never thought would be possible when I first read the book. They have great action sequences. They have characters which (although different from those in the books in many cases) you really care about. And, to my mind, they really are emotionally engaging, particularly the final instalment.I am not saying that they are perfect. But, for me, the imperfections are not in the departures from the book but in the aspects that are not internally consistent or credible within the context of the films. Examples of this, in my opinion, are: <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Gandalf's exorcism of Thedoen (which renders Wormtongue obsolete);<LI>Aragorn's cliff diving episode (which is unnecessary);<LI>Frodo offering the Ring to the Nazgul at Osgiliath (which just doesn't work for me);<LI>Gandalf and/or Shadowfax pushing Denethor onto the pyre (which is inconsistent with Gandalf's film character); and<LI>Arwen's life being tied to the fate of the Ring (which is never explained and makes little sense).</UL> Other than these episodes, I have very few complaints about the films. Anything else would be nitpicking, which I feel disinclined to do, given the great enjoyment that I have derived from them.Oh, and on the subject of nitpicking: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No mention that the Elven rings were made by Celebrindor <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They were made by Celebrimbor. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The adition of the wild men attacking parts of Rohan in the begining <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This happened in the War of the Ring, even though it is not specifically depicted in the Book (like the Battles of the Fords of the Isen ). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The love story between Arwen and Aragorn was just plain awful <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Aragron and Arwen loved each other in the book too. And elements of these scenes were taken from their Tale in the Apendices. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> oliphante <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's Oliphaunt. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No Cirdan...now thats just mean, I wanted to see Cirdan <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He's there at the Grey Havens, standing behind Galadriel and Celeborn. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Gollum fighting an invisible Frodo just looked too strange <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, but that's straight from the book. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Frodo pushing gollum off the edge got me angry <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He didn't. Frodo tried to get the Ring back. They struggled and both fell off the edge. To my mind, this was a good addition, since it made up for the strangeness of Gollum's struggle with an invisible Frodo.

Elrond of Rivendell · 01-23-2004, 08:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Although I don't consider it a matter of regret that people have to read the book to get the real story. I consider that a good thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And right you are. EfR

Vuelve · 01-23-2004, 08:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Celeborn boarding the boat into the west, just a useless change from the book, and also I didnt like how few people boarded the boat, I mean its not like any one of them knows how to sail in a boat, I was under the impression that a very large host of elves sailed west at the same time..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only part of the boat scene I had a problem with was Thranduril(Forgive my sp.)standing in the background like he was some unimportant character.I believe there was a line that said something to the effect of the power of the 3 rings is over or something.I can't remember, and I've seen the movie twice.lol.He makes it look like Elrond,Celeborn,and Galadriel are the 3 bearers.And then there's Thranduril standing all by his lonesome in the background like some dock-worker.ok I'm done but thats been bothering me since I've seen the first movie.Black and green on my computer screen, Vuelve

**The Saucepan Man** · 01-23-2004, 08:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The only part of the boat scene I had a problem with was Thranduril(Forgive my sp.)standing in the background like he was some unimportant character. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What makes you think that it was Thranduil? As I said, it was Cirdan. He is the same actor who featured as one of the three bearers of the Elven Rings in the Prologue to FotR.

Knight of Gondor · 01-23-2004, 09:02 PM

Willkill –Just a few observations since you offered for argument and discussion on your objections. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Elendil was portrayed as a suicidal fool, when in the books he and Gil-Galad wound Sauron many times before finally being killed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You have a bit of a point there, but at the same time, he was not suicidal, or a fool. It was a brave act, it just turned bad. Yes, I understand it differs from the book...but that doesn’t mean the wounds didn’t take place before! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"The power of the ring could not be undone", what the heck does that mean? In the books Sauron attacked too early not realizing that the Elves had become stronger while he was away, and he didnt count on such fierce resistance from the Men of Numenor. Sauron come out from Barad-Dur when he had no chance left at all, victory was assured when Sauron came out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It was just a cinematic quote. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No mention that the Elven rings were made by Celebrindor, not Sauron, which just confsues the viewer as to why the Elves are almost untouched by their rings, while the 9 kings are now wraiths, and all 7 drawven ones are gone..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where would be a good place to insert this particular fact? The prologue didn’t say that Sauron forged all of the Rings at all. And if they had tried to say it somewhere in the movie, it would be what I refer to as a “TTM”; using dialogue to convey story concepts to the audience that they wouldn’t actually need to tell the people they are talking to. (I call it TTM because of a book that used it all the time) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Isildur's end was cut short in the final version, not showing the part where the ring betrayed Isildur, which really helps show the evilness and "tricksyness" of the ring.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Peter Jackson’s heart lay in the extended edition. But Peter Jackson was not the be-all and end-all when it came down to final say...and though he didn’t like it, the studio or production company or whatever made him trim it down. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No Dwarves left the Shire with Bilbo on the night of his party, I wanted to see Dwarves!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, you didn’t see it, but there were dwarves hiding off-camera. :-) Come on! PJ had to make it as optimally awesome for all who watched it, or as near as he could come, and most movie goers (my parents included, probably) would go “huh?” if they saw Dwarves. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes...not to mention almost the entire manner in which he escaped was either cut out or changed to an unrecognizable form..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, it’s a time issue. Can you imagine how much time it would take, even in theater time, for them to convey the fact that 17 years past? Besides, who said they didn’t? You saw Bilbo going away, Gandalf left for Gondor, researching, etc, the Black Riders leaving Minas Morgul, and so on. It COULD have been 17 years. But Frodo isn’t going to go “Well, Samwise, my somewhat drunk but loyal servant, what a lovely 17 years these have been since Bilbo left.” (An example of “TTM”, there) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Merry and Pippin suddenly show up in the fields with Frodo and Sam, without any hint that they are very good friends with Frodo, making the two young hobbit's choice to go join the fellowship even more irrational (if thats possible) and confusing...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey, they knew they were good friends. “Merry, it’s Frodo!” “Hello, Frodo!” Yeah, a little disappointing that there wasn’t a conspiracy...some of the nobility in Merry and Pippin choosing to go along with Frodo was lost. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The way to Bree was way to short, I do believe that Tom Bombadil had no real pace in the movie, but still, it seems like just a stroll in the park to get to Bree...If maybe somehow they could of had the barrowdowns without tom bombadil, that would give an explaination to how Merry wounded the WiKi so badly, maybe Frodo could of saved the 3 hobbits from the Barrowwight, or something to that effect..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>People already complained about the walking that was already included in the movie, much less the books. If they had put more walking in to Bree, then others would complain of the too-boring walking scenes. PJ can’t please everyone. Besides, you should know that in movies, a large amount of walking, or time can take place without any indicator that it had. Barrow-Downs would have taken too long, and left more people going “HUH?” <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No poem about strider, "All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost" is an entire explaination of Strider in 1 sentance, not to mention it is easily one of the most memorable lines in all of LotR...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It’s a great line, and some of it was taken for Arwen’s raspy dissertation in Return of the King, but Gandalf did not leave that letter according to the movie, and all that other behind-the-scenes stuff didn’t happen with Barliman and such. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Weathertop was a disaster, not only do the black riders look weak, stupid and scared, but there is no mention of their fear of fire, and none of Frodo fighting back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sad that Frodo didn’t fight, I agree. He’s too much of a wimp in LotR, if you ask me. But they don’t look weak and stupid. If they do, it’s because you’re not there, not feeling the fear and terror of being in the presence of the Witchking. What did you want instead, a giant marionette? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Aragorn using another sword and a knife besides Anduril and not having Anduril be forged until RotK just got me mad, if Aragorn had the shards of Narsil at Weathertop in the movie, weathertop would not of been so horrible...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I’ve explained this several times before, but I agree with that change. Aragorn lived a rugged life for the sixty years or so that he wandered the Wild. He would not be able to have survived, carrying around a broken hilt of a sword! Plus, it makes more sense for the honorable heirloom of the house of Elendil to rest in the dignity of Rivendell. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The scene of Bill the Pony being left go at the gates of moria....they never showed the scene were they bought bill, so why have the scene were they let him go?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>More time. Everyone would get board of sitting around watching them buy a pony. “Big deal, so they buy a pony.” (Some might think) At least he was included! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Arwen calling the River to destroy the Nazgul just got me mad, the river is under the command of Lord Elrond, and none other...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I recall Gandalf and Glorfindal having something to do with it, but Arwen was just a pandering to feminists and people who wanted more girl action, without having to wait until Return of the King. That, and I think Liv Tyler wanted some extra screen time. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The scene of the gift giving was cut out of the final film, this cut I consider one of the most hurtful and wrong cuts that PJ made, not only does it explain the cloaks, Gimli's love for Galadrial, and a lot of other things later on in the trilogy, its just a great scene...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don’t recall any other expressions in regard to Gimli’s love for Galadriel. Again, I’ll reiterate, PJ really wanted the movie to make it to theaters as the Extended Edition. I think you should judge PJ based on the EE, and not what the studio made him submit as final for theaters. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Aragorn "letting" frodo go was one of the biggest mistakes PJ made in the first film, not only does it not go alnog with the story, but the involving of Aragorn in Frodos descision to leave just is very un Tolkien to me...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It works for me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The adition of the wild men attacking parts of Rohan in the begining, I dont care about any peasants getting killed, I care about orcs, Balrogs, Trolls and Nazgul being killed...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you ask me, you are a little inconsistent. You didn’t like the Nazgûl being battled, and yet you want more walking and pony-buying? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Eomer's "flight" from Rohan just got me mad, not only does it thouroughly mess up Helms Deep, but it doesnt fit with Eomer's character one bit...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It underscored how Grima was actually in charge of Rohan, pretty much. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The Ents stalling...I mean dear god, the movie is more than 3 hours, and still a lot of important and relevent things were cut out, and PJ has the nerve to have the Ents say "no" at first...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, that’s a debatable scene. Perhaps PJ was making a subtle stab at the United Nations? By the way, if you wouldn’t mind, please refrain from taking my Lord’s name in vain. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No mention of the Battles of the Isen, which once again cause Helms Deep to become an unTolkien mess, no mention of Erkenbrand, and no reason given why Theodred died...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Erkenbrand is one of various assorted characters which were excluded to leave more time. The Battles of the Isen was in the EE, so I rest my case with that... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Rohan's total lack of ANY army in TTT, in the book within minutes of Theoden's awakening, he had 1000 mounted riders of the Rohirrim outside his golden hall..not 300 old men and children...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They showed a considerable presence once all told at Helm’s Deep, not to mention RotK. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The taking of the women and children to Helms Deep, if there already not enough women and children in the caves in the book, PJ has to make the riding of the Riders into a refugee train...once again...I dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, a lot of other people DO care, and PJ wanted to get across that the innocent suffered in the oppression of Saruman. While on a massive scale of dark lords, Elves, men, orcs, etc., you have regular peasants, probably not too different from you and me, being forced into an alternate life because of Sauron. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Aragorn's close call....no reason for this, though the Warg riders were cool and you cant get made when extra fighting is thrown in, the "feigned death" of Aragorn just got me mad, I dont care if it gave PJ reason for the Arwen and Aragorn flashbacks, I didnt even like the flashbacks, which is my next point...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, any scene that had Arwen unnecessarily wasn’t an improvement, in my opinion, but that’s mostly personal bias against Liv Tyler. But I said it before, Aragorn’s near-death thing was just thrown in for fans like you and I who figured we knew every move before it was made. Likewise the Elves at Helm’s Deep (more or less). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The love story between Arwen and Aragorn was just plain awful, though I do know that Tolkien did not give PJ much to work with, PJ eally could of done a better job in TTT and RotK, (The story in FotR was alright)..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I just disapprove of Liv Tyler’s portrayal of Arwen anyway, but I’m not really complaining about it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Elrond's "Im a stubborn and overprotective father, forget my goal to return a king to the throne of Gondor, forget about saving humans and middle erath from the clutches of Sauron, I want my daughter to sail of the sea with me and thats final"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He was admittedly a little more passive in the books, but he was NOT forgoing his role to aid the future King of Gondor. He made that large ride to Dunharrow, after all. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No extra men at Helms Deep before the battle started, no mention of the scattering of Erkerbrand's men, instead it was replace by ELVES and a runaway son, probably the worst part of TTT...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Runaway son? Do you mean Éomer? First, he’s a nephew, and second, he didn’t run away, he was banished. People have already raised objections to the Elves, so I won’t go there. It departed from the book, yeah. But it was still cool. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>(Here is how the battle should of gone...early in the movie sohuld of been the battle of the Isen, Theodred killed, eomer runs into the 3 hunters, eomer comes back and is thrown in jail, the riders of rohan leave to make open battle, find the army is destoryed, make for helms deep, gandalf goes and reunites the army and comes at dawn, much less annouced, gimli sohuld of ben in the caves with eomer, theoden and aragorn should of had more people riding out with him, and not as much out of desperation, no elves, no giant explosives, and no 300 vs. 10000 stuff)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think most of the Helm’s Deep material is beautiful. The ride out the causeway is quite similar to the books...it was desperation, yet reckless heroism. My apologies, but I don’t think anyone could scarce have done it better. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Faramir...I dont are that his character was much better in the EE, I went to the theaters and paided 10 many times to watch the final version, and im angry...Faramir was supposed to be portrayed as a wise strong, fair and gentle man who even when the ring of power is within his grasp, refuses it and lets Frodo and Sam go....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which he did. Granted, he hesitated first, wishing for once to be able to please his father. In the EE, you can understand those emotions much better. Still a detraction from the bok <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Frodo Sam and Gollum going to Osgiliarth, it just made no sense...by then Faramir should of let them go and just gone there with his men, I have no problem with a bit of a cameo by osgiliarth in the movie, but Frodo and Sam there just got me mad (see above)..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry you didn’t like it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No Huorns....now that got me mad...there is no way every last single orc was killed by the Rohirrim, and thats why the Hourns needed to be there, they were the cleanup crew, they were what truely destroyed Saruman's army..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Two words, my friend: extended edition. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No talking with Saruman, no throwing of the palatir, no tempting both the king and Gandalf...nothing...at first I tohught it would of been taken care of in RotK, but that was not the case, and so now it is obvious to me that it should of been taken care of, and somehow PJ should of found the room in his movie for it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay, now six words: Return of the King Extended Edition. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No more shots of the actors children, its bad enough to see random extras cower in fear, but when its a cameo from a child or spouse of an actor, it just gets me mad, not to meantion a good 10 minutes were spent on shots of the helpless women and children..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Willkill, this movie was about more than just ugly orcs and beautiful women. It was a tremendous study in the human qualities such as mercy, justice, bravery, heroism, endurance, perseverance and so on. I think at some points you expect too much, and at others, you expect too little. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Nothing, absolutly nothing about Saruman, which wouldnt be so bad if he was taken care of in TTT, but the cutting out of one of the major bad guys without any attempt at an explaination just makes me mad...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>While I saw the point of removing him (it would feel too much like finishing old business...yet at the same time, since they went ahead to Isengard, they may as well have taken care of Saruman anyway), I agree it’s a poor lot for Lee and Dourif. Those same old words, though: Extended edition. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Smeagols past was an ok flashback, but it was too long and too annoying, I would of just like a couple minute explaination, but I guess PJ wanted to make the viewers pity Gollum less...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I thought it went on a little long myself. But still, PJ needed some exposition to intro RotK. And yes, they wanted to give you a feel for Gollum. He let his bad side take over, but he did have a good side. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Gollum turning Frodo against Sam was just unneccesary and bad, there was no need for it, and not only that, it got me mad, I already hated gollum, no need for me to hate him more...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You hated him because you read the books. For the rest of America, there was the turning of Frodo against Sam. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The endless staircase was WAY too close to minas morgul...but thats a small thing, but you would think someone would of seen the 3 small figures climbing up it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I didn’t think about that, but it’s a good point. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Theoden's reluctanse to go to the aid of Gondor, didnt make any sense, and this coupled with the amazing army that appears out of no where just got me mad, if they only had 300 men at Helms Deep, they should be riding to gondor with about 15 men...I really hate the excuse of "the other men were far away"...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It didn’t make too much sense for Théoden to be reluctant, but only because he immediately prepared for Rohan’s answer without hesitation. But if you recall, Théoden was issuing orders for all the men in the outlying villages to issue forth to join the army. It took a few days for them all to muster at Dunharrow. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No Rangers, no songs of Elrond, no nothing, making legolas, Aragorn and gimli brave the paths of the dead all by themselves, without horses...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sad, but still probably necessary. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The stupid green people attacking the orcs and saving the day, the dead were supposed to attack the corsairs and then go...and though 30 rangers attacking the orcs wouldnt be too exciting, maybe PJ could of had some of the besieged gondorians come with the rangers and attack...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It did seem a little odd for the Dead to swarm all seven levels of Gondor, or at least the first three. Still doesn’t bother me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No Prince Emrahil....and htis fact hurts me deep inside, probably because Prince Imrahil is by far the coolest character in the entire LotR trilogy...and I was looking forward to seeing the three warriors (eomer, imrahil and aragorn) meet in the middle of the battle after attacking on 3 different sides..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He is also very little mentioned in the trilogy (books). I know my parents have enough trouble with all the different names without characters that, when it all boils down, aren’t truly desperately needed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Denethor was AWFUL absolutly aful, I mean dear god, I dont know if it is the actor of the role that was written for him, but every little thing he did ****ed me off, first with hi s rambling until gandalf hit him, then with his eating, and then the pyre..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You just angered the almighty princess of Denethorism: Meela! Back, girl, back! (And again, if you wouldn’t mind watching the language) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Gandalf's dealing with denethor was almost as bad, first with the knocking him on the head, and then actually murdering him by pushing him into the flame...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you to some extent on this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Gimli holding the crown....just plain dumb..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Missed that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Legolas' oliphante surfing attack, the attack was fine, he just looked like a dumbass as he came down from the oliphante..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dude? Language? We both know that stunt was just put in there to expound on the Elven coolness that eeks from every pore of Legolas’s Elven hair. A little overmuch? Maybe, but it was cool. And besides, 200,000 delighted girls versus one unhappy dissenter? *Strokes chin* PJ had quite a choice before him, I must say. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No house of healing....one of the most importante parts of the movie cut out...no real reason other than Aragorns victory for him to get the crown...though throughout the movie it never is actually said that he is not the real king of gondor..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe I should just start chanting EE, EE, EE.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The love story and elrond again, I didnt think it was possible , but the flashbacks and the scenes with arwen were worse than in TTT...not to mention Elrond riding all the way into rohan just to deliver a sword just shows that PJ forgot about Anduril for a while and finally remembered he needed to put it in...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you truly believe PJ forgot Andúril, then you honestly understand nothing of the movie business. I alone understand very little myself, but these weren’t made one right after the other, but all together. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No faramir and eowyn love story, that got me really mad, because not only is it a great side story, it sorta brings closure to the story involving gondor and rohan, and giving way for the rest of the story to focus on hobbits..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, kind of a shame. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No mention of the wild men leading the rohirrim through the hills...this I thought was pretty bad, not only because it made PJ change denethor's belief from "rohan will be late" to "rohan will not come"...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There was a discussion on that topic elsewhere. There was an actor originally cast for Ghan-buri-Ghan, but I think either that concept was abandoned, or it might be a surprise extra for the EE. Again, when you boil it all down, I think it wasn’t exceedingly necessary — Théoden knows the way to Gondor. And I think it was a movie device for you to almost forget about Rohan’s coming until that glorious moment when the horn sounded. I might just as well complain that Return of the King BOOK left Aragorn too long after the Stone of Erech! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Celeborn boarding the boat into the west, just a useless change from the book, and also I didnt like how few people boarded the boat, I mean its not like any one of them knows how to sail in a boat, I was under the impression that a very large host of elves sailed west at the same time..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But at the same time, Bilbo, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn, and Gandalf all climbed on board the ship, and then you couldn’t see them any more so you could concentrate on Frodo. Maybe the others were out of view. Again, probably another effort not to confuse poor perplexed mainstream movie-goers with nameless faces that they don’t know whether or not they are someone to keep track of. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No Cirdan...now thats just mean, I wanted to see Cirdan...you dont see a bearded elf every day...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*Cocks eyebrow* I did not remember Cirdan having a beard. But you could see the dude, in the prologue. And I believe he was there in the shot at the end, standing by. But no beard... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Hardly any people were at the attack on the black gate, in the book it was 6000, in the movie it look like less than 1000...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That’s only what it looked like. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Gollum fighting an invisible Frodo just looked too strange, and not to mention Frodo pushing gollum off the edge got me angry, he just lost of a finger, he was in no condition to fight gollum for the ring...it should of been a shorter struggle and gollum should of fallen off...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I thought the invisible struggle looked just a little strange, but then again, which real-life video of invisible man versus emaciated hobbit are you comparing it to? And unless you have had your finger bitten off and know for sure that Frodo would not be able to get up and go after what was fast becoming Frodo’s Precious, especially with the extra strength that came from having Gollum steal it back, then you might not want to make that judgment. Yep, it was departing from the book. Again, it was to make you think Frodo had fallen, if only for a second. Though I’ll agree with the irony of Sam telling Frodo to “let it go, Mr. Frodo! Let it go!” in reference to the Ring, then telling him “Don’t you DARE let go” minutes later. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But all together, it wasnt that bad, and I still will be buying the DVD and EE of RotK, just because im a materialistic and hopelussly addicted tolkien fan...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you on some of these issues, but I don’t see the need to raise such an objection about it. The movies were still extremely, exceedingly, spectacularly, exceptionally, extraordinarily, tremendously, enormously, remarkably, outstandingly, terrifically, marvelously, stupendously, staggeringly, dazzlingly, wonderfully done, and I think Peter Jackson should be commended by us, not chastised. He did a great job, and deserves a lot of credit for the massive amounts of work he put in. As I said before, it was his sole responsibility to make Lord of the Rings function on so many different levels. Each of us takes something different from the books, each of us has his or her own imaginings...each of us has created an intimate sub-interpretation of it. He had to do justice to as many of them as he could, while still pleasing Hollywood critics, production executives, studio representatives, Tolkien purists, scholars, teachers, professors, and still make it great for mainstream America. Yeah, it wasn’t perfect. None of us are, and none of us could expect it to be. In all due respect, you could not have done better, indeed most would have done much worse. (Probably have Boromir’s lust extend to Arwen or something, and not just the Ring) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>PS, Feel free to comment or argue about any of the kazillion problems I have with the movies, ill be happy to destroy your arguement and then insult your mother =)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh yeah, I forgot. Your mother is an uruk.

Vuelve · 01-23-2004, 09:24 PM

Forgive me on my Thrandiul mistake but still I don't like it how PJ made it seem like Celeborn was a ring brearer.In that scene they were standing in a perfect row and the line that was said gives one that assumption(I wish I could remember that line.ugh ).Thats just the interpertation that I think one would get from it.And I just thought of something else that irked me.PJ didn't say much about what Legolas and Gimli did after the ring was destroyed.I had to explain that to my friends.But besides a few other character changes, I was alright with the movies.Black and green on my computer screen, Vuelve

**The Saucepan Man** · 01-23-2004, 10:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen was just a pandering to feminists and people who wanted more girl action, without having to wait until Return of the King. That, and I think Liv Tyler wanted some extra screen time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Knight, while I agree with much of what you have said, I must disagree with you here. Romance is a central element in most films, and one that most film-goers expect. And the romance of Aragorn and Arwen is the only one that spans all three films so, unless you want scenes of Rosie Cotton mooching around missing Sam, Arwen's role had to be expanded to bring this element out. She was not there to "pander" to "feminists" and "girl action" devotees. And the final decisions on Arwen's role would have been made by Jackson and the production team. Although, I recall seeing on one of the EE documentaries that Liv Tyler was instrumental in persuading them to remove Arwen's role at Helm's Deep, having read furious "anti-XenArwen" comments on LotR websites. Hardly the behaviour of someone desperate for more screen time. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> For the rest of America, there was the turning of Frodo against Sam. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't forget that these films are distributed outside America too. And please leave the language moderation to the moderators.

Gashberz · 01-23-2004, 11:19 PM

-WillKill CHILL OUT! I think PJ did an excellent job..i mean cut him some slack he did the best he did and it was pretty damn good.P.S. if you insult my mother I'd have to give you a mild bout of dwarvish ranting.....

Lyta_Underhill · 01-23-2004, 11:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arwen calling the River to destroy the Nazgul just got me mad, the river is under the command of Lord Elrond, and none other... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I recall Gandalf and Glorfindal having something to do with it, but Arwen was just a pandering to feminists and people who wanted more girl action, without having to wait until Return of the King. That, and I think Liv Tyler wanted some extra screen time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I must also agree with the necessity of making Arwen an actual character, rather than a mere suggestion, with only two brief appearances in the story. I am OK with the replacement of Glorfindel in the Flight to the Ford. I am even coming to terms with Arwen carrying Frodo on Asfaloth (even though she took Glorfindel's horse!). The only problem I still have with this scene is that there is no inkling that Frodo knows what is going on. Even had he been secure in Arwen's grasp, he could have at least heard the call of the Ringwraiths ("to Mordor we will take you!") along with their derisive laughs and risen out of the deathly swoon to defy them with his last strength. Even in Arwen's arms he could have done this, although it would not have had as much power as his lone stand against the Nine at the Ford in the book. So, I think my main problem with Arwen in that scene is not really her fault at all. It is the fact that she is the symbol of a large change in Frodo's character that bothered me greatly. I am coming to believe, however, that perhaps her words as she is holding the stricken Frodo no the other side of the Bruinen "what grace is given me..let it pass to him" may be a nod to her gift to Frodo at the end of ROTK, although it would take some reading into the text to make this so...I suppose I still have the ROTK EE to wait for, but I don't think that she gives Frodo anything, since he doesn't have it at the end....too bad!As for Arwen calling the Bruinen to flood, it seems more immediately logical and requires less exposition than explaining that this Elf-chick who is riding over the river has to wait for the command of two other guys (hey! how'd Gandalf get there?) to cross and then how'd these guys know when to call the river? It is much more direct. Of course, one could interpret it as Arwen simply saying the prescribed words to set off what Elrond and Gandalf have already set in place--an implied reliance on them without necessity of exposition at the time of crisis. Knight, your opinion of Liv-Arwen is legend here on the Downs, but I think Saucepan Man's points about the necessity of a romantic story axis and the necessity also of the female part of this axis to be sufficiently fleshed out are valid ones. It is a pity that the character of Arwen is made the scapegoat, because she is obviously added in in many places where she was not chronologically or physically present in the books. Sure, people complain about Haldir and the Elves at Helm's Deep, but not nearly as much. Personally, I find Elrond's words to his daughter about the inevitability of the outcome of her love for Aragorn, with the images of the fading Elf-realms and stone tomb of Aragorn in the future to be one of the most sublime sequences in the Two Towers movie. It captures an essence of fading, the quintessential nature of the Elves. While we're on the Arwen theme, I must also address the idea of her 'sickness' in ROTK, as, for me, it merely showed her adjustment to an irrevocable choice. She chose to be mortal, and thus she is become tied to the present of the world and the outcome of the War of the Ring bears more closely on her. I can see why this would be distressing to Elrond, but the flaw I see here is the reduction of the obvious idea--(Arwen's fate is tied to the fate of the Ring because she is mortal. All mortals' fates are tied to the Ring...) to a motivation for Aragorn to take up the sword Anduril and finally take up his responsibility. I somehow think this was a way of making the responsibility a personal one and somewhat cheapening the motivation of Aragorn for doing his duty. I do think that it can be overlooked to an extent, though, as the motivation for taking the extreme path (Paths of the Dead) is well accounted for by making it obvious that the Rohirrim are not strong enough to take out the attacking forces of Sauron without help. But, as for the actual 'sickness,' I see that as something that distresses Elrond, for it is strange to the Elves, but familiar for him, as his brother also made that choice. (Wow! Wouldn't it be strange to be in Elrond's shoes? Aragorn is something like his great-great-great-etc. etc. descendant through his brother, who died countless years ago...it just struck me as a real out-of-reality moment!) OK, getting off the track now...I think I'll stop here!Cheers! Lyta

**The Saucepan Man** · 01-24-2004, 12:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> While we're on the Arwen theme, I must also address the idea of her 'sickness' in ROTK, as, for me, it merely showed her adjustment to an irrevocable choice. She chose to be mortal, and thus she is become tied to the present of the world and the outcome of the War of the Ring bears more closely on her. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I see your point, Lyta, but it was not explained like this and was, in my view, confusing to book and non-book filmgoers alike. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I somehow think this was a way of making the responsibility a personal one and somewhat cheapening the motivation of Aragorn for doing his duty. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then again, Aragorn had a personal motivation in the book, for Elrond would only let his daughter marry the reinstated King of Gondor.

Knight of Gondor · 01-24-2004, 04:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Knight, while I agree with much of what you have said, I must disagree with you here. Romance is a central element in most films, and one that most film-goers expect. And the romance of Aragorn and Arwen is the only one that spans all three films so, unless you want scenes of Rosie Cotton mooching around missing Sam, Arwen's role had to be expanded to bring this element out. She was not there to "pander" to "feminists" and "girl action" devotees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not, by any means, any sort of anti-woman kind of person at all. I just disagree with what I would still consider to be a treat for the woman who didn’t want to wait for RotK to see their gender get to open up a can of whiporc. I’m reasonably happy with the romance portrayal, and would have been upset if this was something that wasn’t portrayed in the story. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And the final decisions on Arwen's role would have been made by Jackson and the production team. Although, I recall seeing on one of the EE documentaries that Liv Tyler was instrumental in persuading them to remove Arwen's role at Helm's Deep, having read furious "anti-XenArwen" comments on LotR websites. Hardly the behaviour of someone desperate for more screen time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If that is true, then I commend her. And I take my “wanting more screen time” idea from an article I read, not from personal accusation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Don't forget that these films are distributed outside America too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I understand, and please don’t be offended at that. I generally make sweeping generalizations of “the rest of America” without consideration for the other nations, but again, it doesn’t reflect any sort of bias. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And please leave the language moderation to the moderators.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I get offended by orc-talk, so I will express my wish not to see it, even with the good old stars blocking it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Knight, your opinion of Liv-Arwen is legend here on the Downs, but I think Saucepan Man's points about the necessity of a romantic story axis and the necessity also of the female part of this axis to be sufficiently fleshed out are valid ones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, I didn’t know it was legend. I’m not like a huge “OH MY GOSH, THERE’S ARWEN AGAIN, NO, NO, NO” kind of person by any means. I’m just one of the crowd that didn’t like Arwen’s increased role. I entirely agree that the romance was necessary; I don’t object to that at all.

Finwe · 01-24-2004, 07:16 PM

Honestly, willkill, go get yourself a nice whiskey-and-soda. The movies were PJ's interpretation, and since they were an interpretation, they aren't going to be exactly like the Books. If you wanted to be regaled by a word-for-word account of the books, by all means, go to your nearest bookstore and buy the Trilogy on audio tapes. I think you'll enjoy that more.As a Book-fan, I disagree with the changes made to characters such as Faramir, but as a person, I understand and appreciate them. In the Books, we were given ample opportunities to understand the conflict between him and Denethor, but in the movies, we weren't. Try reading any of the books within the space of 2.5 hours. It is difficult, very difficult. It's also difficult to absorb and remember every bit of information. Look at the movies with that perspective. Don't look at them as Tolkien fans or Book fans, look at them as people.

Knight of Gondor · 01-24-2004, 09:57 PM

We should all probably make it clear that we do NOT feel like we "will kill" Willkill because he doesn't agree with us. We just all happen really love the movies, and not find cause to objection so strongly about the differences. No hard feelings, Uruk Junior.

Lalaith · 01-25-2004, 04:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen was just a pandering to feminists and people who wanted more girl action <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...but then XenArwen became SickArwen, thus pandering to anti-feminists ...so now everyone's happy?

dragoneyes · 01-25-2004, 05:21 PM

Two things <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>the black riders look weak, stupid and scared<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I must disagree, my young cousin was banned from watching LotR because this scene gave him nightmares, granted he's five, but even he can tell if something is weak, stupid or scared.And lastly, you keep saying how all these extra people such as Imrahil ans Erkenbrand would make the movie better, but when I first watched FotR before reading the books, Boromir made his first appearance and I actually said "Oh no, not another man!" (for some reason I could get to grips with four hobbits, but two men was beyond me) I did pick it up in the end, hence my being here, but these small roles do nothing for the non-book readers and some book readers have very possibly forgotten about these people. There are so many people with small parts, do you hear me complaining about Robin Smallburrows being cut from the film? No, I lived with it, he's not important to the story, I got over it.Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of your points, quite a few actually, but you could have made them more interesting by finding some different way of saying 'that made me mad' (that's my creative writing side kicking in, feel free to ignore it).

willkill4food · 01-25-2004, 05:45 PM

To begin, I would just like to say that in real life, I am not nearly as angry about any of these changes as it may seem, it is just as I watch the movies again and again, I have passed the "looking for every little detail" stage and am now in the "looking for every little flaw" stage, but dont get me wrong, I really do enjoy the movies and they make me proud to say Im a Tolkien fan...Meela - To me, they really arnt tiny details, they are small, yet important parts of the movie that PJ, for some reason or another (call it artistic freedom or one too many beers while writing the screenplay) has changed, added or lefted out...in reality, I am not that picky, it is just the more I think about it, the more I realize that PJ should of done this, or shouldnt of done that...maybe I just need a life...Armetiel - Now that I think about it, we do hear Haldir's name in FotR, but seeing him again in Helm's Deep doesnt add anything special, and yes, the viewer may recognize him from FotR, but it just erks me to think that Americans (and other audiences) need to be spoon fed their characters so they dont get confused...Kronos - please dont take me as a cold, arrogante, war mongering fool...but seriously, the viewer never gets to meet the women and children, or even get to know them, they are just nameless faces which are meant to portray the evilness and heartless reality of war. But once again, the more I think about it, the more I dislike those scenes (the attack of the wildmen and the refugees at Helm's Deep), not only because they deviate from the book, but because they are, in all essence, useless. If you ask me, the viewer already sees the effect of war on innocente lives, whether it is the 4 Hobbits cought up in the middle of all this, or the Ents left to defend themselves againt a gathering storm, the addition of a mom and her two kids just doesnt do anything for me, sure I feel sorry for them, but that is the extent of my feeling...and you should remember that instead of getting to see a sneak attack on Theodred and the army of Rohan, you get to see a scene that was repeated from the prolouge to FotR...and about the children in the caves of Helm's Deep, you must also remember that in the books, those caves were filled with fighting and instead of refugees, and I dont think one can really say that PJs reason for putting the children and mothers in the movie was to portray the effects of war, it was more to give some cameo time to family of the cast...Hama - Once again, EE just doesnt float my boat, I would like to see the numbers of the number of tickets sold to see the theatrical editions in the theatre, and the number of DVDs the theatrical edition sold compared to the number of DVDs the EEs sold...I bet you like less than 5% of people that saw LoRT saw the EEs, and that is why I am basing my "beef" with PJ on the theatrical version...Elrond - I agree to some extent, yes, if you want the "true" Tolkien experience then you have to read the books, but I cant stop thinking that because PJ chose to take some artistic freedom, then we will never see many parts of the books on screen, we may never see Tolkien's Faramir, or his Elrond, or Arwen, or his Denethor, and we will never even see GLorfindel, Erkenbrand, or Imrahil on screen, we will never see Gimli and Eomer fighting their way out of the Glittering Caves, we will never see the Eomer, Imrahil and Aragorn meet at the center of Pelanor Feilds where as only a few minutes ago, tens of thousands of enemies stood between them...we will never see that, and thats why I am as hard on PJ as I am...and that brings me to another point, Will LotR EVER been done again? will some other director 20,30,40, or 50 years later decide to remake it? Will it become alike to Shakespear in that every few decades someone does a different version of one of his plays?My answer, no, we will most likely never see another LotR atleast in out time, why? because even though I would like to compare the two, but Tolkien and Shakespear are NOT the same, shakespear wrote plays, which inherently are subject to different interpretations, while Tolkien's work really only has one interpretation, and for that reason we wont see another one, unless sometime in the future some director decides to make LotR 20th century edition (a la Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo decaprio) but if someone did end up doing that, replacing swords with guns (imagine Narsil being a Desert Eagle with "Narsil" written on the side, and Sauron didnt break Narsil, he just unloaded it after killing Elendil, but it had one more bullet and Isildur desperatly shot off the ring with the last bullet, and of course, all of this would take place in East LA) and making ME a town in southern Cali...then, you would see another thread started by me, but this time list would be "ad infinitum"..Rochararwn - <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> i think that peter jackson did a wonderful job for what he had to work with <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>...are you referring to the $300 million dollars, the 18 month long shoot, the entire landscape of New Zealand at his disposal and one of the most talented casts ever assembled (minus denethor)Saucepan Man - Im alright with you disagreeing and nitpicking at my points and arguements, but lay off the spelling man, thats just a low blow =).. Concering the wild men, I know that it indeed happened during the war of the ring, but I would much rather have seen the Battles of the Fords of the Isen (even tohugh they were not depitcted in the books, they did have a drastic influence on the rest of the storyline, as where the wild men attacking did not) than the wild men attacking... I did not say that Arwen and Aragorn were not in love, I said that the depitction of the love story by PJ is just horrible, and most of the elements in the mo0vies had nothing to do with the anything mentioned in the appendix..Cirdan...he was at the Grey Havens!! Where? I guess I have to go see the movie, again...Gollum and Frodo, I know the fight was the same as in the book, it is just maybe a little too weird for me, and not to mention Tolkien didnt really leavethat many notes as to exactly how the scene was to look..Frodo may of been trying to get his ring back, but one has to remember that he just had his finger cut off!!! And Gollum falling off into Mount Doom while celebrating about the ring just has such a sweet sense of Irony to me, an irony that Frodo fighting with Gollum lacks...Knight of Gondor, let the fun commence... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No mention that the Elven rings were made by Celebrindor, not Sauron, which just confsues the viewer as to why the Elves are almost untouched by their rings, while the 9 kings are now wraiths, and all 7 drawven ones are gone.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Where would be a good place to insert this particular fact? The prologue didn’t say that Sauron forged all of the Rings at all. And if they had tried to say it somewhere in the movie, it would be what I refer to as a “TTM”; using dialogue to convey story concepts to the audience that they wouldn’t actually need to tell the people they are talking to. (I call it TTM because of a book that used it all the time) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In the movie, there is no mention of the fact that though the Elven Rings are tied to the fate of the One Ring, they themselves were never touched by Sauron's Hand. It seems if Galadriel had said something about this fact at the Mirror of Galadrial, it would of been nice, but you are right to some extent, there was no real good place to mention this fact.. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes...not to mention almost the entire manner in which he escaped was either cut out or changed to an unrecognizable form.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Again, it’s a time issue. Can you imagine how much time it would take, even in theater time, for them to convey the fact that 17 years past? Besides, who said they didn’t? You saw Bilbo going away, Gandalf left for Gondor, researching, etc, the Black Riders leaving Minas Morgul, and so on. It COULD have been 17 years. But Frodo isn’t going to go “Well, Samwise, my somewhat drunk but loyal servant, what a lovely 17 years these have been since Bilbo left.” (An example of “TTM”, there) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Once again, I agree to some extent, it would be hard to convey that 17 years past, but also there is the fact that Gandalf wanted Frodo to leave the Shire, not altogether disappear, that and maybe some mention of Frodo's intention of moving to Buckland in order to hide his departure, but you are write that these would be hard to do, but Im not the screenwriter/producer/director, PJ is... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The way to Bree was way to short, I do believe that Tom Bombadil had no real pace in the movie, but still, it seems like just a stroll in the park to get to Bree...If maybe somehow they could of had the barrowdowns without tom bombadil, that would give an explaination to how Merry wounded the WiKi so badly, maybe Frodo could of saved the 3 hobbits from the Barrowwight, or something to that effect.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------People already complained about the walking that was already included in the movie, much less the books. If they had put more walking in to Bree, then others would complain of the too-boring walking scenes. PJ can’t please everyone. Besides, you should know that in movies, a large amount of walking, or time can take place without any indicator that it had. Barrow-Downs would have taken too long, and left more people going “HUH?” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Its the walking that I have a problem with in the first place, in the books a lot more happens, while in the movie it is just a casual stroll with a few nasty black riders after them...and 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... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aragorn using another sword and a knife besides Anduril and not having Anduril be forged until RotK just got me mad, if Aragorn had the shards of Narsil at Weathertop in the movie, weathertop would not of been so horrible... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I’ve explained this several times before, but I agree with that change. Aragorn lived a rugged life for the sixty years or so that he wandered the Wild. He would not be able to have survived, carrying around a broken hilt of a sword! Plus, it makes more sense for the honorable heirloom of the house of Elendil to rest in the dignity of Rivendell. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>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... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The scene of Bill the Pony being left go at the gates of moria....they never showed the scene were they bought bill, so why have the scene were they let him go? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------More time. Everyone would get board of sitting around watching them buy a pony. “Big deal, so they buy a pony.” (Some might think) At least he was included! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im not asking for the "pony-buying" scene to be in the movies, I just want to know if we had never seen, heard of, or knew the name of Bill the Pony, then why does PJ have them leave the pony behind at the gates of Moria...a waste or precious seonds...we could of seen the full end of Isildur but instead we are stuck with a Pony we have never heard of... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The adition of the wild men attacking parts of Rohan in the begining, I dont care about any peasants getting killed, I care about orcs, Balrogs, Trolls and Nazgul being killed... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you ask me, you are a little inconsistent. You didn’t like the Nazgûl being battled, and yet you want more walking and pony-buying? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You misunderstand me, I would of liked the Nazgul being battled if it made more sense and was consistant with the portrayel of the Nazgul in other scenes, I want more eventful walking, not just walking, and I want the pony entirely cut out...and the wild men just didnt do anything for me... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The taking of the women and children to Helms Deep, if there already not enough women and children in the caves in the book, PJ has to make the riding of the Riders into a refugee train...once again...I dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Well, a lot of other people DO care, and PJ wanted to get across that the innocent suffered in the oppression of Saruman. While on a massive scale of dark lords, Elves, men, orcs, etc., you have regular peasants, probably not too different from you and me, being forced into an alternate life because of Sauron. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I alteady felt that the oppression and suffering was already well enough conveyed, but once again, I dont really think that PJ added these parts in just for the effect it conveys about war, I cant forget the families of the cats that PJ put into the movie... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No extra men at Helms Deep before the battle started, no mention of the scattering of Erkerbrand's men, instead it was replace by ELVES and a runaway son, probably the worst part of TTT... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Runaway son? Do you mean Éomer? First, he’s a nephew, and second, he didn’t run away, he was banished. People have already raised objections to the Elves, so I won’t go there. It departed from the book, yeah. But it was still cool. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry about that, I did mean Eomer, I get his and Faramir's connection to their lords messed up sometimes, but still I did not like Eomer's banishment one bit, probably because I liked the things he did at Helm's Deep so much...and I do agree that the elves were "cool", but it just sort of is a domino effect, eomer was gone, so they needed elves at helms deep, so they also needed to change...it just goes on and on forever....and also, the elves at helms deep just go against everything that the elves stand for in the 3rd Age, and everything that Galadriel and Elrond believe, in the books and in the movies...and if we are going to abandon all reason and allow anything to pass no matter how for it strays from the books, then next The Elves of Mirkwood, the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain,a dn the Men of Bard would be riding to save Gondor at Pelanor Fields... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No more shots of the actors children, its bad enough to see random extras cower in fear, but when its a cameo from a child or spouse of an actor, it just gets me mad, not to meantion a good 10 minutes were spent on shots of the helpless women and children.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Willkill, this movie was about more than just ugly orcs and beautiful women. It was a tremendous study in the human qualities such as mercy, justice, bravery, heroism, endurance, perseverance and so on. I think at some points you expect too much, and at others, you expect too little. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I felt that the books themselves depicted the qualities that you mentioned above, and I did not feel that the addtition of and people who have had their lives changed for ever due to the war adds anything in the way of the qualities above, it detracts IMHO...and I felt that almost every part of the story conveys those qualities, from Frodo, Sam and Gollum, to Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas, to Merry, Eowyn and Theoden, to Pipping, Faramir and Gandalf...(I made them all into Trios...wow..hehe) and for me, seeing the men of Rohan and Gondor fighting for their lives, does more to move my heart towards pity than any poor peasants... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gollum turning Frodo against Sam was just unneccesary and bad, there was no need for it, and not only that, it got me mad, I already hated gollum, no need for me to hate him more... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------You hated him because you read the books. For the rest of America, there was the turning of Frodo against Sam. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In the movies, you really dont feel any pity at all for Gollum, and for me it is exactly because of Gollum turning Frodo against Sam...in the books the reader had to decide for himself whether to applaud GOllums death, or to Pity it...in the movies, it was already done for you... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Denethor was AWFUL absolutly aful, I mean dear god, I dont know if it is the actor of the role that was written for him, but every little thing he did ****ed me off, first with hi s rambling until gandalf hit him, then with his eating, and then the pyre.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------You just angered the almighty princess of Denethorism: Meela! Back, girl, back! (And again, if you wouldn’t mind watching the language) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am a quiet large Denethor fan in the books, but I do cant stand Denethor in the movie, he is too crude, too mean, too arrogante, too crazy and just too plain ignorant for my tastes... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The love story and elrond again, I didnt think it was possible , but the flashbacks and the scenes with arwen were worse than in TTT...not to mention Elrond riding all the way into rohan just to deliver a sword just shows that PJ forgot about Anduril for a while and finally remembered he needed to put it in... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you truly believe PJ forgot Andúril, then you honestly understand nothing of the movie business. I alone understand very little myself, but these weren’t made one right after the other, but all together. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am not implying that PJ ACTUALLY forgot about Anduril, and I know that all 3 movies were made at the same time, so it would be almost impossible for him to forget...but I felt that Aduril was almost added in as a last minute thing, I mean, how did Elrond make it all the way to Rohan so fast? but most of all, why didnt it happen in FotR? There is no reason in my mind for PJ to wait and put it in in RotK... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Celeborn boarding the boat into the west, just a useless change from the book, and also I didnt like how few people boarded the boat, I mean its not like any one of them knows how to sail in a boat, I was under the impression that a very large host of elves sailed west at the same time.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------But at the same time, Bilbo, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn, and Gandalf all climbed on board the ship, and then you couldn’t see them any more so you could concentrate on Frodo. Maybe the others were out of view. Again, probably another effort not to confuse poor perplexed mainstream movie-goers with nameless faces that they don’t know whether or not they are someone to keep track of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im referring to all of those poeple boarding the boat, but my question is, which one of them knows how to sail? (most likely Gandalf or maybe Galadrial, who sailed from Valinor in the first age)...but I was under the impression that the boats that the elves boarded were giant and fair, not a tiny littly fishing boat...and I also thought that a very large host of Elves set sail for the west at the end of the 3rd Age, not just one boat...I would of liked to see the one boat join a giant fleet of elven boats at the grey havens... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No Cirdan...now thats just mean, I wanted to see Cirdan...you dont see a bearded elf every day... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------*Cocks eyebrow* I did not remember Cirdan having a beard. But you could see the dude, in the prologue. And I believe he was there in the shot at the end, standing by. But no beard... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cirdan had a beard, atleast in the books...the only bearded elf ever mentioned by Tolkein... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I agree with you on some of these issues, but I don’t see the need to raise such an objection about it. The movies were still extremely, exceedingly, spectacularly, exceptionally, extraordinarily, tremendously, enormously, remarkably, outstandingly, terrifically, marvelously, stupendously, staggeringly, dazzlingly, wonderfully done, and I think Peter Jackson should be commended by us, not chastised. He did a great job, and deserves a lot of credit for the massive amounts of work he put in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cant.....take.....so.....many....... big words......brain melting.....please...turn off.....thesaurus......just kidding =)PS, if you notice, I refrained from any "orc-talk" in this post...though I do think if you are going to be posting on the internet, one probably should have tougher skin, for not all forums are as clean and well modderated as BD...and I do respect the need for a clean and well moderated forum and I will keep my foul langauge in black speech and not english...-willkill

Lalaith · 01-25-2004, 06:19 PM

I agree with many of your points, willkill, but not all. (Our chief point of disagreement being the frightened villagers, women and children, which I found a good addition.) And while I too loved and enjoyed those films, I don't think they were by any means perfect and I am glad that all posts in the movie forum don't chime in an almighty hallelujah chorus of gratitude to PJ - it would make terribly dull reading, for one thing. Lists like willkill's get us all talking, don't they? And incidently, while willkill's language is certainly exhuberant and somewhat free, grammatically speaking, I think to term it offensive is being overly precious...

Armetiel · 01-25-2004, 07:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Armetiel - Now that I think about it, we do hear Haldir's name in FotR, but seeing him again in Helm's Deep doesnt add anything special, and yes, the viewer may recognize him from FotR, but it just erks me to think that Americans (and other audiences) need to be spoon fed their characters so they dont get confused...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not American,(although I know you said other audiences too ) and even though I don't get mixed up having had read the book many times, the rest of my family and friends (other than my bro) hadn't read the book and they all said on numerous occassions that the only thing they didn't like about the movie was that there were too many different characters and names and they were getting confused...And they did recognize Haldir when they came,, if he had been someone that was completely new to them, they would have been even more confused...I heard often enough from them "Who's THIS guy?" about characteurs that are just being introduced and I'd have to say "wait and see, he wasn't in it yet." To which they'd reply. "O, not ANOTHER new dude" (or something along those lines) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I alteady felt that the oppression and suffering was already well enough conveyed, but once again, I dont really think that PJ added these parts in just for the effect it conveys about war, I cant forget the families of the cats that PJ put into the movie... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Families of CATS? willkill? I don't remember these... However, I'll assume you mean CAST, and with that thought, I'll comment...I personally think it's Awesome that he included the families of cast members in the movie...Especially his own kids...I mean as a father it shows he's spending more time with them in letting them come to his work, and also, perhaps they would like to be actors, this is certainly a great way to help them start their career. And the fact that he also let's the other cast members have their families in the movies as well shows to me how much he values family life, and knows that the family connection is an important one...That said, I'm sure if it weren't family members in those shots, it would have been someone else. So why does it matter to us whether or not those ppl are related to the main cast or not. In fact probably some of the extra's were family members with each other too (but not family of the "big stars") Does it really matter? I mean I can see it mattering more if they did a terrible job at acting, but I can't say they did any worse than anyone else. And although having the woman and kids may not have added anything other than "pity for them" to you...it added a lot to me, and many others...I'm sure PJ was thinking of the ppl who would like them in the movie (the majority) rather than the select few who wouldn't. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Once again, EE just doesnt float my boat, I would like to see the numbers of the number of tickets sold to see the theatrical editions in the theatre, and the number of DVDs the theatrical edition sold compared to the number of DVDs the EEs sold...I bet you like less than 5% of people that saw LoRT saw the EEs, and that is why I am basing my "beef" with PJ on the theatrical version...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree that barely anyone has seen these, but maybe you should consider basing your "beef" with those that made him cut the parts out, rather than PJ, who wanted them in. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Im referring to all of those poeple boarding the boat, but my question is, which one of them knows how to sail? (most likely Gandalf or maybe Galadrial, who sailed from Valinor in the first age)...but I was under the impression that the boats that the elves boarded were giant and fair, not a tiny littly fishing boat...and I also thought that a very large host of Elves set sail for the west at the end of the 3rd Age, not just one boat...I would of liked to see the one boat join a giant fleet of elven boats at the grey havens...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My quess would be that Cirdan was sailing.\[ 9:02 PM January 25, 2004: Message edited by: Armetiel ]

ArathorofBarahir · 01-26-2004, 03:49 PM

You want my opinion about our analysis of everything wrong with the movies? Well here it is: All I could come to was you just wanted to b*tch and moan. I mean if you are going to be that picky about it then why bother going to see it. Just be glad that it got made into live action movies.

willkill4food · 01-28-2004, 07:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm not American,(although I know you said other audiences too ) and even though I don't get mixed up having had read the book many times, the rest of my family and friends (other than my bro) hadn't read the book and they all said on numerous occassions that the only thing they didn't like about the movie was that there were too many different characters and names and they were getting confused...And they did recognize Haldir when they came,, if he had been someone that was completely new to them, they would have been even more confused...I heard often enough from them "Who's THIS guy?" about characteurs that are just being introduced and I'd have to say "wait and see, he wasn't in it yet." To which they'd reply. "O, not ANOTHER new dude" (or something along those lines) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, sometimes I wish PJ had a slightly more inteligent audicence to appeal to so he didnt have to dumb down so many things... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And although having the woman and kids may not have added anything other than "pity for them" to you...it added a lot to me, and many others...I'm sure PJ was thinking of the ppl who would like them in the movie (the majority) rather than the select few who wouldn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I felt as though the theme of "the horrors of war and the loss of innocence" was already well enough developed without the extra shots of the helpless women and children, first through the 4 hobbits themsevles, through the shire (Including what Sam saw in the mirror of Galadriel), through Smeagol, and through many other characters, and I just felt that of all the parts that showed the horror of war, the parts of the children and women just was the worst, not to mention the longest and IMO, most unnecessary... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You want my opinion about our analysis of everything wrong with the movies? Well here it is: All I could come to was you just wanted to b*tch and moan. I mean if you are going to be that picky about it then why bother going to see it. Just be glad that it got made into live action movies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thats nice, now go away...-willkill

Armetiel · 01-28-2004, 07:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm not American,(although I know you said other audiences too ) and even though I don't get mixed up having had read the book many times, the rest of my family and friends (other than my bro) hadn't read the book and they all said on numerous occassions that the only thing they didn't like about the movie was that there were too many different characters and names and they were getting confused...And they did recognize Haldir when they came,, if he had been someone that was completely new to them, they would have been even more confused...I heard often enough from them "Who's THIS guy?" about characteurs that are just being introduced and I'd have to say "wait and see, he wasn't in it yet." To which they'd reply. "O, not ANOTHER new dude" (or something along those lines)and _______________________________ Yeah, sometimes I wish PJ had a slightly more inteligent audicence to appeal to so he didnt have to dumb down so many things... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>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. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I felt as though the theme of "the horrors of war and the loss of innocence" was already well enough developed without the extra shots of the helpless women and children, first through the 4 hobbits themsevles, through the shire (Including what Sam saw in the mirror of Galadriel), through Smeagol, and through many other characters, and I just felt that of all the parts that showed the horror of war, the parts of the children and women just was the worst, not to mention the longest and IMO, most unnecessary... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>maybe, but as I said, your opinion there is the minority, and PJ was aiming for the majority.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.

Knight of Gondor · 01-28-2004, 09:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Once again, I agree to some extent, it would be hard to convey that 17 years past, but also there is the fact that Gandalf wanted Frodo to leave the Shire, not altogether disappear, that and maybe some mention of Frodo's intention of moving to Buckland in order to hide his departure,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I recall that the transition from Minas Tirith to The Green Dragon implied a lot of time had passed. Especially since Frodo had to go digging for the envelope that contained the Ring. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>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? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>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. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I just want to know if we had never seen, heard of, or knew the name of Bill the Pony, then why does PJ have them leave the pony behind at the gates of Moria...a waste or precious seonds...we could of seen the full end of Isildur but instead we are stuck with a Pony we have never heard of...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If PJ had left out Bill, then trust me, many more fans of Bill would be angered. Why would we want to see the “full end of Isildur”? What else would you want to see beyond what the EE showed us? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I alteady felt that the oppression and suffering was already well enough conveyed, but once again, I dont really think that PJ added these parts in just for the effect it conveys about war, I cant forget the families of the cats that PJ put into the movie... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Remember, these movies had to function for more than just avid book readers. This is why we saw the oppression stuff. That, and it’s just good cinema – I liked it. As for the cats....meow meow. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I felt that the books themselves depicted the qualities that you mentioned above, and I did not feel that the addtition of and people who have had their lives changed for ever due to the war adds anything in the way of the qualities above, it detracts IMHO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again...I’d like to see the statistics on how many of the movie fans hadn’t read the books. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In the movies, you really dont feel any pity at all for Gollum,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg to differ. Actually, Knights don’t beg, so “I differ”. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I am a quiet large Denethor fan in the books, but I do cant stand Denethor in the movie, he is too crude, too mean, too arrogante, too crazy and just too plain ignorant for my tastes...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I didn’t particularly like the Flaming Plunge of Doom, nor the Staff Whack (is that in the video game, whack-a-Denethor?), nor even Shadowfax’s bout of boxing with the good Steward. (Although you must admit Denethor was already clearly in a suicidal frame of mind), but as for his crude, mean, and arrogant attitude . . . don’t know if you checked the books (I say that facetiously) but that’s pretty much who Denethor is. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I felt that Aduril was almost added in as a last minute thing, I mean, how did Elrond make it all the way to Rohan so fast? but most of all, why didnt it happen in FotR? There is no reason in my mind for PJ to wait and put it in in RotK...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Andúril was slated to be delivered to Aragorn at Helm’s Deep. We should be grateful every day that this didn’t happen. But there was a reason for having it in RotK, namely, to follow the story line that Aragorn was reluctant to take hold of his kingship. As for Elrond’s hasty ride...well, we never are told how long it takes to muster at Dunharrow, or how much time passes between the beacons of Gondor lighting, and the siege-laying. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Im referring to all of those poeple boarding the boat, but my question is, which one of them knows how to sail? (most likely Gandalf or maybe Galadrial, who sailed from Valinor in the first age)...but I was under the impression that the boats that the elves boarded were giant and fair, not a tiny littly fishing boat...and I also thought that a very large host of Elves set sail for the west at the end of the 3rd Age, not just one boat...I would of liked to see the one boat join a giant fleet of elven boats at the grey havens...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you missed the point of what I said when I said there could be others out of sight. By that, I meant other Elves that had skill in sailing. I can just hear Galadriel now. “Ahoy, Gandalf! Raise the main sail!” “Aye aye, Elf-queen!” “Captain!” (shouts Elrond) “Put ‘er a tad to starboard!” <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Cant.....take.....so.....many.......big words......brain melting.....please...turn off.....thesaurus......just kidding =)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nuts, he saw through my Thesaurus. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> PS, if you notice, I refrained from any "orc-talk" in this post...though I do think if you are going to be posting on the internet, one probably should have tougher skin, for not all forums are as clean and well modderated as BD...and I do respect the need for a clean and well moderated forum and I will keep my foul langauge in black speech and not english... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We appreciates it, we does. And I realize there are dirtier forums out there. That’s why I choose to hang out here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You want my opinion about our analysis of everything wrong with the movies? Well here it is: All I could come to was you just wanted to b*tch and moan. I mean if you are going to be that picky about it then why bother going to see it. Just be glad that it got made into live action movies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Arathor, Armetiel, he’s got a right to voice his opinion, and offer up his differences for discussion. Perhaps you should take Arathor's own suggestion; if you don’t like what he’s saying, then why bother to read it? (I already voiced a somewhat controversial opinion on the language, so I think that still applies...) (By the way, Arathor, I note that you are from Kentucky. Did you check out the post (I think it’s in N & N) called “lighting up”? It actually has to do with pipes and the Shire, and I make mention of Kentucky influencing Tolkien’s image of the Shire)

Armetiel · 01-29-2004, 01:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You want my opinion about our analysis of everything wrong with the movies? Well here it is: All I could come to was you just wanted to b*tch and moan. I mean if you are going to be that picky about it then why bother going to see it. Just be glad that it got made into live action movies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arathor, Armetiel, he’s got a right to voice his opinion, and offer up his differences for discussion. Perhaps you should take Arathor's own suggestion; if you don’t like what he’s saying, then why bother to read it? (I already voiced a somewhat controversial opinion on the language, so I think that still applies...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Knight of Gondor, Just out of curiosity, who said I didn't like what he's saying? I am simply agreeing or disagreeing with his statements, just as you are. I never once said I didn't think he had a right to state his own opinions, but I think I have just as much a right as him.Also, I probably take as much offense to the the language as you do. I do not use that language myself, and never have.I am not quite sure why you seem to be tying me in with that quote by Arathor at all, but if you could explain it to me, please do.

Eorl of Rohan · 01-29-2004, 05:11 AM

I don't know if I'm being rather obsessed, but I still don't like the movie. Firstly, I saw it in Korean version, and they translated terribly and confused everyone who wasn't able to listen to English.Secondly, what affected me most was the proud Denethor son of Ecthelion portrayed like... *shudder* and Faramir, instead of being wise and learned,,,,, thirdly, and greatest, THEY DID NOT PUT ANY POETRY IN. IT just ruined the whole movie.

willkill4food · 02-02-2004, 11:15 AM

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

01-22-2004, 06:46 PM	#1
willkill4food Animated Skeleton Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Salem, OR Posts: 44	My list of everything wrong with the movies (Not EE) now, I am not doing this post to be a complainer, its just that one has to realize that NO ONE will EVER make LotR EVER AGAIN. This was our final chance to see it done right, and though PJ did an extraordnairy job, I still have a lot of beef with him about some of the liberties he took with the Trilogy...here is the big list I have with everything that went wrong with all 3 movies..<P>FotR:<BR><UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Elendil was portrayed as a suicidal fool, when in the books he and Gil-Galad wound Sauron many times before finally being killed.<BR><LI>"The power of the ring could not be undone", what the heck does that mean? In the books Sauron attacked too early not realizing that the Elves had become stronger while he was away, and he didnt count on such fierce resistance from the Men of Numenor. Sauron come out from Barad-Dur when he had no chance left at all, victory was assured when Sauron came out.<BR><LI>No mention that the Elven rings were made by Celebrindor, not Sauron, which just confsues the viewer as to why the Elves are almost untouched by their rings, while the 9 kings are now wraiths, and all 7 drawven ones are gone..<BR><LI>Isildur's end was cut short in the final version, not showing the part where the ring betrayed Isildur, which really helps show the evilness and "tricksyness" of the ring.<BR><LI>No Dwarves left the Shire with Bilbo on the night of his party, I wanted to see Dwarves!!!<BR><LI>The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes...not to mention almost the entire manner in which he escaped was either cut out or changed to an unrecognizable form..<BR><LI>Merry and Pippin suddenly show up in the fields with Frodo and Sam, without any hint that they are very good friends with Frodo, making the two young hobbit's choice to go join the fellowship even more irrational (if thats possible) and confusing...<BR><LI>The way to Bree was way to short, I do believe that Tom Bombadil had no real pace in the movie, but still, it seems like just a stroll in the park to get to Bree...If maybe somehow they could of had the barrowdowns without tom bombadil, that would give an explaination to how Merry wounded the WiKi so badly, maybe Frodo could of saved the 3 hobbits from the Barrowwight, or something to that effect..<BR><LI>No poem about strider, "All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost" is an entire explaination of Strider in 1 sentance, not to mention it is easily one of the most memorable lines in all of LotR...<BR><LI>Weathertop was a disaster, not only do the black riders look weak, stupid and scared, but there is no mention of their fear of fire, and none of Frodo fighting back.<BR><LI>Aragorn using another sword and a knife besides Anduril and not having Anduril be forged until RotK just got me mad, if Aragorn had the shards of Narsil at Weathertop in the movie, weathertop would not of been so horrible...<BR><LI>The scene of Bill the Pony being left go at the gates of moria....they never showed the scene were they bought bill, so why have the scene were they let him go?<BR><LI>Arwen calling the River to destroy the Nazgul just got me mad, the river is under the command of Lord Elrond, and none other...<BR><LI>The scene of the gift giving was cut out of the final film, this cut I consider one of the most hurtful and wrong cuts that PJ made, not only does it explain the cloaks, Gimli's love for Galadrial, and a lot of other things later on in the trilogy, its just a great scene...<BR><LI>Aragorn "letting" frodo go was one of the biggest mistakes PJ made in the first film, not only does it not go alnog with the story, but the involving of Aragorn in Frodos descision to leave just is very un Tolkien to me...</UL> <P>tTT<P><UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The adition of the wild men attacking parts of Rohan in the begining, I dont care about any peasants getting killed, I care about orcs, Balrogs, Trolls and Nazgul being killed...<BR><LI>Eomer's "flight" from Rohan just got me mad, not only does it thouroughly mess up Helms Deep, but it doesnt fit with Eomer's character one bit...<BR><LI>The Ents stalling...I mean dear god, the movie is more than 3 hours, and still a lot of important and relevent things were cut out, and PJ has the nerve to have the Ents say "no" at first...<BR><LI>No mention of the Battles of the Isen, which once again cause Helms Deep to become an unTolkien mess, no mention of Erkenbrand, and no reason given why Theodred died...<BR><LI>Rohan's total lack of ANY army in TTT, in the book within minutes of Theoden's awakening, he had 1000 mounted riders of the Rohirrim outside his golden hall..not 300 old men and children...<BR><LI>The taking of the women and children to Helms Deep, if there already not enough women and children in the caves in the book, PJ has to make the riding of the Riders into a refugee train...once again...I dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them...<BR><LI>Aragorn's close call....no reason for this, though the Warg riders were cool and you cant get made when extra fighting is thrown in, the "feigned death" of Aragorn just got me mad, I dont care if it gave PJ reason for the Arwen and Aragorn flashbacks, I didnt even like the flashbacks, which is my next point...<BR><LI>The love story between Arwen and Aragorn was just plain awful, though I do know that Tolkien did not give PJ much to work with, PJ eally could of done a better job in TTT and RotK, (The story in FotR was alright)..<BR><LI>Elrond's "Im a stubborn and overprotective father, forget my goal to return a king to the throne of Gondor, forget about saving humans and middle erath from the clutches of Sauron, I want my daughter to sail of the sea with me and thats final"<BR><LI>No extra men at Helms Deep before the battle started, no mention of the scattering of Erkerbrand's men, instead it was replace by ELVES and a runaway son, probably the worst part of TTT...<BR>(Here is how the battle should of gone...early in the movie sohuld of been the battle of the Isen, Theodred killed, eomer runs into the 3 hunters, eomer comes back and is thrown in jail, the riders of rohan leave to make open battle, find the army is destoryed, make for helms deep, gandalf goes and reunites the army and comes at dawn, much less annouced, gimli sohuld of ben in the caves with eomer, theoden and aragorn should of had more people riding out with him, and not as much out of desperation, no elves, no giant explosives, and no 300 vs. 10000 stuff)<BR><LI>Faramir...I dont are that his character was much better in the EE, I went to the theaters and paided 10 many times to watch the final version, and im angry...Faramir was supposed to be portrayed as a wise strong, fair and gentle man who even when the ring of power is within his grasp, refuses it and lets Frodo and Sam go....<BR><LI>Frodo Sam and Gollum going to Osgiliarth, it just made no sense...by then Faramir should of let them go and just gone there with his men, I have no problem with a bit of a cameo by osgiliarth in the movie, but Frodo and Sam there just got me mad (see above)..<BR><LI>No Huorns....now that got me mad...there is no way every last single orc was killed by the Rohirrim, and thats why the Hourns needed to be there, they were the cleanup crew, they were what truely destroyed Saruman's army..<BR><LI>No talking with Saruman, no throwing of the palatir, no tempting both the king and Gandalf...nothing...at first I tohught it would of been taken care of in RotK, but that was not the case, and so now it is obvious to me that it should of been taken care of, and somehow PJ should of found the room in his movie for it...<BR><LI>No more shots of the actors children, its bad enough to see random extras cower in fear, but when its a cameo from a child or spouse of an actor, it just gets me mad, not to meantion a good 10 minutes were spent on shots of the helpless women and children..<BR></UL><P>RotK<BR><UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Nothing, absolutly nothing about Saruman, which wouldnt be so bad if he was taken care of in TTT, but the cutting out of one of the major bad guys without any attempt at an explaination just makes me mad...<BR><LI>Smeagols past was an ok flashback, but it was too long and too annoying, I would of just like a couple minute explaination, but I guess PJ wanted to make the viewers pity Gollum less...<BR><LI>Gollum turning Frodo against Sam was just unneccesary and bad, there was no need for it, and not only that, it got me mad, I already hated gollum, no need for me to hate him more...<BR><LI>The endless staircase was WAY too close to minas morgul...but thats a small thing, but you would think someone would of seen the 3 small figures climbing up it...<BR><LI>Theoden's reluctanse to go to the aid of Gondor, didnt make any sense, and this coupled with the amazing army that appears out of no where just got me mad, if they only had 300 men at Helms Deep, they should be riding to gondor with about 15 men...I really hate the excuse of "the other men were far away"...<BR><LI>No Rangers, no songs of Elrond, no nothing, making legolas, Aragorn and gimli brave the paths of the dead all by themselves, without horses...<BR><LI>The stupid green people attacking the orcs and saving the day, the dead were supposed to attack the corsairs and then go...and though 30 rangers attacking the orcs wouldnt be too exciting, maybe PJ could of had some of the besieged gondorians come with the rangers and attack...<BR><LI>No Prince Emrahil....and htis fact hurts me deep inside, probably because Prince Imrahil is by far the coolest character in the entire LotR trilogy...and I was looking forward to seeing the three warriors (eomer, imrahil and aragorn) meet in the middle of the battle after attacking on 3 different sides..<BR><LI>Denethor was AWFUL absolutly aful, I mean dear god, I dont know if it is the actor of the role that was written for him, but every little thing he did ****ed me off, first with hi s rambling until gandalf hit him, then with his eating, and then the pyre..<BR><LI>Gandalf's dealing with denethor was almost as bad, first with the knocking him on the head, and then actually murdering him by pushing him into the flame...<BR><LI>Gimli holding the crown....just plain dumb..<BR><LI>Legolas' oliphante surfing attack, the attack was fine, he just looked like a dumbass as he came down from the oliphante..<BR><LI>No house of healing....one of the most importante parts of the movie cut out...no real reason other than Aragorns victory for him to get the crown...though throughout the movie it never is actually said that he is not the real king of gondor..<BR><LI>The love story and elrond again, I didnt think it was possible , but the flashbacks and the scenes with arwen were worse than in TTT...not to mention Elrond riding all the way into rohan just to deliver a sword just shows that PJ forgot about Anduril for a while and finally remembered he needed to put it in...<BR><LI>No faramir and eowyn love story, that got me really mad, because not only is it a great side story, it sorta brings closure to the story involving gondor and rohan, and giving way for the rest of the story to focus on hobbits..<BR><LI>No mention of the wild men leading the rohirrim through the hills...this I thought was pretty bad, not only because it made PJ change denethor's belief from "rohan will be late" to "rohan will not come"...<BR><LI>Celeborn boarding the boat into the west, just a useless change from the book, and also I didnt like how few people boarded the boat, I mean its not like any one of them knows how to sail in a boat, I was under the impression that a very large host of elves sailed west at the same time..<BR><LI>No Cirdan...now thats just mean, I wanted to see Cirdan...you dont see a bearded elf every day...<BR><LI>Hardly any people were at the attack on the black gate, in the book it was 6000, in the movie it look like less than 1000...<BR><LI>Gollum fighting an invisible Frodo just looked too strange, and not to mention Frodo pushing gollum off the edge got me angry, he just lost of a finger, he was in no condition to fight gollum for the ring...it should of been a shorter struggle and gollum should of fallen off...<BR></UL><P>But all together, it wasnt that bad, and I still will be buying the DVD and EE of RotK, just because im a materialistic and hopelussly addicted tolkien fan...<P>-willkill<P>PS, Feel free to comment or argue about any of the kazillion problems I have with the movies, ill be happy to destroy your arguement and then insult your mother =)<P>BTW sorry about the bad grammar and spelling mistakes, no spell check =(<p>[ 7:50 PM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: willkill4food ] __________________ Gil-galad was an Elven-king. Of him the harpers sadly sing...

01-22-2004, 09:55 PM	#2
Knight of Gondor Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 744	Willkill -<P>I agree the movies were not 100% accurate to the books. I must confess I didn't take the time to read everything you wrote, because I know a good deal of the book-to-movie problems. But I think you need to cut Peter Jackson a little more slack. Many people set up for themselves some rather impossible goals which Peter Jackson could not hope to reach. Remember, out of millions, he had to try to please as many as possible, while still pleasing the rest of mainstream America and the rest of the world, who are not Initiated. <P>Some things I agree with changing, as I've said before, such as the regular sword Aragorn carries. As for the others...I really think we should be grateful that Lord of the Rings actually entered Hollywood and came out as unscathed as it did! __________________ Eagerly awaiting the REAL Return of the King - Jesus Christ! Revelation 19:11-16

01-22-2004, 10:21 PM	#3
Olorin Wight Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Where the sun sails and the moon walks. Posts: 155	I agree with everything you said. Most of the stuff was completely pointless. PJ could have kept it accurate and not hurt the movie in any way. I think he just diminished several characters by making changes. __________________ Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then don't be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

01-22-2004, 10:47 PM	#4
Armetiel Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 74	^just so you know, some of the things that are missing (like the gift giving) are in the EE edition, and had to be cut because of screen time, however Jackson still filmed them and they are still in the movie although, you are right, it would explain a lot and it's not a scene i would have cut, from the Theatrical version either<BR> <BR>no one really is going to remember who elendil is anyways, if they haven't read the book...<P>personally, yes tom bombadil should have been in at least the extendend version, as well as the old forest, but you don't really NEED those parts to understand what's going on..so yeh, time limits call for change, it can't be helped<P>Dwarves going with Bilbo, Jackson probably didn't want to hire another couple actors for such a small part that doesn't really effect the story, and it's not like he completely took out dwarves (however I would have liked to see a bit more of Gloin like in the book)<P>as for "the power of the ring could not be undone" well, really it couldn't. That's why Frodo has to destroy the ring so many years later...<P> As too Celebrimbor, I think PJ is trying to NOT confuse the audience who haven't read the book by throwing too many names at them that aren't going to appear elsewhere in the movie<P>As to saying good bye to bill, well not only did you not see them buying him, he's not even with them on Caradhras...so yeh, I'd say cut the scene, in fact cut the pony when they first leave rivendell too, unless you want to put him in all the scenes...but please..one way or the other lol<P>as for weather top, I thought the blackriders looked pretty scared of the fire...but I agree with the Anduril bit.<P>TTT, I LOVE the scene with the peasants ..personally i thought it a great addition.<P>The stalling of the ents was stupid, i was a bit annoyed at that.<P>The woman and children go to helm's deep in the book, so why not in the movie...personally i think having them in it was a GREAT idea, so it's not all battles (which there are already too much of)<P>The whole warg thing and Aragorn almost dying was dumb, but hey it's not supposed to be just like the book and they took out the warg scene from the fellowship, so why not add one here.<P>Elrond's roll is there because he did not approve of Aragorn's and Arwen's relationship. (In the book)<P>Personally i liked the elves at helms deep, however they shouldn't be there if he was being true to the book, which he wasn't, so it doesn't matter. however, Haldir should not have been killed as he lives in the book. And personally i agree with leaving Earkenbrand out, too confusing, stick with ppl we already know (confusing to ppl who haven't read the book i mean)<P>I HATE that Faramir didn't let Frodo and Sam go and brought them to Osgiliath, that part was HORRID.<P>I think the Huorns are in the EE. cut for screen time<P>again, i think it's great that the kids were in the movie so often, and I don't care WHOSE kids they are lol as long as they are in it.<P>ROTK<BR>Saruman will be in EE, however I don't think he should have been cut, and still I've heard that in EE, it's going to be some big showdown between him and Gandalf..what's all that about...<P>Smeagol turning frodo against Sam was def. uncalled for...it's my least fav part<P>the figures weren't seen on the stair because of the elven cloaks i guess<P>Faramir and Eowyn's story will prob be in the EE<P>as for the boat, it doesn't say in the book that Celeborn WASN"T with them does it? i could be wrong...if you want a REALLY pointless change, howabout in the book they were 14 days from rivendell at weathertop, and only 6 in the movie...(or something like that)<P>anywayz, i'd comment more but i gotta go now..<p>[ 11:58 PM January 22, 2004: Message edited by: Armetiel ] __________________ "Love the Lord with all your heart, with all your strength, and with all your soul." Deuteronomy 6:5

01-22-2004, 10:51 PM	#5
Silmiel of Imladris Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Looking into a crystal ball- still see nothing Posts: 395	WillKill I think you just need to relax. In my opinion most of the changes you described were pretty minor compared to the Elves at Helms deep, Arwen, and Faramir's character change. Of course everyone is going to have little things that tick them off but they are not worth making a big deal over. Even some of the things in the books ticked me off too but I ingrored them and kept reading. <P>Oh and....<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes...not to mention almost the entire manner in which he escaped was either cut out or changed to an unrecognizable form..<P><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It took 17 years for me to get though that part of the book for it bored me so. I am completely grateful it was not put it. __________________ Legolas 20 ales later: I feel something, a slight tingling in my fingers. I think it's affecting me. Figwit on his name: Are you suggesting that I have the wit of a fig?

01-23-2004, 02:34 AM	#6
zb Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: perth, west australia Posts: 71	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Merry and Pippin suddenly show up in the fields with Frodo and Sam, without any hint that they are very good friends with Frodo, making the two young hobbit's choice to go join the fellowship even more irrational (if thats possible) and confusing...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I disagree. I think this is a case of 'showing, not telling' - most audience members with an iq higher than their shoe size will either:<BR>a. have read the books and know who M&P are; or,<BR>b. realise that the reason why the hobbits all get along as if they know each other is beacuse they do, indeed, know each other.<P>I think sometimes we forget that movies can imply events and relationships without having to show them.<P>I also don't see why "one has to realize that NO ONE will EVER make LotR EVER AGAIN" - I can think of many books/plays which have been made into multiple movies. Shakespeare's stuff being the most obvious answer, but also <I>Animal Farm</I> and <I>The Secret Garden</I>, off the top of my head. We'll just have to wait another 20 years, that's all. __________________ "Do you think I am trying to weave a spell? Perhaps I am; but remember your fairy tales. Spells are used for breaking enchantments as well as inducing them. And you and I have need of the strongest spell that can be found to wake us from the evil enchantment of worldliness..." - C.S. Lewis

01-23-2004, 04:03 AM	#7
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 887	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>How on earth can you show this in a movie without a narrator. It worked fine in the cartoon version as the narrator explained it, but what can Jackson do? Could he 'age' the hobbit characters using prosthetics by 17 years, and then be stuck with this 'look' for the rest of the film? I think not.<P>How they alluded to the time difference was to show Frodo having to find the Ring (still in the envelope) in the box it was kept in. <P>I've learnt to live with most of the minor changes to the films. If you want a fantasy film that is pretty much exactly like the book, then watch HP and the Philophoser's Stone (Sorcerer if you're American, why on earth did they do that?) HP1 is an incredibly boring film because it sticks so tightly to the book (which is an exxelent read). Sometimes it just doesn't work out well when this is done........

01-23-2004, 11:53 AM	#8
willkill4food Animated Skeleton Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Salem, OR Posts: 44	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>^just so you know, some of the things that are missing (like the gift giving) are in the EE edition, and had to be cut because of screen time, however Jackson still filmed them and they are still in the movie although, you are right, it would explain a lot and it's not a scene i would have cut, from the Theatrical version either<P>no one really is going to remember who elendil is anyways, if they haven't read the book...<BR>personally, yes tom bombadil should have been in at least the extendend version, as well as the old forest, but you don't really NEED those parts to understand what's going on..so yeh, time limits call for change, it can't be helped<P>Dwarves going with Bilbo, Jackson probably didn't want to hire another couple actors for such a small part that doesn't really effect the story, and it's not like he completely took out dwarves (however I would have liked to see a bit more of Gloin like in the book)<P>as for "the power of the ring could not be undone" well, really it couldn't. That's why Frodo has to destroy the ring so many years later...<P>As too Celebrimbor, I think PJ is trying to NOT confuse the audience who haven't read the book by throwing too many names at them that aren't going to appear elsewhere in the movie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It really doesnt matter what was filmed, it matters what ends up on screen, and the gift giving scene just adds so much to the trilogy..<P>Elendil just happens to be one of the greatest men ever, and seeing up shout, jump forward and die was a blow to all Tolkien fans, just a few more seconds of him actually fighting hand to hand with Sauron would of made me happy, and if somehow it could of been filmed so that Isildur didnt come off ias an arrogant, foolish, petty man who the only thing he did was cut the ring, then I would of been crying in happyness during that scene...<P>As for the dwarves, I just cant get enough of them, they are just so cute and snuggly with their big beards, axes and 4ft 6 height...<BR> <BR>"But the power of the Ring could not be undone" makes it sound like even if all of Sauron's forces were destroyed (which they almost were) then still he could not be defeated (which is BS), Sauron was destoryed even before his ring was cut from his hand...<P>In the movies the viewer has no idea that the elven rings are any different, so if maybe just some small reference that the Elven Rings of power were not made by any help from Sauron and his hand never touched them, it would of made more sense to the viewer who is thinking "why are the Elves immune from Sauron?"<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>TTT, I LOVE the scene with the peasants ..personally i thought it a great addition.<P>The woman and children go to helm's deep in the book, so why not in the movie...personally i think having them in it was a GREAT idea, so it's not all battles (which there are already too much of)<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The women and children are already there in the book, as Erkenbrand lived in Helms Deep during these dark days...but do we really need to be reminded every 5 minutes that the fate of all of Rohan (women and children included) relies on this battles? I didnt, and I doubt the average viewer really felt anything more than pity for these people...and I barely felt pity (probably because I knew they would win)<BR>But again, PJ cut out Saurman's humbling in order to show the faces of his children and some of the acotrs children...not cool...<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Elrond's roll is there because he did not approve of Aragorn's and Arwen's relationship. (In the book) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Elrond approved of their relationship, but would only let Arwen marry the King of Gondor and Arnor, for Elrond forsaw that Aragorn would be the last cheif of the dunedain, either he would claim the thrown, or he and his line would disappear...he was just adding in a little incentive for Aragorn...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Personally i liked the elves at helms deep, however they shouldn't be there if he was being true to the book, which he wasn't, so it doesn't matter. however, Haldir should not have been killed as he lives in the book. And personally i agree with leaving Earkenbrand out, too confusing, stick with ppl we already know (confusing to ppl who haven't read the book i mean) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>We didnt even now Haldir's name until he showed up at Helms Deep, and if we are going to introduce new characters, new armies, and other stuff, it might as well be the characters, armies and stuff that is in the book...I am not that mad that Elves were at Helms Deep, I am mad because that battle could of been the battle to make all other movie battles look like GI Joe fights, but instead it was ruined (IMHO)...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Faramir and Eowyn's story will prob be in the EE<P>as for the boat, it doesn't say in the book that Celeborn WASN"T with them does it? i could be wrong...if you want a REALLY pointless change, howabout in the book they were 14 days from rivendell at weathertop, and only 6 in the movie...(or something like that)<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Once again, another thing cut and left for EE, and for what? So we can see Sam crying a few seconds longer when Frodo sends him away? This story needed to be in the theatrical version, and thats why I hold it against PJ...<P>(Next reply)<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> WillKill I think you just need to relax. In my opinion most of the changes you described were pretty minor compared to the Elves at Helms deep, Arwen, and Faramir's character change. Of course everyone is going to have little things that tick them off but they are not worth making a big deal over. Even some of the things in the books ticked me off too but I ingrored them and kept reading. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am not really making a BIG deal, I did write a huge, giant, long post, but thats really all...of course a lot of the things were minor, but also they were pointless and unnecesary, and thats why I am mad, PJ had $300 million to do this, he could of made an effort to keep some thing with the story ling just for because...and the changes to practically every character are what **** me off, not only because the things they do are so unlike them in the books, but also because they just focred PJ to make more minor changes to the script, its the domino effect...btw, it took me a long time to get past the first few chapters too...<BR>anyways, gotta go this second, be back in a day or two for the next few replies...<P>-willkill<P>btw, thanks for the replies, it makes me feel loved.....or hated... __________________ Gil-galad was an Elven-king. Of him the harpers sadly sing...

01-23-2004, 12:04 PM	#9
Meela Denethor's True Love Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Mirkwood. With Thranduil... swoon Posts: 2,118	You need a stiff drink.<P>I don't think people should see the films at all if they're going to be that picky...<P>I would say more, but I'm tired of picking at tiny details and defending good pieces of film making. Just because one line or one extra man in the corner is missing, it is not worth the fuss. __________________ 'The Hobbit' 1st impressions: 1. Thorin is hot... Oh god, I fancy a dwarf. 2. Thranduil is hotter. 3. Is that... Figwit! 4. Does Elijah Wood never age? 2nd: It's all about Fili & Kili, really. 3rd: BARD! OMG, Bard.

01-23-2004, 01:27 PM	#10
Armetiel Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 74	[/quote]We didnt even now Haldir's name until he showed up at Helms Deep, and if we are going to introduce new characters, new armies, and other stuff, it might as well be the characters, armies and stuff that is in the book...I am not that mad that Elves were at Helms Deep, I am mad because that battle could of been the battle to make all other movie battles look like GI Joe fights, but instead it was ruined (IMHO)...[/quote]<P>we know he name...it's in FOTR when he greets them in Lothlorien<BR> (at least in EE) but even if you don't know EE, if you've read the book you know his name, and if you haven't, well you still know who he is because at the very least, you know his FACE from FOTR. __________________ "Love the Lord with all your heart, with all your strength, and with all your soul." Deuteronomy 6:5

01-23-2004, 03:05 PM	#11
Kronos Animated Skeleton Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 47	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I dont care about any peasants getting killed<P>I dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Dear God.....

01-23-2004, 03:24 PM	#12
Hama Of The Riddermark Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 282	Many, Many, MANY of these issues are dealt with in the EEs...

01-23-2004, 04:57 PM	#13
Elrond of Rivendell Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 261	Well, I think if we keep ourselves overfixed to the books, we could generate a list ad infinitum. Still this is not my intention, although I recognize that I also disliked some parts of the movies. The general opinion however is a very good one, I still can enjoy watching FotR for instance, to be sure.<BR>I am honestly thankful to Peter Jackson for offering us this great work of movie-making (and not of literally 1:1-adapting Tolkien's works, which would be quite impossible, given the length, both in the space (cf. distances in Mordor) and in time (cf. the 17 years) of the latter).<BR>I think the best method of enjoying Peter Jackson's movies is to remind what they are after all: movies. If you want to have a Middle-Earth congruent with Tolkien's writings, then I regret, you have to read the books. There is no other way. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen calling the River to destroy the Nazgul just got me mad, the river is under the command of Lord Elrond, and none other... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>E.g. this doesn't disturb me at all. The Nazgul are rebuked by some powers emanating from Elves (and Gandalf, as it is said in the books), is it really THAT important whether the force behind them was Elrond or his daughter (and therefore very close to his kin and even probably detaining the same powers)? - Honestly, I don't think so.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Ents stalling...I mean dear god, the movie is more than 3 hours, and still a lot of important and relevent things were cut out, and PJ has the nerve to have the Ents say "no" at first... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Here I have to admit that this was a very nice prolongement of Treebeard's saying "No one cares about the forests any more, no one is on my side". I think an Entmoot leading to enthusiastic Ents marching into war would not have been credible in the movie. Remember that even in the books, the Entmoot is an event of long duration, without the usual black/white reasoning (Oh yes, Saruman is evil, we must destroy him). Peter Jackson tried to represent this by letting the Ents firstly refuse their participation.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The taking of the women and children to Helms Deep, if there already not enough women and children in the caves in the book, PJ has to make the riding of the Riders into a refugee train...once again...I dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I could not disagree more. What Tolkien wanted to show us in his books throughout his books, is the dramatic consequences of a cataclysm like a great war. (I remember reading or hearing somewhere that some battles are depicted in allusion to the trenches of World War I.) So I see the women and children crying and suffering, as shown by Peter Jackson, as of the same mind, which I greatly appreciate. We should not forget after all that Tolkien's books are a little bit more complex than mere orc-slaughtering.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Elrond's "Im a stubborn and overprotective father, forget my goal to return a king to the throne of Gondor, forget about saving humans and middle erath from the clutches of Sauron, I want my daughter to sail of the sea with me and thats final" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>For this point, I refer to what has been said on this board before: Peter Jackson has - IMHO - not tried to come with a stubborn Elf, full of disdain for the human race, but he presented us a loving father, caring for his daughter, after having lost nearly all his kind. In fact, I would almost use the word "human(e)" to describe his feelings. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Gollum turning Frodo against Sam was just unneccesary and bad, there was no need for it, and not only that, it got me mad, I already hated gollum, no need for me to hate him more... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I think this was quite a difficult decision for Peter Jackson to take. As it is, Gollum had to die at the end, but whereas in the books, his character can be dealt with throughout 700 pages or more, with appendices and so on, the movies only have a (very limited) space of time to do a complex character analysis. Therefore, Peter Jackson had to depict Gollum towards the end of the movies as fully evil, so that his death could be "accepted" even by non Tolkien-readers. Just imagine the uproar of horror and indignation to be heard if Gollum would have died after scene like the "name-giving" by Frodo.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No Rangers, no songs of Elrond, no nothing, making legolas, Aragorn and gimli brave the paths of the dead all by themselves, without horses... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Again, they are not necessary in the movies. It is Aragorn only and alone who can enter the Paths of the Dead. He doesn't need any companion for his deed. Btw, I am sure, if more Rangers had shown up, some people would have used this fact to point at the chronological inconsistency.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Denethor was AWFUL absolutly aful, I mean dear god, I dont know if it is the actor of the role that was written for him, but every little thing he did ****ed me off, first with hi s rambling until gandalf hit him, then with his eating, and then the pyre.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Here again, not disposing of some entire chapter-lengths to deal with Denethor, Peter Jackson had to transform this character. Okay, I agree, the changes in this particular figure were quite deep, but I agree now with them, seeing that after all there are two Denethor's: the one from the books and the one from the movies. You simply must not juxtapose the two of them.<P>So I repeat that I recommend accepting Peter Jackson's movies as what they are: movies. This term - in my eyes - clearly implies the artistic licences of a skillful director. <BR>I still hope for another version of LotR-Movies, not because PJ's are bad, but simply I think that a book like this deserves more than one movie-adaptation.<P>Greetings,<BR>EfR<p>[ 6:00 PM January 23, 2004: Message edited by: Elrond of Rivendell ]

01-23-2004, 07:22 PM	#14
Rocharwen Guest Posts: n/a	i think that peter jackson did a wonderful job for what he had to work with. he made everything seem so real. and these movies were not just to please the LOTR reading fans, they were to please non-readers as well. and since non-readers tend to like different things, he took some liberties to be a people-pleaser. but the only problem that i have with any of the movies was in return of the king, i was REALLY looking forward to see the houses of healing, hopefully they'll be on the extended version!

01-23-2004, 07:53 PM	#15
Elrond of Rivendell Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 261	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> he took some liberties to be a people-pleaser. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Hmm, I wouldn't use this term, as it usually stands together with quite negative connotations. I would rather affirm that Jackson tried (and succeeded for the most part) to "deliver" an understandable insight-view of Tolkien's Middle-Earth even to non-Tolkien-addicts. But for the most part I agree with your points, although I will be waiting for the EE (Houses of Healings), as for the moment, I am not that sure what people are really expecting. I must admit that I found this particular chapter in the books quite boring. Don't accuse me of anti-romantism! <BR>I simply believe that the scenes at the Houses split the dramatic moments of Pelennor and Morannon in a unduely way. <P>Greetings,<BR>EfR

01-23-2004, 07:57 PM	#16
The Saucepan Man Corpus Cacophonous Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: A green and pleasant land Posts: 8,468	Willkill4food, please please please stay away from the films - for the sake of your blood pressure. <P>Well, I agree with most of what has been said in response. Excellent post in particular from Elrond of Rivendell. They key point, I think, is this:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think the best method of enjoying Peter Jackson's movies is to remind what they are after all: movies. If you want to have a Middle-Earth congruent with Tolkien's writings, then I regret, you have to read the books. There is no other way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If you really want to enjoy the films, then you have to accept that these are, in many cases, not the same characters or events that are depicted in the book. They are based on them, but they are not the same. <P>Although I don't consider it a matter of regret that people have to read the book to get the real story. I consider that a good thing. <P>My personal opinion (as someone who has been a fan of the book for over 25 years) is that these films are masterpieces of film-making. They work for me on so many levels. Visually, they bring Middle-earth to life in a way that I never thought would be possible when I first read the book. They have great action sequences. They have characters which (although different from those in the books in many cases) you really care about. And, to my mind, they really are emotionally engaging, particularly the final instalment.<P>I am not saying that they are perfect. But, for me, the imperfections are not in the departures from the book but in the aspects that are not internally consistent or credible within the context of the films. Examples of this, in my opinion, are: <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Gandalf's exorcism of Thedoen (which renders Wormtongue obsolete);<LI>Aragorn's cliff diving episode (which is unnecessary);<LI>Frodo offering the Ring to the Nazgul at Osgiliath (which just doesn't work for me);<LI>Gandalf and/or Shadowfax pushing Denethor onto the pyre (which is inconsistent with Gandalf's film character); and<LI>Arwen's life being tied to the fate of the Ring (which is never explained and makes little sense).</UL> Other than these episodes, I have very few complaints about the films. Anything else would be nitpicking, which I feel disinclined to do, given the great enjoyment that I have derived from them.<P>Oh, and on the subject of nitpicking:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No mention that the Elven rings were made by Celebrindor <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>They were made by Celebrimbor.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The adition of the wild men attacking parts of Rohan in the begining <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This happened in the War of the Ring, even though it is not specifically depicted in the Book (like the Battles of the Fords of the Isen ).<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The love story between Arwen and Aragorn was just plain awful <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Aragron and Arwen loved each other in the book too. And elements of these scenes were taken from their Tale in the Apendices.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> oliphante <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's Oliphaunt.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No Cirdan...now thats just mean, I wanted to see Cirdan <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>He's there at the Grey Havens, standing behind Galadriel and Celeborn.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Gollum fighting an invisible Frodo just looked too strange <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree, but that's straight from the book.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Frodo pushing gollum off the edge got me angry <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>He didn't. Frodo tried to get the Ring back. They struggled and both fell off the edge. To my mind, this was a good addition, since it made up for the strangeness of Gollum's struggle with an invisible Frodo. __________________ Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!

01-23-2004, 08:18 PM	#17
Elrond of Rivendell Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 261	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Although I don't consider it a matter of regret that people have to read the book to get the real story. I consider that a good thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And right you are. <P>EfR

01-23-2004, 08:38 PM	#18
Vuelve Wight Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A portal to an alternate dimension at your local Wal-Mart store. Posts: 167	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Celeborn boarding the boat into the west, just a useless change from the book, and also I didnt like how few people boarded the boat, I mean its not like any one of them knows how to sail in a boat, I was under the impression that a very large host of elves sailed west at the same time..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The only part of the boat scene I had a problem with was Thranduril(Forgive my sp.)standing in the background like he was some unimportant character.I believe there was a line that said something to the effect of the power of the 3 rings is over or something.I can't remember, and I've seen the movie twice.lol.He makes it look like Elrond,Celeborn,and Galadriel are the 3 bearers.And then there's Thranduril standing all by his lonesome in the background like some dock-worker.<P>ok I'm done but thats been bothering me since I've seen the first movie.<P>Black and green on my computer screen,<BR>Vuelve __________________ Now, what do you own the world? How do you own disorder? Disorder! - Toxicity-System of A Down

01-23-2004, 08:46 PM	#19
The Saucepan Man Corpus Cacophonous Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: A green and pleasant land Posts: 8,468	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The only part of the boat scene I had a problem with was Thranduril(Forgive my sp.)standing in the background like he was some unimportant character. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What makes you think that it was Thranduil? As I said, it was Cirdan. He is the same actor who featured as one of the three bearers of the Elven Rings in the Prologue to FotR. __________________ Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!

01-23-2004, 09:24 PM	#21
Vuelve Wight Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A portal to an alternate dimension at your local Wal-Mart store. Posts: 167	Forgive me on my Thrandiul mistake but still I don't like it how PJ made it seem like Celeborn was a ring brearer.In that scene they were standing in a perfect row and the line that was said gives one that assumption(I wish I could remember that line.ugh ).Thats just the interpertation that I think one would get from it.And I just thought of something else that irked me.PJ didn't say much about what Legolas and Gimli did after the ring was destroyed.I had to explain that to my friends.But besides a few other character changes, I was alright with the movies.<P>Black and green on my computer screen,<BR>Vuelve __________________ Now, what do you own the world? How do you own disorder? Disorder! - Toxicity-System of A Down

01-23-2004, 10:19 PM	#22
The Saucepan Man Corpus Cacophonous Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: A green and pleasant land Posts: 8,468	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen was just a pandering to feminists and people who wanted more girl action, without having to wait until Return of the King. That, and I think Liv Tyler wanted some extra screen time.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Knight, while I agree with much of what you have said, I must disagree with you here. Romance is a central element in most films, and one that most film-goers expect. And the romance of Aragorn and Arwen is the only one that spans all three films so, unless you want scenes of Rosie Cotton mooching around missing Sam, Arwen's role had to be expanded to bring this element out. She was not there to "pander" to "feminists" and "girl action" devotees. <P>And the final decisions on Arwen's role would have been made by Jackson and the production team. Although, I recall seeing on one of the EE documentaries that Liv Tyler was instrumental in persuading them to remove Arwen's role at Helm's Deep, having read furious "anti-XenArwen" comments on LotR websites. Hardly the behaviour of someone desperate for more screen time.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> For the rest of America, there was the turning of Frodo against Sam. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Don't forget that these films are distributed outside America too. <P>And please leave the language moderation to the moderators. __________________ Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!

01-23-2004, 11:19 PM	#23
Gashberz Haunting Spirit Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: San Diego, U.S.A Posts: 57	-WillKill<BR> CHILL OUT! I think PJ did an excellent job..i mean cut him some slack he did the best he did and it was pretty damn good.<P>P.S. if you insult my mother I'd have to give you a mild bout of dwarvish ranting..... __________________ "We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man´s flesh to eat!" -Uglúk

01-23-2004, 11:56 PM	#24
Lyta_Underhill Haunted Halfling Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: an uncounted length of steps--floating between air molecules Posts: 844	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Arwen calling the River to destroy the Nazgul just got me mad, the river is under the command of Lord Elrond, and none other...<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>I recall Gandalf and Glorfindal having something to do with it, but Arwen was just a pandering to feminists and people who wanted more girl action, without having to wait until Return of the King. That, and I think Liv Tyler wanted some extra screen time.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I must also agree with the necessity of making Arwen an actual character, rather than a mere suggestion, with only two brief appearances in the story. I am OK with the replacement of Glorfindel in the Flight to the Ford. I am even coming to terms with Arwen carrying Frodo on Asfaloth (even though she took Glorfindel's horse!). The only problem I still have with this scene is that there is no inkling that Frodo knows what is going on. Even had he been secure in Arwen's grasp, he could have at least heard the call of the Ringwraiths ("to Mordor we will take you!") along with their derisive laughs and risen out of the deathly swoon to defy them with his last strength. Even in Arwen's arms he could have done this, although it would not have had as much power as his lone stand against the Nine at the Ford in the book. So, I think my main problem with Arwen in that scene is not really her fault at all. It is the fact that she is the symbol of a large change in Frodo's character that bothered me greatly. I am coming to believe, however, that perhaps her words as she is holding the stricken Frodo no the other side of the Bruinen "what grace is given me..let it pass to him" may be a nod to her gift to Frodo at the end of ROTK, although it would take some reading into the text to make this so...I suppose I still have the ROTK EE to wait for, but I don't think that she gives Frodo anything, since he doesn't have it at the end....too bad!<P>As for Arwen calling the Bruinen to flood, it seems more immediately logical and requires less exposition than explaining that this Elf-chick who is riding over the river has to wait for the command of two other guys (hey! how'd Gandalf get there?) to cross and then how'd these guys know when to call the river? It is much more direct. Of course, one could interpret it as Arwen simply saying the prescribed words to set off what Elrond and Gandalf have already set in place--an implied reliance on them without necessity of exposition at the time of crisis. <P><B>Knight</B>, your opinion of Liv-Arwen is legend here on the Downs, but I think <B>Saucepan Man</B>'s points about the necessity of a romantic story axis and the necessity also of the female part of this axis to be sufficiently fleshed out are valid ones. It is a pity that the character of Arwen is made the scapegoat, because she is obviously added in in many places where she was not chronologically or physically present in the books. Sure, people complain about Haldir and the Elves at Helm's Deep, but not nearly as much. <P>Personally, I find Elrond's words to his daughter about the inevitability of the outcome of her love for Aragorn, with the images of the fading Elf-realms and stone tomb of Aragorn in the future to be one of the most sublime sequences in the Two Towers movie. It captures an essence of fading, the quintessential nature of the Elves. <P>While we're on the Arwen theme, I must also address the idea of her 'sickness' in ROTK, as, for me, it merely showed her adjustment to an irrevocable choice. She chose to be mortal, and thus she is become tied to the present of the world and the outcome of the War of the Ring bears more closely on her. I can see why this would be distressing to Elrond, but the flaw I see here is the reduction of the obvious idea--(Arwen's fate is tied to the fate of the Ring because she is mortal. All mortals' fates are tied to the Ring...) to a motivation for Aragorn to take up the sword Anduril and finally take up his responsibility. I somehow think this was a way of making the responsibility a personal one and somewhat cheapening the motivation of Aragorn for doing his duty. I do think that it can be overlooked to an extent, though, as the motivation for taking the extreme path (Paths of the Dead) is well accounted for by making it obvious that the Rohirrim are not strong enough to take out the attacking forces of Sauron without help. But, as for the actual 'sickness,' I see that as something that distresses Elrond, for it is strange to the Elves, but familiar for him, as his brother also made that choice. (Wow! Wouldn't it be strange to be in Elrond's shoes? Aragorn is something like his great-great-great-etc. etc. descendant through his brother, who died countless years ago...it just struck me as a real out-of-reality moment!) <P>OK, getting off the track now...I think I'll stop here!<P>Cheers!<BR>Lyta __________________ “…she laid herself to rest upon Cerin Amroth; and there is her green grave, until the world is changed, and all the days of her life are utterly forgotten by men that come after, and elanor and niphredil bloom no more east of the Sea.”

01-24-2004, 12:28 AM	#25
The Saucepan Man Corpus Cacophonous Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: A green and pleasant land Posts: 8,468	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> While we're on the Arwen theme, I must also address the idea of her 'sickness' in ROTK, as, for me, it merely showed her adjustment to an irrevocable choice. She chose to be mortal, and thus she is become tied to the present of the world and the outcome of the War of the Ring bears more closely on her. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I see your point, Lyta, but it was not explained like this and was, in my view, confusing to book and non-book filmgoers alike.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I somehow think this was a way of making the responsibility a personal one and somewhat cheapening the motivation of Aragorn for doing his duty. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Then again, Aragorn had a personal motivation in the book, for Elrond would only let his daughter marry the reinstated King of Gondor. __________________ Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!

01-24-2004, 04:30 PM	#26
Knight of Gondor Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 744	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Knight, while I agree with much of what you have said, I must disagree with you here. Romance is a central element in most films, and one that most film-goers expect. And the romance of Aragorn and Arwen is the only one that spans all three films so, unless you want scenes of Rosie Cotton mooching around missing Sam, Arwen's role had to be expanded to bring this element out. She was not there to "pander" to "feminists" and "girl action" devotees. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am not, by any means, any sort of anti-woman kind of person at all. I just disagree with what I would still consider to be a treat for the woman who didn’t want to wait for RotK to see their gender get to open up a can of whiporc. I’m reasonably happy with the romance portrayal, and would have been upset if this was something that <I>wasn’t</I> portrayed in the story.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And the final decisions on Arwen's role would have been made by Jackson and the production team. Although, I recall seeing on one of the EE documentaries that Liv Tyler was instrumental in persuading them to remove Arwen's role at Helm's Deep, having read furious "anti-XenArwen" comments on LotR websites. Hardly the behaviour of someone desperate for more screen time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If that is true, then I commend her. And I take my “wanting more screen time” idea from an article I read, not from personal accusation. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Don't forget that these films are distributed outside America too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I understand, and please don’t be offended at that. I generally make sweeping generalizations of “the rest of America” without consideration for the other nations, but again, it doesn’t reflect any sort of bias. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And please leave the language moderation to the moderators.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I get offended by orc-talk, so I will express my wish not to see it, even with the good old stars blocking it.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Knight, your opinion of Liv-Arwen is legend here on the Downs, but I think Saucepan Man's points about the necessity of a romantic story axis and the necessity also of the female part of this axis to be sufficiently fleshed out are valid ones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Wow, I didn’t know it was legend. <P>I’m not like a huge “OH MY GOSH, THERE’S ARWEN AGAIN, NO, NO, NO” kind of person by any means. I’m just one of the crowd that didn’t like Arwen’s increased role. I entirely agree that the romance was necessary; I don’t object to that at all. __________________ Eagerly awaiting the REAL Return of the King - Jesus Christ! Revelation 19:11-16

01-24-2004, 07:16 PM	#27
Finwe Deathless Sun Join Date: May 2003 Location: The Royal Suite in the Halls of Mandos Posts: 2,609	Honestly, willkill, go get yourself a nice whiskey-and-soda. The movies were PJ's interpretation, and since they were an interpretation, they aren't going to be exactly like the Books. If you wanted to be regaled by a word-for-word account of the books, by all means, go to your nearest bookstore and buy the Trilogy on audio tapes. I think you'll enjoy that more.<P>As a Book-fan, I disagree with the changes made to characters such as Faramir, but as a person, I understand and appreciate them. In the Books, we were given ample opportunities to understand the conflict between him and Denethor, but in the movies, we weren't. Try reading any of the books within the space of 2.5 hours. It is difficult, very difficult. It's also difficult to absorb and remember every bit of information. Look at the movies with that perspective. Don't look at them as Tolkien fans or Book fans, look at them as <I>people</I>. __________________ But Melkor also was there, and he came to the house of Fëanor, and there he slew Finwë King of the Noldor before his doors, and spilled the first blood in the Blessed Realm; for Finwë alone had not fled from the horror of the Dark.

01-24-2004, 09:57 PM	#28
Knight of Gondor Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 744	We should all probably make it clear that we do NOT feel like we "will kill" Willkill because he doesn't agree with us. We just all happen really love the movies, and not find cause to objection so strongly about the differences. No hard feelings, Uruk Junior. __________________ Eagerly awaiting the REAL Return of the King - Jesus Christ! Revelation 19:11-16

01-25-2004, 04:21 PM	#29
Lalaith Blithe Spirit Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,876	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen was just a pandering to feminists and people who wanted more girl action <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>...but then XenArwen became SickArwen, thus pandering to anti-feminists ...so now everyone's happy? __________________ Out went the candle, and we were left darkling

01-25-2004, 05:21 PM	#30
dragoneyes Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Completely lost track, sorry! Posts: 743	Two things<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>the black riders look weak, stupid and scared<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I must disagree, my young cousin was banned from watching LotR because this scene gave him nightmares, granted he's five, but even he can tell if something is weak, stupid or scared.<P>And lastly, you keep saying how all these extra people such as Imrahil ans Erkenbrand would make the movie better, but when I first watched FotR before reading the books, Boromir made his first appearance and I actually said "Oh no, not another man!" (for some reason I could get to grips with four hobbits, but two men was beyond me) I did pick it up in the end, hence my being here, but these small roles do nothing for the non-book readers and some book readers have very possibly forgotten about these people. There are so many people with small parts, do you hear me complaining about Robin Smallburrows being cut from the film? No, I lived with it, he's not important to the story, I got over it.<P>Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of your points, quite a few actually, but you could have made them more interesting by finding some different way of saying 'that made me mad' (that's my creative writing side kicking in, feel free to ignore it). __________________ "We might succeed in roasting Pippin alive inside." - Frodo.

01-25-2004, 06:19 PM	#32
Lalaith Blithe Spirit Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,876	I agree with many of your points, willkill, but not all. (Our chief point of disagreement being the frightened villagers, women and children, which I found a good addition.)<BR>And while I too loved and enjoyed those films, I don't think they were by any means perfect and I am glad that all posts in the movie forum don't chime in an almighty hallelujah chorus of gratitude to PJ - it would make terribly dull reading, for one thing. Lists like willkill's get us all talking, don't they?<BR>And incidently, while willkill's language is certainly exhuberant and somewhat free, grammatically speaking, I think to term it offensive is being overly precious... __________________ Out went the candle, and we were left darkling

01-25-2004, 07:32 PM	#33
Armetiel Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 74	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> <BR>Armetiel - Now that I think about it, we do hear Haldir's name in FotR, but seeing him again in Helm's Deep doesnt add anything special, and yes, the viewer may recognize him from FotR, but it just erks me to think that Americans (and other audiences) need to be spoon fed their characters so they dont get confused...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm not American,(although I know you said other audiences too ) and even though I don't get mixed up having had read the book many times, the rest of my family and friends (other than my bro) hadn't read the book and they all said on numerous occassions that the only thing they didn't like about the movie was that there were too many different characters and names and they were getting confused...And they did recognize Haldir when they came,, if he had been someone that was completely new to them, they would have been even more confused...I heard often enough from them "Who's THIS guy?" about characteurs that are just being introduced and I'd have to say "wait and see, he wasn't in it yet." To which they'd reply. "O, not ANOTHER new dude" (or something along those lines)<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I alteady felt that the oppression and suffering was already well enough conveyed, but once again, I dont really think that PJ added these parts in just for the effect it conveys about war, I cant forget the families of the cats that PJ put into the movie...<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Families of CATS? willkill? I don't remember these... <BR>However, I'll assume you mean CAST, and with that thought, I'll comment...I personally think it's Awesome that he included the families of cast members in the movie...Especially his own kids...I mean as a father it shows he's spending more time with them in letting them come to his work, and also, perhaps they would like to be actors, this is certainly a great way to help them start their career. And the fact that he also let's the other cast members have their families in the movies as well shows to me how much he values family life, and knows that the family connection is an important one...<P>That said, I'm sure if it weren't family members in those shots, it would have been someone else. So why does it matter to us whether or not those ppl are related to the main cast or not. In fact probably some of the extra's were family members with each other too (but not family of the "big stars") Does it really matter? I mean I can see it mattering more if they did a terrible job at acting, but I can't say they did any worse than anyone else. <P>And although having the woman and kids may not have added anything other than "pity for them" to you...it added a lot to me, and many others...I'm sure PJ was thinking of the ppl who would like them in the movie (the majority) rather than the select few who wouldn't.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Once again, EE just doesnt float my boat, I would like to see the numbers of the number of tickets sold to see the theatrical editions in the theatre, and the number of DVDs the theatrical edition sold compared to the number of DVDs the EEs sold...I bet you like less than 5% of people that saw LoRT saw the EEs, and that is why I am basing my "beef" with PJ on the theatrical version...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I agree that barely anyone has seen these, but maybe you should consider basing your "beef" with those that made him cut the parts out, rather than PJ, who wanted them in.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Im referring to all of those poeple boarding the boat, but my question is, which one of them knows how to sail? (most likely Gandalf or maybe Galadrial, who sailed from Valinor in the first age)...but I was under the impression that the boats that the elves boarded were giant and fair, not a tiny littly fishing boat...and I also thought that a very large host of Elves set sail for the west at the end of the 3rd Age, not just one boat...I would of liked to see the one boat join a giant fleet of elven boats at the grey havens...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> My quess would be that Cirdan was sailing.\<p>[ 9:02 PM January 25, 2004: Message edited by: Armetiel ] __________________ "Love the Lord with all your heart, with all your strength, and with all your soul." Deuteronomy 6:5

01-26-2004, 03:49 PM	#34
ArathorofBarahir Wight Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Crickhallow Posts: 247	You want my opinion about our analysis of everything wrong with the movies? Well here it is: All I could come to was you just wanted to b*tch and moan. I mean if you are going to be that picky about it then why bother going to see it. Just be glad that it got made into live action movies. __________________ King of the Dead: The dead do not suffer the living to pass. Aragorn: You will suffer me.

01-28-2004, 07:01 PM	#35
willkill4food Animated Skeleton Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Salem, OR Posts: 44	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm not American,(although I know you said other audiences too ) and even though I don't get mixed up having had read the book many times, the rest of my family and friends (other than my bro) hadn't read the book and they all said on numerous occassions that the only thing they didn't like about the movie was that there were too many different characters and names and they were getting confused...And they did recognize Haldir when they came,, if he had been someone that was completely new to them, they would have been even more confused...I heard often enough from them "Who's THIS guy?" about characteurs that are just being introduced and I'd have to say "wait and see, he wasn't in it yet." To which they'd reply. "O, not ANOTHER new dude" (or something along those lines)<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yeah, sometimes I wish PJ had a slightly more inteligent audicence to appeal to so he didnt have to dumb down so many things...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And although having the woman and kids may not have added anything other than "pity for them" to you...it added a lot to me, and many others...I'm sure PJ was thinking of the ppl who would like them in the movie (the majority) rather than the select few who wouldn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I felt as though the theme of "the horrors of war and the loss of innocence" was already well enough developed without the extra shots of the helpless women and children, first through the 4 hobbits themsevles, through the shire (Including what Sam saw in the mirror of Galadriel), through Smeagol, and through many other characters, and I just felt that of all the parts that showed the horror of war, the parts of the children and women just was the worst, not to mention the longest and IMO, most unnecessary...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You want my opinion about our analysis of everything wrong with the movies? Well here it is: All I could come to was you just wanted to b*tch and moan. I mean if you are going to be that picky about it then why bother going to see it. Just be glad that it got made into live action movies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Thats nice, now go away...<P>-willkill __________________ Gil-galad was an Elven-king. Of him the harpers sadly sing...

01-28-2004, 07:15 PM	#36
Armetiel Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 74	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm not American,(although I know you said other audiences too ) and even though I don't get mixed up having had read the book many times, the rest of my family and friends (other than my bro) hadn't read the book and they all said on numerous occassions that the only thing they didn't like about the movie was that there were too many different characters and names and they were getting confused...And they did recognize Haldir when they came,, if he had been someone that was completely new to them, they would have been even more confused...I heard often enough from them "Who's THIS guy?" about characteurs that are just being introduced and I'd have to say "wait and see, he wasn't in it yet." To which they'd reply. "O, not ANOTHER new dude" (or something along those lines)<P>and<BR>_______________________________<P> Yeah, sometimes I wish PJ had a slightly more inteligent audicence to appeal to so he didnt have to dumb down so many things...<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>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.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I felt as though the theme of "the horrors of war and the loss of innocence" was already well enough developed without the extra shots of the helpless women and children, first through the 4 hobbits themsevles, through the shire (Including what Sam saw in the mirror of Galadriel), through Smeagol, and through many other characters, and I just felt that of all the parts that showed the horror of war, the parts of the children and women just was the worst, not to mention the longest and IMO, most unnecessary... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>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. __________________ "Love the Lord with all your heart, with all your strength, and with all your soul." Deuteronomy 6:5

01-28-2004, 09:09 PM	#37
Knight of Gondor Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 744	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Once again, I agree to some extent, it would be hard to convey that 17 years past, but also there is the fact that Gandalf wanted Frodo to leave the Shire, not altogether disappear, that and maybe some mention of Frodo's intention of moving to Buckland in order to hide his departure,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually, I recall that the transition from Minas Tirith to The Green Dragon implied a lot of time had passed. Especially since Frodo had to go digging for the envelope that contained the Ring.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In this case, I think you <I>over</I>estimate 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?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><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.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I just want to know if we had never seen, heard of, or knew the name of Bill the Pony, then why does PJ have them leave the pony behind at the gates of Moria...a waste or precious seonds...we could of seen the full end of Isildur but instead we are stuck with a Pony we have never heard of...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If PJ had left out Bill, then trust me, many more fans of Bill would be angered. Why would we want to see the “full end of Isildur”? What else would you want to see beyond what the EE showed us?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I alteady felt that the oppression and suffering was already well enough conveyed, but once again, I dont really think that PJ added these parts in just for the effect it conveys about war, I cant forget the families of the cats that PJ put into the movie... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Remember, these movies had to function for more than just avid book readers. This is why we saw the oppression stuff. That, and it’s just good cinema – I liked it. As for the cats....meow meow. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I felt that the books themselves depicted the qualities that you mentioned above, and I did not feel that the addtition of and people who have had their lives changed for ever due to the war adds anything in the way of the qualities above, it detracts IMHO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Again...I’d like to see the statistics on how many of the movie fans hadn’t read the books.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In the movies, you really dont feel any pity at all for Gollum,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I beg to differ. Actually, Knights don’t beg, so “I differ”. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I am a quiet large Denethor fan in the books, but I do cant stand Denethor in the movie, he is too crude, too mean, too arrogante, too crazy and just too plain ignorant for my tastes...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I didn’t particularly like the Flaming Plunge of Doom, nor the Staff Whack (is that in the video game, whack-a-Denethor?), nor even Shadowfax’s bout of boxing with the good Steward. (Although you must admit Denethor was already clearly in a suicidal frame of mind), but as for his crude, mean, and arrogant attitude . . . don’t know if you checked the books (I say that facetiously) but that’s pretty much who Denethor is. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I felt that Aduril was almost added in as a last minute thing, I mean, how did Elrond make it all the way to Rohan so fast? but most of all, why didnt it happen in FotR? There is no reason in my mind for PJ to wait and put it in in RotK...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Andúril was slated to be delivered to Aragorn at Helm’s Deep. We should be grateful every day that this didn’t happen. But there was a reason for having it in RotK, namely, to follow the story line that Aragorn was reluctant to take hold of his kingship. As for Elrond’s hasty ride...well, we never are told how long it takes to muster at Dunharrow, or how much time passes between the beacons of Gondor lighting, and the siege-laying.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Im referring to all of those poeple boarding the boat, but my question is, which one of them knows how to sail? (most likely Gandalf or maybe Galadrial, who sailed from Valinor in the first age)...but I was under the impression that the boats that the elves boarded were giant and fair, not a tiny littly fishing boat...and I also thought that a very large host of Elves set sail for the west at the end of the 3rd Age, not just one boat...I would of liked to see the one boat join a giant fleet of elven boats at the grey havens...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think you missed the point of what I said when I said there could be others out of sight. By that, I meant other Elves that had skill in sailing. I can just hear Galadriel now. “Ahoy, Gandalf! Raise the main sail!” “Aye aye, Elf-queen!” “Captain!” (shouts Elrond) “Put ‘er a tad to starboard!” <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Cant.....take.....so.....many.......big words......brain melting.....please...turn off.....thesaurus......just kidding =)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Nuts, he saw through my Thesaurus. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> PS, if you notice, I refrained from any "orc-talk" in this post...though I do think if you are going to be posting on the internet, one probably should have tougher skin, for not all forums are as clean and well modderated as BD...and I do respect the need for a clean and well moderated forum and I will keep my foul langauge in black speech and not english... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>We appreciates it, we does. And I realize there are dirtier forums out there. That’s why I choose to hang out <I>here</I>.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> You want my opinion about our analysis of everything wrong with the movies? Well here it is: All I could come to was you just wanted to b*tch and moan. I mean if you are going to be that picky about it then why bother going to see it. Just be glad that it got made into live action movies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Arathor, Armetiel, he’s got a right to voice his opinion, and offer up his differences for discussion. Perhaps you should take Arathor's own suggestion; if you don’t like what he’s saying, then why bother to read it? (I already voiced a somewhat controversial opinion on the language, so I think that still applies...) <P>(By the way, Arathor, I note that you are from Kentucky. Did you check out the post (I think it’s in N & N) called “lighting up”? It actually has to do with pipes and the Shire, and I make mention of Kentucky influencing Tolkien’s image of the Shire) __________________ Eagerly awaiting the REAL Return of the King - Jesus Christ! Revelation 19:11-16