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

[willkill4food]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> 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...<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<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?<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I didnt realize that Bill the Pony had such a loyal following, I just considered him a pony...*runs from Bill the Pony fanclub*....but still, we are talking about two different audicences, first you talk about not wanting to confuse or anger the general audience, and now you dont want to anger the loyal fans...you cant play both sides...either you add things to make the Tolkien fans happy, or you dumb it down for the general audience...so either Bill the Pony stays for the Tolkien fans and confuses the general audience, or he goes and people make posts online saying "Where is Bill?"...and about Isildur's "full" end, I just want what was in the EE to have made it into the Theatrical edition, as I think it adds some effect to how people see the Ring...<P>-willkill

[Armetiel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Lol, Good point, you are right here. So this must be the reason that my friends were so confused during FOTR but understood TTT and ROTK perfectly...<P>Oh, and as for you just not liking the woman and kids...I had kind of figured that out <BR>

[The Only Real Estel]

My list of defending <B>FOTR </B> <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>It only makes sense for them to have a baggage pony along. As to the significance of the pony, they didn't go into the whole purchase of him at Bree, etc., so taking Bill out of the movie would only have gained them a minute at max. Most of the scenes he's in were shot for the other characters, so to have him left out wouldn't have changed the time of those shots. The only real screen time Bill gets is the 30 second Bill/Sam/Aragorn scene outside of Moria.<P> <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><P>Uh, most people just forget about the dwarven & elven rings, & it worked fine that way. That's why I thought it was pointless to get that quick shot of Galadriel showing Frodo the Ring and saying, "This is Nenya, the Ring of Adament. And I am it's Keeper." Why show it? Especially if you're not going to expound on it any more than that .<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..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>True, but the directors didn't want us to see a 50 year-old rather large hobbit going on a long journey, he wanted someone younger & perhaps thinner than the typical hobbit. I don't know if you want to watch 3 movies of a 50 year-old rather large hobbit starring in them, but I'd rather not.<P> <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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>if Aragorn had the shards of Narsil at Weathertop in the movie, weathertop would not of been so horrible...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>lol, I'd say it was pretty obvious by the ringwraiths reaction to Strider's fire brands that they were afraid of fire! Also, how would Aragorn drawing a broken sword please anyone but the book reading audience?<P>[ 10:05 PM February 02, 2004: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]<p>[ 10:18 PM February 02, 2004: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

[The Only Real Estel]

My list of defending <B>TTT</B><P> <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><P>Although I would very much liked to have Eomer appear at Helm's Deep, I don't agree that he 'flew' from Rohan at all. Obviously he was forced out, & I don't blame him for gathering men & leaving. Besides, he was doing what we should have been doing under a coherant King, so no problem for me there.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>no mention of Erkenbrand, and no reason given why Theodred died...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> I just assumed that Theodred died because of a nasty head wound, which I naturally assumed that he got in war, not falling off the gate of Edoras or anything like that .<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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><P> But try looking at the women & children & the effect of war upon them threw their eyes...movies are always some much better if you put yourself in their place.<P> <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> <P>I agree with you in not liking Faramir, & although the EE made him seem better, it by no means totally redeemed his character (in my opinion). And yet, look at your own words '<B>I went to the theaters and paided 10 many times to watch the final version</B>'. If you went to the theaters & paided 10 (dollars, I assume) many times, than he must not have ruined the movies for you to badly !

[The Only Real Estel]

My list of defending <B>ROTK</B><P> <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><P> It's partially that the other people were to far away (in RotK, they had 3 days to come, in TTT they had less than half a day), but more the shortage of time. Why risk even 10-15 messangers when it's unlikely any men will come in time to help? You've just lost 10-15 men instantly right there...<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><P>It wasn't the actor, he played an excellent role, for the script he was given. It was the directors that over-played him a little bit, I wasn't to thrilled with his character on the whole (yes, I know I'm not defending anything here...unless you count me defending John Noble's acting )<P> <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><P> I'll agree that I thought the Arwen sideplot was darn close to a total waste of time in RotK, but you're over-exaggerating with the sword. Elrond rode to give Aragorn his sword because:<P>a. It signified that he was accepting his destiny & taking a major step forward to accepting the throne. -&-<BR>b. Perhaps Elrond knew that Aragorn would need the sword in order to command the Dead?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No Cirdan...now thats just mean, I wanted to see Cirdan...you dont see a bearded elf every day...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> It would've been cool to see him, but hey, if we're going to be talking confusing scenes, here's a prime example of one had it been in the movie (I've heard that people say Cirdan was there, but if so, I could swear he had no beard).<P> <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><P> Frodo pushing Gollum off? He didn't push him off, he was fighting madly to get the Ring back, & Gollum (& Frodo, really) fell off the edge in their battle, not because of a pre-meditated push. As to him just having got his finger bitten off...he was fighting to get 'his precious' back, considering how the thing had grown on him, it comes as no suprise to me that he fought as hard as he did. <BR> Hopefully I will not be in trouble with the ops for posting 3 times in a row, but I really didn't want to combine all the posts on the movies in to one endless post...I'll be lucky enough if anyone reads everthing as it is !

[Knight of Gondor]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You’re right, Armetiel, I think I read too much into your comment about being intelligent enough to spell the word. My statement was aimed mostly at Arathor.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 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...<BR>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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Not exactly. YOU know as well as I do that Elendil, Isildur, Gil-Galad, and Elrond were crucial members in the prologue. The audience looks and sees a bunch of people fighting. Gollum was probably not expected to surface again, but everyone saw him.<P>In Fellowship, there are loads of hobbits. We’re only concerned with and introduced to Frodo, Bilbo, Merry, Pippin (who most can’t tell apart) and Sam. Oh, and Rosie. Then Gandalf comes in. (Almost any Tolkien illiterate who saw the movie remembers him) Then Saruman. Then nine Nazgûl, Barliman Butterbur and Strider. Then Arwen. Then Elrond. Then we have this huge council where we see a BUNCH of faces. Are they all important? Some? Which ones? There’s Legolas (“the elf-guy with the long hair” is often the description for mind-numbed audience members), Gimli (“the dwarf guy&#8221 , Boromir (“the other guy with the sword, that got killed&#8221 , Gandalf, (“Gandalf&#8221 , Aragorn (“Strider”, or, “the guy with the sword” or, in my parents’ case, “the heir&#8221 , plus Frodo and Sam, plus two hobbits they can’t keep straight. Next load of characters are Haldir, Galadriel, and Celeborn. This among the bunch of elves, a crowd from which the audience had no idea whether a defined character might step forth from at any moment. And what IS Boromir talking about in Lothlórien with Aragorn anyway? (When he references Gondor, and the strength of men)<P>In The Two Towers, we had Frodo and Sam and Gollum, and they run into the Nazgûl (“I thought they were DEAD. These are those horse-rider guys?&#8221 , and then Faramir, with his Rangers. We see Anborn, Faramir’s man-at-arms so to speak. We focus on him a little. Is HE important? They don’t know! Meantime, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are chasing the two hobbits that we still can’t tell apart. Then, what’s this guy on a horse carrying another guy? And who is that stunningly gorgeous woman? Who’s the king? Why is he all old like that? Is this the city of men they were talking about? Eww, who’s that creepy guy? The guy with the helmet is being banished, huh? Who are these soldiers that rescue the two hobbits? They get picked up by a <I>TREE</I>?! Gandalf’s back? Cool. Is that soldier that takes the weapons at Rohan, who is he? There’s Gamling, and Hama. WE know their names, and their significance (or lack thereof) but the audience doesn’t. They get brain freeze just hearing them! And “Éowyn”? “Éomer”? (My parents said “Erin? Elmer?&#8221 Then we get a SECOND city of men introduced, with soldiers, and leaders, and stewards, what whatnot. AUGH! It’s all just too overwhelming! <P>See what I mean?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Probably right, but still, I would like atleast some explaination as to why Marry's sword ingures the witch king so badly,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Why shouldn’t it? (Speaking on defense of ignorant audiences everywhere) They have no clue why it <I>shouldn’t</I> hurt the Witchking. You could probably spin their heads with the tales that this guy actually fought against Arnor, which was actually a second kingdom like Gondor, which was divided into three realms as the result of a territorial and inheritance disputes, and subsequently destroyed. WE know that Amon Sul was a part of that, but all they see is a tower that’s kinda ruined. And if you told them that they were both descended from Númenor, which was seduced to destruction mostly by Sauron? <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Willkill, old boy, read the book. I just read that scene not long ago, and Aragorn (“the heir&#8221 drove them off with just two flaming brands.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> we are talking about two different audicences, first you talk about not wanting to confuse or anger the general audience, and now you dont want to anger the loyal fans...you cant play both sides...either you add things to make the Tolkien fans happy, or you dumb it down for the general audience<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And yet, this daunting task was presented to Peter Jackson. It was his responsibility to maintain the complicated and intricate plot aspects for the die-hard fans (and did a fair job of it) while still making it understandable enough for Tolkien illiterates. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> so either Bill the Pony stays for the Tolkien fans and confuses the general audience, or he goes and people make posts online saying "Where is Bill?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think, despite my accusations that the audiences aren’t too smart when it comes to the intricacies of Tolkien, they can still surmise that they got Bill in Bree. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> That's why I thought it was pointless to get that quick shot of Galadriel showing Frodo the Ring and saying, "This is Nenya, the Ring of Adament. And I am it's Keeper." Why show it? Especially if you're not going to expound on it any more than that<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There, see? Perfect example. While some would go “why put that in there at all? We don’t get it!”, some go “why put it in, unless you expound on it more?” and some would say (if it wasn’t put in), “why didn’t we see any more of the scene with Frodo and Nenya?” It’s a really tough call, when you’ve got three or four differing viewpoints on the subject. I’m not saying that everyone’s ideas about what should have happened are either right or wrong, or criticizing them for having those opinions. I’m saying, it had to go one way or the other. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> no mention of Erkenbrand, and no reason given why Theodred died...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I missed this being said the first time around, and only saw it when The Only Real Estel mentioned it. Theodred’s death was made clear. In the EE, he fell at the crossing of the river Isen. When brought back, Éowyn recoils a little when she moves aside the sheet covering Theodred’s lower stomach area, and you can just barely see a bit of a wound there. She tells the king that his son is badly wounded. Later, she informs him that he is dead. Again, we need to judge Peter Jackson (if at all, less harshly) based on the Extended Edition, which was what HE wanted to have.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Hopefully I will not be in trouble with the ops for posting 3 times in a row, but I really didn't want to combine all the posts on the movies in to one endless post...I'll be lucky enough if anyone reads everthing as it is<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Aw, take heart, <B>Estel</B>, I read it all! And you don’t see ME getting in trouble for posting huge posts like I do!<P>Willkill, maybe you should go watch all the DVD extras, and learn how much of a pain in the Bill this was for Peter Jackson to put together. He had to supervise all the shooting, after working on script, location-scouting, and cast-choosing. Supplementing and changing the script to conform to the book more, he also oversaw music, effects, editing...so many different levels on which this movie functions. I think PJ did an awesome (albeit not perfect) job on the movies. Poor guy only got a few hours of sleep each night for a couple of years. Though I agree he must be somewhat mental, wearing shorts like he does!!

[Armetiel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You’re right, Armetiel, I think I read too much into your comment about being intelligent enough to spell the word. My statement was aimed mostly at Arathor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>lol, so that's where you got it from...that was meant to be a joke, but perhaps it didn't come across as one over the computer where you can't type in a certain "tone"..willkill, if you thought the same as knight of gondor, then I apologize for them comment

[Finwe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Willkill, maybe you should go watch all the DVD extras, and learn how much of a pain in the Bill this was for Peter Jackson to put together. He had to supervise all the shooting, after working on script, location-scouting, and cast-choosing. Supplementing and changing the script to conform to the book more, he also oversaw music, effects, editing...so many different levels on which this movie functions. I think PJ did an awesome (albeit not perfect) job on the movies. Poor guy only got a few hours of sleep each night for a couple of years. Though I agree he must be somewhat mental, wearing shorts like he does!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Hear, hear!

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> but perhaps it didn't come across as one over the computer where you can't type in a certain "tone"..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>that's why I usually end up overusing smileys so badly, that's the only tone you can really put into posts .<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I read it all!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> Wow !<p>[ 4:00 PM February 04, 2004: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You know, they really didn't go into that in the book, either. You have to delve pretty deep into the appendices for that. Did it really irk you that much?

Oh, yeah, I had to add how disingenuous it is to complain that stuff was left out or streamlined (not the same as dumbed down) for a three hour film and then refuse to acknowledge the EE versions. The theatrical versions were made with compromises necessary to bring it in at 3 hours and have it make sense for a general audience. The EE are not "definitive" versions or director's cuts. They were made specifically for the fans to address many of the problems you listed (other than the parts of the list that just repeat what the changes are. We <I>know</I> what the changes are. Why didn't you just say, "I didn't like that there were changes, period."?). If you refuse to count the EE versions, then you lose your right to complain. The TE that you paid admission for wasn't really made for you. It was made for a general audience. The EE <I>was</I> made for you, because you care about all the stuff that was left out. Can it address everything? No, of course not. The books take 55 hours to listen to unabridged on tape. Nor would you really want a word for word version. Go see "Gospel of John" for proof of that.<p>[ 10:28 AM February 05, 2004: Message edited by: caligulathegod ]

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you refuse to count the EE versions, then you lose your right to complain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>'Fraid not. The Theatrical version is the one that will be seen by most people, so it should not have things left out with the 'o, I'll get to those in the EE' idea. Besides, if the EE is the final version to us, what's the Theatrical release? A 3 & a half hour trailer (as I've put it many times)? Everyone has 'a right' to complain about both versions, but to say that we can't complain about the Original Version because the EE is the one we should go by is just plain nutty. No offense to you...

[willkill4food]

wow....I am just plain POed right now.......wow...I just wrote a very very long reply to every post on here since my last reply...and then I click to add it...and the page doesnt load..so now I just lost like an hour of writting...ill come back in a few days when I am not tiring of writing and try again...wow...im mad...<P>PS it took a lot of tries to write that without any "orc-talk"..<P>-willkill

[Knight of Gondor]

Willkill -<P>I know how frustrating that can be, trust me! And sincere thanks for keeping it clean. Now I won't have to whack you.

[Armetiel]

Sorry to hear about that...but since knight of gonder brought up the point of *whacking* I just thought I'd bring up now...I'm the administrator of "The official Pillow fight message board" meaning, i tend to *whack* *thwack* *kabam* ppl out of habit, so if anyone sees me doing this, it is NOT an insult, just a warning...it's actually more of a compliment than anything lol

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 'Fraid not. The Theatrical version is the one that will be seen by most people, so it should not have things left out with the 'o, I'll get to those in the EE' idea. Besides, if the EE is the final version to us, what's the Theatrical release? A 3 & a half hour trailer (as I've put it many times)? Everyone has 'a right' to complain about both versions, but to say that we can't complain about the Original Version because the EE is the one we should go by is just plain nutty. No offense to you... <P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The films make sense s they are to people who have not read the books. If you are someone who cares about the stuff that was left out then the EE was made specifically for you. Joe Admission has the theatrical cut and Joe Tolkienfan has the EE. The EEs don't have the time limitation that the theatrical versions do. They can get more into character and add more deleted scenes. Be happy that they made these versions especially for you to address most of these issues.

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Be happy that they made these versions especially for you to address most of these issues. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm happy that they did trot out the EE's, but the Theatrical release was not (or should not have been) made for 'Joe Admission' only, but for both types of Joes, which is why I comment on both releases.

Not everyone loves every aspect of the films. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. You do understand though that they had restrictions on what they could do? They were required to have a film about 3 hours and one that made sense to the average theatergoer. Actually, it was supposed to be in the 2 hour range but PJ managed to talk them into 3 hours. Any longer than 3 hours sitting in a theater you get diminishing returns. People's butts start to hurt. Also, it reduces severely the amount of showing a film can have. As much as we hate to admit it, this is a business. When a company invests US$300M plus for a film, they expect to be able to make a return on that investment. They took a huge gamble making all three at once and it paid off bigtime.<P>The theatrical cuts were made for a general audience. Everyone, including Tolkien fans, can enjoy them. The thing about Tolkien was that his work has so much depth that a single 3 hour film can only scratch the surface. So, for the first time in history, an extended cut was made not for exploiting an existing but played out property, but to add in more depth for the fans of the original work. The theatrical cuts are the definitive editions and the EE are made especially for the fans. While there are many scenes that some folks might miss in even both versions, it is wrong to complain about scenes missing in the theatrical cut that have been restored for the fans' EE by saying that the EE should be ignored. At three hours, I felt that the TE seemed rushed. It would have even been worse had they tried to shoehorn everything into that three hours. Better to make the best film they could then fit more things and pace better in a version not hampered by show length. For home-viewing, such things as running time are not as critical. You can stop at any point or watch over a period of days, if one desired. <P>So, in conclusion, if you are unhappy about alterations to adapt the book into film then welcome to the club. Even real life events get altered when translated into film. No book has ever made it into film without some compromises in adaptation (with a few arguably unwatchable exceptions-See Gospel of John where they filmed the book from the Bible word for word) However, it is disingenous to dismiss the EE entirely. If you are a person that cares about seeing the gift-giving scene that adds nothing to the plot but is a nice little scene that adds some richness to the story, then the EE was made SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU. Rejoice that someone thought enough of you to do that. Unlike, say, Apocolypse Now Redux which was made solely to wring a few more bucks out of a property that was pretty much played out.<p>[ 9:29 AM February 07, 2004: Message edited by: caligulathegod ]

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Hiya guys(& gals) I just discovered this cool forum in this dark dank hole where people air their opinions on everything in LOTR. Well, here's my two cents on the movies:<P>FoTR:<BR>As a Tolkien enthusiast(Who isn't?), I am generally content with the changes...except for some unremovable ulcers. The Arwen-Aragorn cutscenes bored me, but I guess they are necessary. Somehow, Gimli HAD to Hack the ring with that axe of his... Bothersome. What REALY disappoints me, however, is not Arwen, or the overkilling Legolas, nor even the jokers Merry and Pippin. It is the Nazgul... Every time I picked up and read the LOTR, I would get goosebumps on the back of my neck when I read about the Nazgul. Prof T knew that the Nazgul are the embodiment of Sauron himself, practically his nine fingers. They were indestructible, and who don't love villains that are invincible? The movie showed them to be nancy cultist boys who scream for mama the moment they see a bit of fire or sword. I mean c'mon! You won't know the power of Sauron unless you see what his servants can do to you. Having Arwen/Aragorn fighting them is still alright with me... just don't make them into wusses! The Balrog is very cool, but not cool enough to quell my annoyance with those rag dolls they called Nazgul. One of the scenes I really missed was Frodo escaping from Boromir. Much as I like how Boromir was portrayed, I am very disappointed that Frodo did not sit on the High Seat and surveyed the entire world... I mean, Prof T created that scene really exceptionally and it described the situation really well. But I guess they can't show that in the movies because Aragorn needs to make out with his lover.<P>TTT<BR>This, in my opinion, is really the best of the series, even though there seem to be major loopholes to be taken care of. The battle at Helms Deep is great. They kept the battle in the Dark Night, and the atmosphere was Excellent. One thing that interests me is that with the dark night, it doesn't really prove that Urak-hai are super orcs. Now, I feel that Theoden should not be possessed; since that would mean that Saruman could have all of Rohan in his grasp even without waging war. I am somewhat disappointed that Eomer is given so little a role... Banished, and then suddenly popping up with Gandalf in the lead. On the other hand, those reinforcements led by Gandalf do seem a bit too many... I mean, first throw 300 against 10000, and then all of a sudden 6000 appear to save the situation?!? By the way, I don't think I like to see those elves coming down at Helm's Deep. I would indeed have prefered seeing the dwarves and the elves fighting and defending their own cities. The Ents were really quite excellent in the siege of Isengard, but Pippin and Merry never grew any taller. Now we come to what everyone hates: Faramir. I don't think I want to repeat what everyone had to say. The thing that disturbed me however, is the scene where Frodo tried to offer the ring to the Nazgul of winged beast. Let me assure everyone that after the incident of Weathertop and the river, the Nazgul NEVER came into close contact with the ring for once. If I am that Nazgul on the dragon, I would not have waited so long for Frodo to show me the ring. I would have grapped him at once and left. There are NINE Nazgul, and they were SO close to the ring... And they bailed out because of a few arrows?!? I am so utterly disappointed with this scene that I left for the restroom to recover from my shock. <P>RoTK:<BR>By now I knew what to expect from our esteemed director when it comes to the Nazguls. The third movie, I guess, couldn't be worse. I was not disappointed by the Nazgul this time (though they are still wusses). Saruman! Just where did Saruman disappeared to?!? Treebeard did not say he is dead, Gandalf just said that he had no power. But WHERE is Evil Wizard that every one loves? Those of us who read the book knew that Saruman was killed by Wormtongue in the Shire, but the rest of the audience are going to think that there would be a sequel to this book just because they did not see Saruman die. Now, if I remember correctly, the director said that the action is going to be even more full then the TTT. I do not think so, unless you considered the closeups of rocks slung by trebuchets to be exciting. The Oliphaunts were good, but the Riders of Rohan are definitely stupid. I had no problem with the undead or even Elrond riding and giving Anduril to Aragorn. I was however, extremely disappointed to not see the parley scene between Gandalf and the Witchking. (Yet another slap on the face for the Nazgul) In actual fact, I am very much shocked to see that Gondor is so unprepared for invasion in the very first. Why would Boromir go down to Rivendell if not to seek allies in war? Why would his brother be ambushing Oliphaunts if Gondor is not prepared for war already? It may have been just me, but I really feel that there was something fundamentally fake about the whole war... Denethor refusing to light the war beacons, the way he send Faramir off, and Faramir just charging back to battle with twenty(?) horsemen?!? That would probably do wonders with the audience if you are targeting uninformed junkies, but even the atmosphere is wrong... I remembered that a cock called after the Witchking broke the gate down... which showed that it saw light amidst the darkness. Why do they managed to portray the darkness in Helm's Deep but want light for the Pelenor fields? Now, interestingly, the duel between the Witchking and Eowyn with Merry is excellent, and in my opinion the best scene in the entire show. Aragorn's invincible ghost army simply didn't cut any ice with me, I'm afraid. If they must portray the undead Nazgul as sissies, I don't see why the ghosts can be so powerful. I feel that Shelob is the second best scene in the film but Gollum should appear more in the scene to show his involvement. The history of Gollum, by the way, is another most memorable scene. Now after all is said and done, we had the grand finale... in which Frodo claimed the ring and stuff. They just couldn't let evil disolve itself: Frodo HAD to be a hero and shove Gollum down the volcano. I guess Hollywood hate to see bad guys die by their own hand... After this last insult, I am pretty much bored with all the dallyings and dillies. The Shire is intact; not surprising. Saruman just vanished into thin air. But nobody explained why Frodo could go across the sea with Bilbo and the Elves. By that time, though, nobody cared...<P>I guess I am a little too harsh on the film-makers. I am not really in control: this input is made at 4.30am... I have not slept yet. So, if I had offended any with my opinion, I beg you all a thousand apologies! Me a newbie after all!

[ArathorofBarahir]

Aaa, Knight of Gondor when I posted the following: "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." I was actually directing it towards willkill4food, not Armetiel, but the same goes for all, respect people's opinions to a certain extent. I have nothing against Armetiel's opinions, but willkill4food went to far all he did was complain, and I hate it when people b*itch and moan, if you want to b*tch and moan go somewhere else please. However willkill4food most of the points you made were good, but after reading the ones for FoTR, the rest just seemed like you just wanted to, wait what's the word oh yead, B*TCH! One more thing willkill4food please respect opinions, I respect yours and everyone else's. It's just your rant and raving got on my nerves a little to much, and I am only human so I apologize.<P>[ 3:47 PM February 07, 2004: Message edited by: ArathorofBarahir ]<p>[ 3:58 PM February 07, 2004: Message edited by: ArathorofBarahir ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> TTT<BR>This, in my opinion, is really the best of the series, even though there seem to be major loopholes to be taken care of. <BR> By the way, I don't think I like to see those elves coming down at Helm's Deep. I would indeed have preferred seeing the dwarves and the elves fighting and defending their own cities. The Ents were really quite excellent in the siege of Isengard, but Pippin and Merry never grew any taller. Now we come to what everyone hates: Faramir. I don't think I want to repeat what everyone had to say. The thing that disturbed me however, is the scene where Frodo tried to offer the ring to the Nazgul of winged beast. Let me assure everyone that after the incident of Weathertop and the river, the Nazgul NEVER came into close contact with the ring for once. If I am that Nazgul on the dragon, I would not have waited so long for Frodo to show me the ring. I would have grapped him at once and left. There are NINE Nazgul, and they were SO close to the ring... And they bailed out because of a few arrows?!? I am so utterly disappointed with this scene that I left for the restroom to recover from my shock. <P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Everyone seems to hate the Elves at Helm's Deep departure. I've really thought about it a lot and I don't mind it. Firstly, they really aren't going to have scenes depicting the Elves and Dwarves defending their own cities nor even the Elves battle at Dol Guldor. They just don't fit into the narrative. Why cut to battles that don't involve any of our characters? Even Tolkien didn't do that. He saved that for the appendices. Fans sometimes forget that a lot of the stuff we take for granted is actually in the ancillary material. Stuff like the Elves attack on Dol Goldur and the Elves and Dwarves defending their own cities, Sam joining Frodo in the West, and Gimli joining Legolas going into the West. None of that stuff is even <I>in</I> the books. We can't fault the filmmakers for not including stuff that even Tolkien put only in the Appendices (Tolkien's own EE, as it were). Also, when you think about it, who are the most important creatures in Tolkien's entire legendarium? Hobbits? Nope. Elves. The books have a great unspoken presence of Elves because they are mentioned a lot, but they really don't appear in The Two Towers at all. We know from the Appendix that they were indeed active during the period, so why not take a bit of dramatic license and involve them in the story? Also, we are supposed to be so sad because the Elves are leaving but other than a 2 minute segment at the beginning of the first film, we never really get to see what makes them so great. So, here, we get to bring in a bit of the appendix into the main story and also give the film an Elvish presence that would otherwise be missing. I think it was inspired to bring in the Elves. <P>Merry and Pippin do indeed get taller. It's in the EE of the Two Towers. That adds nothing to the plot but it's a nice scene, so it's in the EE. Faramir. Again, see the EE. They really make the character much more interesting than he is in the books. They give him a more dynamic arc and he never really does anything the book Faramir wouldn't do. They just made him more conflicted on how he arrives at the decision. I love the bit how he's just trying to please his father but then he realizes that there is more at stake than his own situation. Again, quite inspired. Also, the Fell Beasts that Faramir shot with the arrows are not magical. They are living animals. Why wouldn't they be affected by an arrow in the throat? All it took was one well placed arrow to kill Smaug in The Hobbit.<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> RoTK:<BR>By now I knew what to expect from our esteemed director when it comes to the Nazguls. The third movie, I guess, couldn't be worse. I was not disappointed by the Nazgul this time (though they are still wusses). Saruman! Just where did Saruman disappeared to?!? Treebeard did not say he is dead, Gandalf just said that he had no power. But WHERE is Evil Wizard that every one loves? Those of us who read the book knew that Saruman was killed by Wormtongue in the Shire, but the rest of the audience are going to think that there would be a sequel to this book just because they did not see Saruman die. Now, if I remember correctly, the director said that the action is going to be even more full then the TTT. I do not think so, unless you considered the closeups of rocks slung by trebuchets to be exciting. The Oliphaunts were good, but the Riders of Rohan are definitely stupid. I had no problem with the undead or even Elrond riding and giving Anduril to Aragorn. I was however, extremely disappointed to not see the parley scene between Gandalf and the Witchking. (Yet another slap on the face for the Nazgul) In actual fact, I am very much shocked to see that Gondor is so unprepared for invasion in the very first. Why would Boromir go down to Rivendell if not to seek allies in war? Why would his brother be ambushing Oliphaunts if Gondor is not prepared for war already? It may have been just me, but I really feel that there was something fundamentally fake about the whole war... Denethor refusing to light the war beacons, the way he send Faramir off, and Faramir just charging back to battle with twenty(?) horsemen?!? That would probably do wonders with the audience if you are targeting uninformed junkies, but even the atmosphere is wrong... I remembered that a cock called after the Witchking broke the gate down... which showed that it saw light amidst the darkness. Why do they managed to portray the darkness in Helm's Deep but want light for the Pelenor fields? Now, interestingly, the duel between the Witchking and Eowyn with Merry is excellent, and in my opinion the best scene in the entire show. Aragorn's invincible ghost army simply didn't cut any ice with me, I'm afraid. If they must portray the undead Nazgul as sissies, I don't see why the ghosts can be so powerful. I feel that Shelob is the second best scene in the film but Gollum should appear more in the scene to show his involvement. The history of Gollum, by the way, is another most memorable scene. Now after all is said and done, we had the grand finale... in which Frodo claimed the ring and stuff. They just couldn't let evil disolve itself: Frodo HAD to be a hero and shove Gollum down the volcano. I guess Hollywood hate to see bad guys die by their own hand... After this last insult, I am pretty much bored with all the dallyings and dillies. The Shire is intact; not surprising. Saruman just vanished into thin air. But nobody explained why Frodo could go across the sea with Bilbo and the Elves. By that time, though, nobody cared...<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, most of your disappointments will be dealt with in the EE coming in November. If you didn't know about most of those scenes, you wouldn't have missed them. So since you do care about them, you will be catered to with a version that is not required to stay within a certain running time. <P>I really don't understand your reaction to the Nazgul. Even in the books they aren't very proactive. Their main weapon is supposed to be to inspire fear. PJ actually made them more imposing than in the book. In the book they have conversations with Shire hobbits that don't seem much threatened by them. They just think that they are "Funny customers". They think it's odd that they wear all black but aren't particularly frightened of them. I think you might have just built them up a bit too much in your imagination.<P>Saruman's story was over. Since they didn't include the Scouring of the Shire, then his denouement would be irrelevant. We'll get to see what happened to him in the EE. In the Theatrical version it doesn't matter. He's no longer a threat in the story. I agree that it's regrettable that we missed the scene, but I understand why it's gone. It really would have been anticlimactic after the high note that The Two Towers ended on and he's irrelevant to the proceedings in The Return of the King. <P>Darkness at Pellenor fields is problematic. Yeah, it would have been cool and true to the book. However, as a practical matter, it would be a nightmare to light a set like that. Even in the dark, you must have lighting to see the action. The set/location was just too big to do it effectively. They had to compromise so that the scene would read on film.<P>Was Gollum even that much of a presence in that scene of Shelob? Seems like I remember him pretty much disappearing in that section of the book only to come back as a surprise. Also, Frodo did not shove Gollum in the Crack of Doom. He was fighting to get the Ring. It was just them ramping up the emotion in a scene. It was indeed the grand climax of the saga and they felt it needed a bit more emotion than just a guy dancing and slipping. Like that or not it's your decision and you have your right to your opinion but you shouldn't mischaracterize what actually happened. <P>Yeah, the Shire was intact. They made a decision to not include the Scouring of the Shire. How many complaints have you heard about the protracted ending? Imagine if they had gone onto another 20 plus minutes of the hobbits going back to fight the Shire foes? The film's primary story was the destruction of the Ring. Other subplots and sub-themes unfortunately have to be sacrificed. There's no way they could possibly include the entire book experience in a three hour film. They had to decide what was the most important story and themes to include and that, unfortunately was one of the ones that didn't make it. <P>As to Frodo going to the West. Well, maybe that could have been explained better, and perhaps it will in the EE. But considering that it happens after the climax, they are just trying to get out of the story as quickly as possible. People resent the scene anyway. I'm just happy that PJ stuck to his guns and included as much as he did, Tolkien bereft audiences be damned. How could you really explain it satisfactorily, anyway? Go into an explanation on why the Elves are going into the West and why Men aren't allowed to go? You have to bring in the Silmarillion to really get into that. Tolkien gets enough superficial criticism for supposed racism. Imagine if they had gone into less than thorough explanation of why Elves get to sit in the front of the bus and get to go to cool places like the West while men are segregated. There's just so much backstory that there's just no way to include it all in a three hour film. You, as a book reader understand why, so why do you need the film to tell you? All the non bookreading public need to know is that he is going to paradise with Bilbo and the Elves. They really don't need long explanations on why it is so unique that Frodo is allowed to go.<P><BR>Please don't think I am attacking you specifically. Most of what you are saying has been said before and I'm just addressing these quite common opinions from the book fans. I love the books as much as anybody, but I understand why they did the things that they did and it grieves me every time I read some book fan being so disappointed because the films did not match their imagination. There's no way it ever could. What they did come up with is so magical in its own way that it is such a joy to watch. It's just such a shame that people can not get over such minor deviations from the Scripture and enjoy the films for what they are. No film has ever made it to the cinema as intact as some people seem to believe that these should have. The films could have been soooooo much worse. If you had seen them before reading the books, then you would love them and then upon reading the books, your experience would be enriched. Don't think of the films so much as compromised versions of the book. Look upon the books as just deeper and more rewarding experiences of their own. The glass is half full.<p>[ 11:06 PM February 07, 2004: Message edited by: caligulathegod ]

[The Only Real Estel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's just your rant and raving<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Not to knock on you, either, but I would rather read a post of nitpicks than a post with at least 5 mentions of 'b*itching & moaning' in it...but maybe that's just me.

[Knight of Gondor]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> What REALY disappoints me, however, is not Arwen, or the overkilling Legolas, nor even the jokers Merry and Pippin. It is the Nazgul... Every time I picked up and read the LOTR, I would get goosebumps on the back of my neck when I read about the Nazgul.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I rarely have such reactions to books, even ones as awesome as Tolkien’s. But in the movie, the spine-tingling screams issuing from the emissaries of Sauron are quite scary...especially when they hit that certain pitch that rings in your ears a few seconds after the actual sound waves cease to be projected from all six theater channels. But I especially find the soundtrack to enhance the Nazgûl spookiness. When first introduced on the misty night near Hobbiton, and on track 5 of The Fellowship of the Ring soundtrack, it is like the musty, dark, long-dormant yet newly-awakened evil that are the Ringwraiths. The rapid, scale-climbing violin is the perfect tune for the shivers that run up the backs of those that see or hear the Ringwraiths. While PJ couldn’t sit there and describe to you the Ringwraith fear, I think he did an admirable job in the trilogy. And besides...who says the fear is the same on the big screen as it is in person?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> They were indestructible, and who don't love villains that are invincible? The movie showed them to be nancy cultist boys who scream for mama the moment they see a bit of fire or sword. I mean c'mon! You won't know the power of Sauron unless you see what his servants can do to you. Having Arwen/Aragorn fighting them is still alright with me... just don't make them into wusses!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The Nazgûl were not indestructible...check near the end of the book Return of the King. They did not scream for Mama when they saw fire or sword...but they fled from fire, both in the movies, and in the book on Amon Sul. Arwen didn’t fight them, she fled them. Aragorn fighting them is taken verbatim from the book, except that he wielded a real sword, not two torches. I have already discussed the idea of Aragorn’s *other* sword than Narsil. Take a look at the actions and reactions of the Nazgûl early on in the books. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Much as I like how Boromir was portrayed, I am very disappointed that Frodo did not sit on the High Seat and surveyed the entire world... I mean, Prof T created that scene really exceptionally and it described the situation really well. But I guess they can't show that in the movies because Aragorn needs to make out with his lover.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>He did escape Boromir. He did climb to the top of the seat, and while it didn’t show the whole world (how on earth was PJ supposed to portray THAT on the screen?)<P>I’ll make this comment again; you were upset about some missing things, but if some of the love scenes between Aragorn and Arwen (and you’d lose a sizable hunk of the female viewing audience not to have at least one kiss, or a love story — not to mention the charge that LotR is a “guy movie” would run rampant) were removed, then others would complain. It’s a catch-22, and PJ was stuck calculating which of the majority would prefer what.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> On the other hand, those reinforcements led by Gandalf do seem a bit too many... I mean, first throw 300 against 10000, and then all of a sudden 6000 appear to save the situation?!?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Boromir and Gandalf most likely rallied more soldiers from the outlying lands. As I recall, Aragorn told Théoden in Meduseld that Éomer was riding with three thousand. Perhaps I recall wrongly, but that’s how I remember it.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Ents were really quite excellent in the siege of Isengard, but Pippin and Merry never grew any taller.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Somehow I have a feeling I’ll utter these two words again before this discussion is resolved: Extended Edition.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Now we come to what everyone hates: Faramir.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well! <I>I</I> like him! <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The third movie, I guess, couldn't be worse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>:-0<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But WHERE is Evil Wizard that every one loves? Those of us who read the book knew that Saruman was killed by Wormtongue in the Shire, but the rest of the audience are going to think that there would be a sequel to this book just because they did not see Saruman die.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Shame that PJ left him out of TTT:EE (he explained that decision in the behind-the-scenes stuff), but not everyone loves the dude. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> but the Riders of Rohan are definitely stupid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Beg yer pardon?!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In actual fact, I am very much shocked to see that Gondor is so unprepared for invasion in the very first. Why would Boromir go down to Rivendell if not to seek allies in war? Why would his brother be ambushing Oliphaunts if Gondor is not prepared for war already?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I dispute the claim that we here in Gondor were not ready. Yet at the bidding of our proud and despairing Steward, we were not as ready as we should have been. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Frodo HAD to be a hero and shove Gollum down the volcano. I guess Hollywood hate to see bad guys die by their own hand...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>A slight departure from the book, but Frodo was NOT shoving — he was trying to get his Precious back.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But nobody explained why Frodo could go across the sea with Bilbo and the Elves. By that time, though, nobody cared...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Perhaps not the full reason (that he’d borne such a heavy burden) but if you’d listened, someone said something like “the Elves have granted Frodo a great gift; a place on one of the ships.”<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I guess I am a little too harsh on the film-makers. I am not really in control: this input is made at 4.30am... I have not slept yet. So, if I had offended any with my opinion, I beg you all a thousand apologies! Me a newbie after all!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Beware, for few sensible utterances can be made at 4:30 AM. None of your post, of course, is taken personally, and I hope none of mine is. I’m just tackling the issues that you raise. If you would, I know my posts are long, but I deal with a great many of the objections Willkill raised, if you would be obliged to read them.<P>Also, welcome to both you and caligulathegod, who I seem to echo a little, but that’s okay.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I was actually directing it towards willkill4food, not Armetiel, but the same goes for all, respect people's opinions to a certain extent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I understood that when I read it, Arathor.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I have nothing against Armetiel's opinions, but willkill4food went to far all he did was complain, and I hate it when people b*itch and moan, if you want to b*tch and moan go somewhere else please. However willkill4food most of the points you made were good, but after reading the ones for FoTR, the rest just seemed like you just wanted to, wait what's the word oh yead, B*TCH!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You respect Willkill’s right to his opinion...please respect his right to opine on the subjects. I’ll say this again. If you don’t like what he wrote...why cuss him out about it? Just leave it alone. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I respect yours and everyone else's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Then please respect my opinion as well...because my objections to orc-talk have not changed. (Willkill seems to respect them, even at the height of frustration)<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Not to knock on you, either, but I would rather read a post of nitpicks than a post with at least 5 mentions of 'b*itching & moaning' in it...but maybe that's just me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Gandalf: "The Only Real Estel stands alone."<P>Knight of Gondor, riding up on horse: "Not alone." *Draws reproduction of Narsil*

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Gee, I am back for more in the morning I know that I am a Nazgul raver last night; I still am, but I think I mean what I said when I said that the Nazgul are indestructible, though I should have added "except by prophesy, destruction of the ring and prolonged exposure to songs about Elbereth". <P>Sure, they fled from Aragorn who was wielding a couple of firebrands, but they fled unscathed, except for the Witchking who got hurt by Frodo's utterance In the film, the one of the Nazgul remained behind for some reason, and got set on fire! Now, in the book we are told that the nine Nazgul attacked Gandalf at night, and there were a great fire show on Weathertop just before Frodo & co. arrived. Yet, Gandalf could not withstand against all the nine, and was chased after by just four! Do I see some imbalance of physical and magical power down here?<P>Oh, that scene where the Frodo OFFERED the ring to the Nazgul: I am not talking about the winged beasts. Nazgul cannot be hurt by normal weapons except when induced by prophesy (not that we are told that in the film) One thing I am certain of is that the Nazgul really did not see the ring any more after Weathertop, and I am completely smashed by that scene alone. Here we have the Ringbearer practically giving the ring to the Nazgul and that Nazgul just sit there waiting for an arrow to pierce his mount so that he can fly off?!? It just plainly does not make any sense!<P>By the way, the Nazgul did not just use fear as a weapon, though it worked best most of the time. The Witchking used his sorcery to break Frodo's sword and make him dumb and Black Breath is even more horrible. But obviously, with everyone so interested instead on the Aragorn's ghost army, no one would be bothered about these minor tidbits.<P>Urm, I guess I really need to tone down my voice on this... it is not very nice to whine about the films even when if I like the book. I guess I am the only one about who like to whine on the Nazgul though <BR>

[Lyta_Underhill]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Go into an explanation on why the Elves are going into the West and why Men aren't allowed to go? You have to bring in the Silmarillion to really get into that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A good point, <B>caligulathegod</B> (great name, by the way, and also welcome!). I think that the problem I had with the Grey Havens was not who gets to go and who doesn't per se, but the fact that Frodo is not singled out in the hobbits' return to the Shire. All four hobbits are shown as somewhat alienated and Sam appears to be the only one who jumps right back into Shire life. It does not show the difference in the interface with the "average Shire hobbit" between Frodo and the other three hobbits. To me, it is not made clear that Frodo's life in the Shire AFTER the War of the Ring is absolutely untenable. It doesn't address the great <I>need</I> of Frodo to find healing that life in the Shire cannot provide. He just seems to up and leave one day. I can't help but hold out hope that there will be one extra scene that will differentiate Frodo from his friends and show how rarified he has become, illustrating his need to pass West with the Elves. <P>Cheers!<BR>Lyta

Hi. Thanks. (for the record, I get the name more from Robert Graves "I,Claudius" & "Claudius the God" and Suetonius' "The Twelve Caesars" rather than the porn film.)Yeah, I hope that the EE can maybe go a bit more into it. I'm surprised they got as much as they did into the ending. If you read most non-readers' reactions, they seem to believe that the movie should have ended at the most "Hollywood" point when everyone bowed to the Hobbits. I love that PJ went ahead and included the Grey Havens. It shows an underlying respect for the source, contrary to the naysayers belief. <P><BR>This seems to be a fairly civil forum. I just came over from tolkienonline.com where every single thread becomes yet another war between "Purists and Revisionists". It's pretty tiresome to read the same arguments over and over. It's also sad when people let slight departures ruin the movie experience for them. It's not necessary to love the films, but to continually argue over some hypothetical version is pointless. Short of a 55 hour version, what we got was about as close as could be expected.

[Knight of Gondor]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I mean what I said when I said that the Nazgul are indestructible, though I should have added "except by prophesy, destruction of the ring and prolonged exposure to songs about Elbereth".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well...I must say Éowyn wields prophesy pretty well! <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Sure, they fled from Aragorn who was wielding a couple of firebrands, but they fled unscathed, except for the Witchking who got hurt by Frodo's utterance <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Who says they fled unscathed? And why do you roll your eyes that the Witchking was wounded by Frodo’s cry?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Now, in the book we are told that the nine Nazgul attacked Gandalf at night, and there were a great fire show on Weathertop just before Frodo & co. arrived. Yet, Gandalf could not withstand against all the nine, and was chased after by just four! Do I see some imbalance of physical and magical power down here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>As I recall, Gandalf drew them off that way. And Aragorn battled five of them. Gandalf was not beset by five, but nine.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Nazgul cannot be hurt by normal weapons except when induced by prophesy (not that we are told that in the film)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The prophesy itself did not bear any affect on how the Witchking died. It was merely a prediction of HOW the Witchking was to die...not by the hand of living man.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> By the way, the Nazgul did not just use fear as a weapon, though it worked best most of the time. The Witchking used his sorcery to break Frodo's sword and make him dumb and Black Breath is even more horrible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Go back and read the description of the Nazgûl. Fear is their main weapon.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Urm, I guess I really need to tone down my voice on this... it is not very nice to whine about the films even when if I like the book. I guess I am the only one about who like to whine on the Nazgul though<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I bear you no ill will, but yeah, I think you’re probably one of only a few.<BR>[IMG]<P>[ 10:13 PM February 09, 2004: Message edited by: Knight of Gondor ]<p>[ 10:17 PM February 09, 2004: Message edited by: Knight of Gondor ]

[The Only Real Estel]

especially on weathertop where they not only appear to think the heart of hobbits is in the shoulder

It clearly states in the book that Frodo was only saved because he resisted to the last. Besides, since the tip of the knife broke off (& would work it's way towards his heart...), he Nazgul had no need to strike again.

[Knight of Gondor]

Well! I guess the logic of Estel and I drove the objectors off like Ringwraiths from fire!

[The Only Real Estel]

Well! I guess the logic of Estel and I drove the objectors off like Ringwraiths from fire!

lol

[Oroaranion]

OK, i went to see RotK for the third time today. but, for the first time i realised that Pippin, and i think Faramir turned up at the Black Gate. they should be in the Healing Houses, where Faramir would have met Eowyn etc.

[The Only Real Estel]

OK, i went to see RotK for the third time today. but, for the first time i realised that Pippin, and i think Faramir turned up at the Black Gate. they should be in the Healing Houses, where Faramir would have met Eowyn etc.

Actually it was Merry that should've been at the houses of healing, right? I can only guess that they sped up Faramir's healing, since rumour is that he & Eowyn are in the RotK EE version a lot more (although I'm not getting my hopes up on anything)...

Well! I guess the logic of Estel and I drove the objectors off like Ringwraiths from fire!

Hopefully we're not crashing the topic, it is techinically a thread for lists of wrong things in the movies...but I can't allow myself to let justifiable things be used as punching-bags .

[Kransha]

Alright, my opinions, then.
First movie first (including known extensions)

The Fellowship of the Rings:
I think this one worked very well introducing characters and such but it didn't impress on me the sheer size of Middle-Earth. As we see more in the second and third movies, there's a lot more to Middle-Earth than nine companions. This may just be me, but FotR seemed like a Shire and Shire border drama, even though there was the obvious excursion outward. I disliked the Arwen/Aragorn mega embellisments and was annoyed by the fact that she replaced many elves of Imladris, and stole one's horse (Asfaloth, being that horse). The Nazgul worked for me, except for a bit. I believe the first meeting with the Nazgul near Bree was fear-inducing, but it just moved too fast from there. Rivendell and the council went well for me and I got what I required, even though the dialogue was pressed. The next issue I have is with Lurtz, skipping straight over Moria, which seemed to flow almost perfectly. Obviously there is sense in creating a stronger, more proficient uruk-hai champion to fell Boromir, but it was unnecessary. The end and pulling together of the storyline to initiate a sequel was good enough for me.

Now then, some additions to that.
I, like most of us probably, missed ol' Tom Bombadil. I do not fault PJ for removing him considering the time and boredom issues. I did, though, miss the Barrow-Downs and our favorite wights. I believe that if the unneeded cutscenes between Arwen and Strider could've been cut to easily replace a few of these parts. For one, the Barrow-Downs. One could leave out Bombadillio and have the hobbits escape another way. This incident, I always thought, shows the first time the hobbits really have to deal with something so out of the ordinary and quite frankly terrifying. It's sort of a Halfling wake-up call. Instead, PJ went straight to Nazgul interludes. Also, paste Glorfindel or even Figwit over Arwen whenever her scenes get pointless just to please us Tolkeinites.

I'll consider TTT and RotK after Carpal Tunnel Syndrome has left me.

As I read through this thread it occurs to me that complaints voiced re: PJ's movies usually fall into two categories: 1) diversions from the book and 2) basic ideological differences. For the 1st type of complaint, I agree with many here who have reminded us that PJ was working with FILM, including all its constraints. But wait, you might argue, he made some changes that were totally unnecessary with regards to making the story "work". In these cases, I think we're dealing with complaint type 2. PJ made changes not only because he HAD to, he made changes to support the themes he wished to emphasize in the films.

I'm done with complaining about leaving characters out, etc. because to some extent I understand that PJ could NOT have included everything and he had to keep his average moviegoer's attention. But I think I have a just complaint against some of PJ's undergirding themes. For example, one MASSIVE theme throughout the films is the weakness of humans. This, I consider, as PJ's theme and not actually the main theme of Tolkien for the 3 books. For this reason, the dignity of all human characters are toned down a notch - some far more than a notch. Aragorn, rather than eager to reclaim his kingom, is portrayed as a wandering exile hesitant to receive his proper authority. Faramir we all know about... Theoden, rather than a kindly king who honors his oaths is a griper who consistently complains how Gondor hasn't helped Rohan any (a friend of mine, a non-Tolkienite, commented, "Why bother exorcising him? He's just as unwilling to help after.") and Denethor, rather than a subtle and political mind in dangerous times become a flaming ball flying off the "runway of Minis Tirith" (seriously, the 1st time I saw that part of the city I though: okay, who's going to jump off there?). The reason for these changes, I think, can be related to the ideological environment we're living in. When Tolkien wrote these books, heroes still existed. It was still acceptable to honor a king, to give somebody glory and to have that person accept his full authority. Here, in our cynical postmodern times, we cannot accept a character without some flaws. We don't believe anyone can be THAT noble or good etc. We're skeptical of people who would willingly take on a role of power. PJ is making a film during these times - he's thinking: are people going to like Aragorn if he's going to do all these things to win back his kingship? Hmmm..maybe I should tweak him, maybe people will find his character easier to swallow if he doesn't REALLY want to be king, if he starts out really humble. etc. etc. I think we can apply this kind of thinking to most of our problems with the movies because PJ is simply writing for a different type of audience that Tolkien. For those of us who like the heroism of the books, the movies create a problem: we ask, why does everyone have to be so ridiculous or ignoble? (see Gimli, Faramir, Ents, etc.) and I think this theme issue lies at the heart of the problem.

[Anarion]

There was a longer stay and big feast at Rivendell..
Arwen at the River, I think was Glorifindel in the book..
There was a 'special' relationship between Galadriel and Gimli..
They left out Bombadil and GOLDBERRY...
Gimli was made a comic character...
Legolas is the son of a King, but in the film takes on the aspect of 'an archer'...
The idea of the burial mound(barrow) is important in European History...
They never mentioned The Elessar, which Galadriel used to grow Lorien and which Arwen uses as an ornament...
The idea of the White Tree is treated in passing, as if it had only a vague significance. In the end, Gandalf takes Aragorn into a mountain and shows him the young sappling which is the hope of Middle Earth in the Fourth Age...
In the book, Eomer becomes King of Rohan, Eowyn marries Faramir who becomes Prince of Ithilien...
They left out the scouring of the Shire where the Hobbits become heroes and Wormtongue kills Saruman(Very important part)...
But Most importantly: Except for the little ditty Gandalf croaks in the first Shire scene, there isn't a single song or poem sung or recited all the way through until Aragorn in the final scene, which I don't remember in the book. The Poetry means so much, both as an inspiration and to the story line and spirit of Middle Earth because it had been a special gift of the Noldor..

[Reg Pither]

Shizuku - excellent post that hits the nail right on the head!

The saddest thing of all is that PJ felt the need to lessen all the heroic elements of the book in order to appeal to the ubiquitous 'modern audience'. As I said in a previous post, I'm still baffled why he thought it was necessary when he's dealing with a book that is still a huge best seller, being read, enjoyed, even loved by this same 'modern audience'. Why the need to change what is already successful?

If it is simply to appeal to non-readers, then I feel he is tragically underestimating the intelligence of the movie-going public, and their desire to see good old-fashioned heroism. After all, this is a fantasy film set in a quasi-medieval world, not some gritty drama set in the modern world. It needs characters with an instinctive sense of Good in order to function as Tolkien intended. It's a very sad day for all of us when heroism and nobility are seen as traits to be played down rather than celebrated.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Heh, people, the Nazgul raver is back.

But I'm not back to reave about Nazgul. Seeing so much E-V-I-L Reports about the LOTR winning 11 Oscars really made me sat back and regroup my views. I revisited the FoTR, TTT and RoTK and felt that, while PJ may not have made a really good impression on me or some others, he definitely deserved much more than uncreative criticsms on our part. Why not just give the fellow an applause and a pat on the back for doing a good job?

Squeezing a saga like LOTR in one making is not an easy job, and I definitely rate him much higher than those of his critics who had neither the patience of sitting to read LOTR, nor the energy to varify his creative works.

So, cherrio!

[Morima]

Do anybody feel the same as me on this?

When I heard that LotR:RotK had received 11 Oscars, I was honestly NOT thrilled about it. I remember when the first movie came out; I was over the moon. Then one year later when seeing TTT, I realized I didn't care too much about it anymore. And after RotK, -- even though it's a grand and magnificent movie! -- I'm just left ... Unimpressed.

Why? I dunno to the point. But what I feel is that even though the movies are merely based on the books, and even though i realize that certain changes had to be made to make it work as movies, I think too much was changed needlessly. All in all I feel that the movies were PRIMARILY made for those who haven't read the books and/or only wants to drool over Legolas and Aragorn.

My two cents in a list.
-- Clichées. I think the movies are riddled with them. For example; to me the journey through the Dead Marshes was one of the creepiest scenes in the book, but it was made into something boring and almost pathetic with the ghost in the water, 'stretching his arms out to grab Frodo' ... Bleh!
-- As for Elijah Wood, he is, IMHO, NOT a good cast for Frodo, who is supposed to be around fifty at this point, not seventeen, and certainly have more expressions than 'agonizing suffering'. But I'll leave it at that with the cast.
-- Although the fighting scenes were magnificent, they were long, e. g. with Legolas' acrobatics on the mûmak. Now that was a great scene, but maybe that one (amongst several others) rather belonged to the extended version, whereas The Houses of Healing and Saruman getting killed were sorely missed in the theater version.
-- Saruman didn't appear at all after we saw him bobbing about on his balcony in TTT. My deepest sympathies to Christopher Lee. The same with master Wormtounge. All I can say is ... ***??
-- Some may thing that it's strange that I say so, but the Orcs did not impress me at all! I think they were like any other monster in any other movie with monsters. BUT NOO! I THINK LOTR SHOULD BE DIFFERENT! :(

Enough with the shouting ... because all in all there were great scenes as well, and great details that I recognized and appreciated. But to me it didn't redeem any of the few points listed above. And I can go on and on about it.

I'll wait and see for the Extended Edition, ... but in the meantime I'll rather sit down with the Books!

Here's a comic i did in 5 mins after having received the sad news about saruman's absence. Yes i get emotional :P

[Iris Alantiel]

Actually, I was really excited to see RotK win as many Oscars as it did. I actually cheered out loud when they got Best Director and Best Picture (my housemates must have hated me that night). I think that, despite all of the grousing and complaining over all that had to be changed or left out (and I'm the first to get mad about certain changes), Peter Jackson did a really good job and deserves to be rewarded.

Yes, there were things that could have been done better. Of course there were. But in spite of all those little things, when I look at the big picture of the trilogy, it really felt as if I was actually witnessing the world of Middle Earth that I've grown up loving. Jackson really captured the spirit of ME well, at least IMHO. What's more, I think he did a fairly good job striking the right balance between pleasing the hardcore Tolkienites and making a movie people could appreciate even if they hadn't read the books - not an easy task, I might add!

I agree with you about one thing - I'd also rather sit down with the books than sit through the movies. But as far as I'm concerned, the books shouldn't really come into the discussion of the movie's Oscar winnings (except maybe in the Adapted Screenplay category). As I understand it, the point of the Oscars isn't to judge how well the movies adhered to Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth; they're to reward movies that were well made, independent of the book they were taken from.

But then all that is just my opinion, and you're certainly entitled to yours.

[Knight of Gondor]

Just thought I'd mention, for people who have complaints about the movie, just about every one of them was raised and discussed in this post.

I was happy with how many Oscars RotK got. I wish FotR and TTT had won some, though. At least, more than it did...