I just found another Peter Jackson's blunder

[Ricardo]

My Adaptation (so far)

Scene 1:
Galadriel orders an old man in a pointed hat to go get a ring. . . for her.

Scene 2:
Frodo and company show up in Lorien (no Gandalf), but Galadriel rejects that ring.

Scene 3:
Celeborn says Galadriel's ring was nicer anyway.

Scene 4:
One day Galadriel looks in her mirror and sees that rejected ring being destroyed.

Scene 5:
Galadriel orders Sam to plant a golden tree in the Shire and to put a black cat in that tree.

Scene 6:
The Hobbits fight Saruman and thugs, in order to plant that golden tree in the Shire.

Scene 7:
Galadriel says "Well I'm back" when she gets back Over Sea.

Ha!

In only 7 scenes I have accomplished what Peter Jackson refused to do!

you make more sense than Peter Jackson.

 

[Vardarianna]

I agree that covering Aragorn's bloodline would be too cumbersome,

Could have been easily summarized in less than a minute.

In P.J.s case, more like this...

 

[Ricardo]

there are many differences in the movies, many that only Tolkien's fans would notice or care, fair enough.

But some inconsistencies can be notice by anyone, regardless of how much they know about the real stories.

At the beginning, there are 3 sequences, nearly at once that make no sense whatsoever.

1) Merry and Pippin accidentally jump into Frodo and Sam, they are pursued by the Nazgul and then they decide to join them on a trip that nobody knows where it ends, with obvious dangers along the road. No preparation, no food, no idea where they are going.
2) While casual viewers don't know what the Nazgûl are, and at that point not even Aragorn's very short explanation has happened, but they are obviously very dangerous and the hobbits are clearly no match to them.

Yet, Merry just throws a rock and the Nazul runs away.

3) They cross the Brandywine, the Nazgul are hot in pursue, riding horses, the Brandywine bridge is only 20 miles away, yet, magically, the hobbits arrive in Bree, unmolested. Bree was at least one day away, and the Nazul lost their track? or did the hobbits outrun their horses? (what know what really happened in the books but that's not what happened in the movie)

No need to reconstruct the tale of Tom Bombadil (which is important for other reason, but that's for another time), but they could at least show they weren't going on the road, omit the old man willow and Tom if you wish, but they needed another way.

 

[Eljorahir]

The Balrog and Gandalf stand on the bridge in Khazad Dum. The Balrog looks as menacing as he can, as he steps forward.

PJ has Gandalf "cry out" "You SHALL NOT pass."
Tolkien has Gandalf simply "say" "you cannot pass." (Previous to this, Tolkien purposely writes Gandalf 'cries out' in a number of situations. Here, Gandalf simply 'says' what Tolkien writes for him.)

PJ has Gandalf cry out "You cannot pass" and then "You shall not pass."

From reading your comments I thought maybe you missed the first "cannot pass" in the movie dialog. Thought I'd point it out just in case. Just a minor point, because all your comments about the "shall not" would still apply, I think.

 

[Elthir]

I wish Ian McGandalf would make up his mind!

🐾

 

[Ent]

PJ has Gandalf cry out "You cannot pass" and then "You shall not pass."

Ah. I shall validate. I thought it was 'shall not' in all cases. May need to clean the moss out of my ears.

 

[Ent]

"You shall not pass."

AHA. You are correct. The first time, Gandalf does correctly say 'you cannot pass.' The 2nd time, he uses 'shall not' incorredtly, taking the reason from Eru's power to his own refusal to permit. (Actually, I believe this strengthens my points. I shall rewrite that section, exposing why.)

Thank you.

 

[Halasían]

The title of this thread is the best, though I'd say a 'blunder' is something that unintentionally happens.
It is clear to me that PJ intentionally set out from the beginning to mess up a good book story, hence not blundering.

And this is not worth a new post...

This is quite a declaration.
What is our source material - our confirmations and attestations to - the comment?
Given the statements made by many directly involved with the production, Ent struggles to counter-balance their perspectives with evidence.

Certainly PJ had intentions quite different from Tolkien's. But then - a movie extracting its materials from a book ALWAYS has a different set of intentions than the author.

Does this translate to an 'intention to mess up a good story?'
Or does it translate to 'intention to deliver something similar - recognizable - but for a different audience, a different purpose, and thus necessitates a different handling.'

Back to the original question: Can we see the source material sharing PJ's intentions, and validation he intentionally set out to mess a good book story up?

Ent, enough already. It's all about opinions, not some scientific hypothesis needing to be proven. It was quite clearly stated in various interviews back in the day that PJ and Co were 'improving' and making improvements' to the story.

Apparently under your regime, because I have posted my opinions on Peter Jackson and Co and what they did to Tolkien's storyline back twenty-some years ago, I'm not allowed to say it again. So I'll ride back off into the wild and leave you be, and when I return, I hope the atmosphere here is a little less oppressive.

(I took a screenshot of this and saved it in case you take offense and delete it)

 

[Ent]

PJ intentionally set out from the beginning to mess up a good book story, hence not blundering.

This is quite a declaration.
What is our source material - our confirmations and attestations to - the comment?
Given the statements made by many directly involved with the production, Ent struggles to counter-balance their perspectives with evidence.

Certainly PJ had intentions quite different from Tolkien's. But then - a movie extracting its materials from a book ALWAYS has a different set of intentions than the author.

Does this translate to an 'intention to mess up a good story?'
Or does it translate to 'intention to deliver something similar - recognizable - but for a different audience, a different purpose, and thus necessitates a different handling.'

Back to the original question: Can we see the source material sharing PJ's intentions, and validation he intentionally set out to mess a good book story up?

 

[Amalcarin]

Hmm. Could not Viggo-gorn be suggesting that Dwarf women have beards, thus, they (the beards) are part of the confusion?

I have always interpreted his words in this way and never thought they could be interpreted otherwise.