Arrrrrrrrrgh!!!!!!!!!

Hey. Cool. Gandalf is really Mandos. Cuz if he isn't he doesn't have a clue what happens to men -or hobbits - after death. Read the dang books, b@st@rd Peter Jackson!!!!

Oops. Sorry Gaffer. I'll be careful.

The death of Theoden with Eowyn. Bravo!!!

See? I can give unguarded praise.

Alright! I knew you could do it!

Hey everyone. Elrond just smiled and applauded at the meeting of Aragorn and Arwen. Wadn't dat sweet? What a Hallmark feakin' Kodak moment,

When I was watching it in theatres for the third time yesterday I noticed the look in his eyes just before Arwen jumped into Aragorn's arms...the best acting by him in the Trilogy, IMO.

Well, it's done. And I'm glad to have seen it. It was a well done movie. I wish (expletive deleted) had read the book, but hey, well done is well done.

Seriously, the tale of the ring was done virtually flawlessly. The only flaws that crept into it stemmed from Peter Jackson's tinkering with the other story in the book, that being the crowning of Aragorn as King of Gondor.

Jackson wanted to emphasise and dramatasise the love story between Aragorn and Arwen. Instead he managed to cheapen it. Arargorn and Arwen remained absolutely and utterly committed to each throughout the War of the Ring. Thus the importance of Frodo's mission to Aragorn. Instead, Peter Jackson portrayed a hostile Elrond who was basically forcing Arwen over the sea, instead of demanding of Aragorn that he be king of both Arnor and Gondor as bride-price for Arwen. *There* was Aragorn's motivation. The tale of Aragorn and Arwen is the tale of Beren and Luthien. Gondor is Aragorn's Silmaril. This aspect of the tale is utterly and completely lost. And because it is lost other reasons for Aragorn becoming King of Gondor had to be found. Hence the castration of Faramir's character in The Two Towers. Hence his reluctant leadership throughout. He was the acknowledged leader of the Rangers for crying out loud. His worth and lineage were known. But in this movie, to facilitate a diminished love story, he was merely someone in exile.

As I said, the story of Frodo and the Ring was excellently done. Some flaws, but as I am not well-versed in the constraits of the cinema, they are flaws that I can live with. But by changing the motivations of Aragorn, Peter Jackson destroyed the history behind the film. Did anyone watching the movie really feel that they had watched Aragorn become a king like you feel that within the book? I certainly didn't. Perhaps I'm alone, but I certainly didn't.

All in all, a B+

Thank you. And good night.

Ok, Iluvatar, I think we get your point. You dont like the movie. I dont think any of the mistakes needed to be painstakingly pointed out to us. If you notice the mistakes, bear in mind that it's an adaptation- PETER JACKSON IS NOT JRRT, HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE DEPTH OF THE CHARACTERS AS WELL AS JRRT, AND I DONT THINK ANYONE ON EARTH DOES. DEAL WITH IT.

Whoa Morgoth, calm down a bit. It is perfectly alright for Iluvatar to point out what he disliked about the film.

Actually, I was quite surprised you gave it a B+. From what I read, I assume you rated the film based on it's 'purity' as an adaptation. Or was it over-all, adaptation and film-wise?

I'm surprised he can even type considering the sleeves on his gandalf robe must cover his hands completely.

Click to expand...

haha that's a good one FH. Although I don't think you need a Gandalf hat or the eyes of Legolas to spot the bad bits. Maybe PJ can gain a little ground in the ending..."wow them in the end" like they say in Adaptation.

B+? Maybe PJ did wow you in the end. I think it's interesting though, we have almost the same complaints/praises about the movie (although leaving out the Houses of Healing was a bitter pill for me to swallow). Coincidence?

I am bothered when people complain as if the story could have been presented as it was written. Ligitimate changes had to take place to make this a watchable movie. Changes are like ripples in a pond. They effect everything in the pond. (some more than others) I do think that the size of those ripples can be discussed, but not the fact they they actually exist can be.

Some people argue that PJ should have stuck to the book rather than opting for re-writing the plot, but I have yet to hear anyone argue that PJ should not change ANYTHING from the book to make the movie...

My question is this: Do you believe that EVERY change PJ made in adaptation was made because it was NECESSARY to presenting the story on film? That the choice was between presenting material the way JRRT did and the way PJ chose to? IMHO, some of the changes PJ made were great...I even liked Arwen racing Frodo to Rivendell, and I think she's about the worst actor in the movie. When PJ gets something right, its breathtaking! However, when he makes mistakes, they tend to be (again IMHO) BIG mistakes that go against the spirit of what JRRT was saying. Which confuses me in light of PJ's sometimes amazing direction.

Morgoth said:

Iluvatar....You don't like the movie.

Click to expand...

You posted that an hour after Iluvatar said:
"It was a well done movie...." and
"well done is well done." and
"the tale of the ring was done virtually flawlessly." and
"the story of Frodo and the Ring was excellently done." and
"All in all, a B+".
No further comment required.

simbelmyne said:

My question is this: Do you believe that EVERY change PJ made in adaptation was made because it was NECESSARY to presenting the story on film?
....some of the changes PJ made were great...I even liked Arwen racing Frodo to Rivendell.

Click to expand...

My answer is, NO!
I too like some of PJ's inventions, and have mentioned the broken staircase scene before as an example. I have also said, though, that, much as I like them, I would rather have done without them, to allow the time to be used for something that was NOT an invention, which I am sure PJ could have presented equally well.
May I ask YOU a question: if PJ had made a version, in his best visual style, of the "real" Flight to the Ford, couldn't you have enjoyed that at least as much as his invented version?

Hmm...that's an interesting question. Suprisingly, now that I think about it, I don't think I would have...but its hard to say. My reasons for feeling this way are

1. I don't think Glorfindel could have been properly introduced in the movie in the time allowed. There are a slew of characters as it is...and its hard to appreciate a lord of the elves when you are barely aware of elves at all. Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil and the Prince of Dol Amroth...may the flowers bloom on your necessary cinamatic graves...So if no Glorfindel, where does this swift horse come from? Arwen was the logical choice, IMO.

2. Being a girl myself , I really liked that Arwen was given something REAL to do besides stand around and be beautiful. Her "statue-like" status always bothers me in the book...especially since her fate is wrapped up with Frodo's a lot more than any other elf. If its appropriate for a lord of the elves, I think its appropriate for a princess (unlike many of her other scenes).

3. I don't think the movie audience would "get" Frodo's illness from the wound as it was in the book. Subtle and difficult to describe...with the mist coming and going in front of his eyes. I think it was necessary to show him pretty near death - which really doesn't make him up for a sweeping action scene racing towards the river. If someone has to carry him, who better than Arwen? She's lighter than any man, and it was cool watching a girl being chased by nine scary wraiths!

I still wish he could have raised his sword and defied the 9 when they got to the other side, but overall I thought the change made sense. I've got bigger fish to fry with PJ

simbelmyne said:

My question is this: Do you believe that EVERY change PJ made in adaptation was made because it was NECESSARY to presenting the story on film?

Click to expand...

So far, yes. But I don't look at the changes until someone complains.

Hey everyone. Elrond just smiled and applauded at the meeting of Aragorn and Arwen. Wadn't dat sweet? What a Hallmark feakin' Kodak moment,

Click to expand...

Mmmm, And I thought the Fundamentalists were complaining that Elrond was too stern throughout the trilogy.
We see him give a fatherly smile and what happens?

That has to be the most genuine moment in ROTK, even if it is only a moment.

Thanks
Morgaphry

simbelmyne said:

....Arwen was the logical choice,
....its appropriate for a princess....
I don't think the movie audience would "get" Frodo's illness from the wound as it was in the book.
I still wish he could have raised his sword and defied the 9....
I've got bigger fish to fry with PJ.

Click to expand...

I'd go with Legolas, as Bakshi did, if Glorfindel really WOULD have confused the audiences so much.
Arwen's not a princess, but I see what you mean.
The audience has already had to "get" Frodo's condition: PJ has treated us to all sorts of symptoms from him; a few more wouldn't be a big problem, and anything would be better than having him played by a sack of potatoes!
As you say, a touch of sword-raising and defying would have made all the difference; I completely agree.
Now let's see the bigger fish........

Oops, it appears that Iluvatar actually did like the film. Something must be playing up with the thread, because I swear that that post wasnt up there before I threw my toys from my FAD pram. Apologies, Iluvatar.

I am astounded! Astounded, I say! Astounded! Foe-Hammer states that s/he has found every change introduced to the movies to have been necessary for presenting the story on film. Astounded, I tell you. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Peter Jackson in his online nom de plume.

I'm willing to concede that I'm too much of a purist in my viewing of the movies. I feared even before the first movie came out that I would be 'too close' to the books to be able to properly enjoy the movies. My fears were unfortunately realised. And I freely admit their cause.

But to suggest that everything that Peter Jackson added was absolutely necessary smacks of a degree of incredulousness that it is utterly remarkable. Such a suggestion speaks to a degree of non-critical acceptance that seriously diminishes the strength of any argument you make in the future. Every single change was necessary!?!? I am aghast! Everything? The minor things like putting the beacons on top of snow-covered mountains that would have been impossible to man. That was absolutely necessary? The minor scene of portraying Gimli as the type of stereotypical dwarf that Tolkien hated by showing incredibly crude table manners. That was absolutely necessary? (Gimli was royalty. His father did Bilbo's dishes, and yet he can't eat at table?) Bilbo just disappearing at the birthday party, without Gandalf;s theatrical embellishment. That was absolutely necessary? And major things like changing the character of Faramir. That was necessary? How!?! It only changes the portrayal of Faramir as representing the promise that was Gondor, and who Boromir might have been. How was that absolutely necessary? How? Aragorn as an exile reluctant to make any claim to his heritage, from the book's Aragorn whose entire life had been devoted to becoming king of Arnor and Gondor in order to win Arwen. That was absolutely necessary? How!?! Especially seeing as how the portrayal of the love story between Aragorn and Arwen was the weakest aspect of the movie. Did Beren ever sway from his love of Luthien? No. Would Aragorn have ever swayed from his love of Arwen, or Arwen from her love of Aragorn? No. Tell the story of that love story. It's far far more poignant. But no, according to Foe-Hammer, this change was absolutely necessary.

I'm sorry, but to claim that I have no right to question the legitimacy of some of Peter Jackson's changes is laughable. And, quite frankly, disqualifies you from serious contribution to the discussion, as you have clearly stated that your only contribution is that there is nothing to discuss.

Astounded, I say! Astounded!