• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

A few comments:
Readwryt, Can you give your Bible movie a happy ending? I always tend to get a little sad when I read the part where Jesus dies. Maybe, could you let him escape?, shoot his way out? Hey! I smell a sequel! Son of Son of G_d.

Those duckpond pictures are scary. I remind you, those are supposed to be the two most beautiful women in the world. Pouty Arwen! :barf:

Thorin, Willem Dafoe's on the phone. He says he's got somthing to tell you.

Scooter, loved your comments about lazy directing using the ferry approach as an example. I love Hitchcock.

Does anyone know how Jackson got this gig? Did he come up with this idea himself and pitch it to studios?

Who knows what kind of climax RotK will have? Maybe Frodo can put on the ring, use it to cut Smeagol in half, turn it on Barad-dur and blow that up, then take it off and throw it in saying "Later for you!" all the while Limp Bizkit's latest plays in the background (with special guest vocalist ... I don't know, some rapper.) Then credits roll to ..... aw come on ... you know who it is ... think about it ... it's easy ... it's SO simple ... Aerosmith! (When exactly did those guy stop writing real songs and start stamping out that uninspired *&^# anyway?). I exaggerate but sadly, not that much!

I'm still gonna see the movie.

I'm sorry I stopped following this thread. It seems to have gotten interesting recently.

BTW, the false presentation of the filmakers of their devotion to JRRT's story is a lot insulting and I think those of you anchoring your outrage upon that have hit the bullseye. The rest to me is personal preference and opinions. Money isn't the root of all evil, it's marketing.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts on changes

Hi all. New member here.

My oh my, I had no idea of the volume of changes that are hinted to be in the movies.

I agree with most regarding the change in Arwen's character. Perhaps our reactions are disproportionate to the actual changes we will see on the screen..well..hopefully.

The orc from pods thing is sort of silly, but can be dismissed for the most part imo, but it sounds like the new orc character is a poorly contrived device to create a classic duel between it and Aragorn. By the way, is he known as Strider in the movies?

I had noticed myself the fact that the ring seems to flow around freely in even the trailers. Perhaps at the council we see the longing in Frodo's eyes when it is apart from him, or something to show the viewer the power the ring has over its wielder.

The kiss with Aragorn seemed out of place at the least...love story hype.

The scouring of the shire? I agree it would be anticlimatic in a movie, but it is unfortunate some telling of it could not be done. The growth of the hobbits in dealing with the problems in the shire all on their own was integral to their story.

Isolated encounters regarding orcs and the fellowship, and other liberties don't bother me, as long as the encounter itself is something you could imagine in the books.

As for Gandalf, again, I noticed his personality from the trailers, and was like...gee..he acts like he is insane. From my readings of the books, I imagine him as a non-descript geezer with a beard (though not prone to bumping his head on doorways) until there is need for him to almost increase in stature and draw upon his power. I like Ian as him, and don't even mind him being written as pensive, but not bumbling.

Alas, I am certain I have not read the books as many times as many of the other members posting here, and did not read the history of the elves. I do love the books, and plan to love the movies. I will probably (surely?) love them less than if there were not so many liberties taken, but perhaps those liberties will loom less large in a theater seat with a box of popcorn (does anyone ever finish the box?) than here in our chairs as we type away...

I am not sure why Peter Jackson is such a bastard, though I readily admit he does try and talk out of both sides of his mouth, which is very unfortunate. I think that makes him a seller (liar?). It is yet to be seen if he is a good director I assume he is not making the movie with his own money, or Tolkien's, so perhaps there is pressure from other areas.

My girlfriend has only seen one of the animated versions of The Hobbit. She has not read any of the books. My interest in fantasy has encouraged her to read The Last DragonLord by Joanne Bertin. With the movies coming out, she is sure to read the Lord of the Rings now. I think there may be more fans/readers after the movies. If that happens, I think the movie will be a success. If the ones who do choose to go see the movie are thrilled by it and can escape for a few hours to a world that was at least mostly created by Tolkien, than it is also a success.

Those who refuse to watch the movie can sit at home and read the books again. But maybe one should not make up his mind until someone has actually seen the movie. But downloading a bootleg copy sounds cool...

Anyway, hope my post contributed in some way.
 
Now Thorin...hehe. Cool your jets friend. No need to get overly agitated. If you go back and look at the posts I have made in this thread you will note a consitency in my stance and a lack of letting any frustration color my posts and verge on insulting people.

Everyone is making good posts for the most part, and I admire Rosie for her point of view. In fact, I'm not urging anyone NOT to see the movie. I have friends who have not read the books, and I have told every one of them to read them AFTER seeing the movies so that they can enjoy the film version as well as the books. I think this is the best way to handle the literacy question, and I'm not at all worried that the Film characterization of the characters will color their mental picture because they will be imagining some decent actors doing and saying what Tolkien wrote them doing instead of what they did in the movie...

As for outside pressure from New Line Cinema on Jackson, I really am getting to feel that there has indeed been more of it then we suspect. I can hear the conversation now...

Jackson: ..other then that how do you like the screenplay?

New Line: It's great Pete baby, but what about the Evil Sidekick..the Uber Lacky, you know...it needs a Darth Maul!

Jackson: Um, there really isn't one...I mean, that's kinda what Saruman was...

New Line: WHAT?! Christopher Lee as Darth Maul, are you nuts?

Jackson: ...I'll see what I can do, and don't call me Pete...
 
Fie on you, PJ!

Boo-urns. I go away for a couple of months and now you've got a Poet's Guild and a Wizard's Guild and Eru knows what else. What fun! Sounds like some 9-year-old girls' Beauxbatons club. Don't mind my jealousy...
The revelations in this loooooong thread have been shocking to say the least! Here's my humble opinion to offer to all the Grand High Guilded [fools?]:

No movie is like the book. No movie is better than the book. It's a universal truth. While a great fantasy like LOTR cannot be compared to the Bible, it's not just something that happened to fall onto JRR Tolkien's paper. It's a complete, detailed world that he created thoroughly. He knew exactly how everything should be and Darth PJ should have respected that (or else respected all those irritable fans.)
Picking on small changes, though...! It can't be a clone but those little changes are harmless. I mean, (with all respect) who really CARES if Legolas wears boots instead of shoes? And the skeleton instead of a rock...oh, get over it. You have to expect those things.

Now, as for Gandalf...he's a Maia. Let's hope he's not as goofy as first impressions suggested.
Arwen...hmm. Obviously Darth PJ can't show a movie where the female characters are mostly downplayed and thrust aside. Once again one of those things you have to expect, so it's not too shocking. I expect Eowyn won't decide to become a gardener after proving her warrior prowess. Though perhaps they are putting Arwen in too much.
Did Darth PJ forget that Frodo is 50+ when he starts his quest? Aragorn is 87. (Does he look too young?) Wise, mature characters get replaced by properly youthful actors. Now of course there are no Earthly actors who look as good as Elves. Accept that. Liv Tyler and "Hello, Mr. Anderson" are good enough.
The major plot changes and character changes are the real blasphemies. For one example, the Scouring of the Shire is one of the most important parts of the book, even according to Tolkien (correct me if I'm wrong.) And it is NOT an anticlimax. Picture this. The hobbits get back from their grand quest, back to their own personal heaven, only to discover that Saruman's corrupting and destroying it. It makes the war that much more personal. I'm horrified, I think I may not go to see RotK because of that one omission. If my fellow Tolkienite friends read the thread, they'd be shocked too!
I never cry over movies, and I hope LOTR isn't that one exception.
 
In regards to ages:

Bilbo made it to 129+ years (3019-2890) b'day. That's with the ring. Old Took made it to 130. So, say the average age of death is 110...So, Frodo was 50, out of 110...that's equvalent 35 in humans' time (assuming average life-span = 75).
Even with this in mind, I admit, he does seem pretty young in the movie...

And as for Aragorn: He was a Numenorian. He lived from (Shire-Reckoning) 1331 to 1541!!! That is 210 years!!! So 79 out of 210 is equavalent to 28 years old in human times...

You really need to consider their lifespans more....
 

My intention is not to insult anyone...forgive me, those who feel a personal assault on them....

I do get frustrated because I and others including you, RW, have tried umpteenth ways to explain why we are frustrated with this whole movie and stress the importance of the sacredness of Tolkien's work and keep having to redefend them against arguments that seem to totally miss the point. I guess I may sometimes let that frustration show.

Everybody, I do respect your opinions...let me tell you where I'm coming from.... (takes pipe and kicks back in rocking chair)..

I have always been a purist, someone who does not like change. I grew up reading. I loved to read. I grew to like the images my mind conjured up and I loved to lose myself in a good yarn while lying in bed (still do!). I watched practically every Stephen King story I read and enjoyed become horrifically massacred by the big screen. In my youth, I dealt with it and came to accept and even like some of the movies. I know that Hollywood distorts and morphs books to its own liking. It is inevitable that it happens. Unlike all the other books I read, however, LoTR stood above them all like a towering giant. I started reading them before I was in my teens (about 18 years ago) and internalized it like nothing I ever did. I LOVED THE IMAGINATION OF TOLKIEN!! And I do not like nor have any desire to read any other fantasy books. That is how much Tolkien affected me.
Now after 18 years (and for others 30 and 40 years...) Tolkien's masterpiece has come to the screen...I faced the concept a year ago with apprehension..what if it craps on it like all the other movies did to my favorite books? But no, SURELY with something this grand with such a HUGE following for over 50 years, it will be handled with care. Now I am let down once again...but the loss is even greater with LoTR than some old Stephen King novel...

Sigh...I think the worst part is that LoTR will never again be the same, people. All the marketing, all the merchandise, all the misconceptions. PJ's movie has changed the dynamics of what LoTR was to society. Imagination will, to some extent, be replaced with different images and some of those images are horribly skewed and distorted. Newbies after PJ will not see the LoTR that we all grew up with.

I guess that it just bothers someone like me who does not like change more than the average person.

The End
 
Last edited:
Ok, Thorin that's completely fair. Don't worry about offending people, I for one understand that you feel very strongly about this movie and you just want to defend your stand point. I just hope everyone realizes that I'm doing the same thing.
 
Well... If ya really wanna know... it's the whole Arwen thing! SHE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A LINE IN ALL THE BOOKS AND NOW THEY MAKE HER A WARRIORESS!!?!?!?! WHAT THE %*&@!!! Sorry... lost my cool there for a minute.. whew...
 
i can see all sides here...

One thing is that every person has a different imagination...and what people r scared of is that the imagination that tolkien made as see is no longer going to be there any more. How many people r going to read lord of the rings after the movie and imagine frodo as Elijah Wood and sauman as Christopher Lee. Our imagination is a great thing and it should be treasured...and know this is going to be ruined...that’s what people love about tolkiens work is that he gave as a great imagination...today people use it. They rely on the big screen..and i think that is sad...when we journey through this time we will see kids watching movies all the time and they will forget the word books....I already see it in one of my cousins...i convinced her to read lord of the rings she though it was a great book intill she thought it was boring, she got up to the start of the 3rd book..and now she says why finish the book when i get to see the full thing on screen and it only goes for a few hours...but she does have some sense in her cause she is a fan of Harry potter..and she doesn't want to see the movie..and she is not going to ...cause she doesn't imagine hogwarts as it is in the movie..


After writing that i still want to see the movie...but I am not going to believe that what i am watching was written by tolkien
 
let's get to the root of it all

ok, guys, i know many thinks make us all very angry and very frustrated. WHY change the WONDERFUL book if things can be left the way they are SUPPOSED to be? and of course it is not right. however, please do not forget the world we live in now: the truth is, and i think you know it, that the movie is not made for the fans. it is made to make MONEY. it is all about profit.

whatever changes were made to the original story were only made to make the film a BETTER SHOW, so that the raitings are good, and the critisc love it, and more people give their 10 bucks to see it.. maybe not even once. the same goes worrior arwen - people would simply NOT understand why there are all these men doing all the work if we live in the world of absolute equity or rights.. women cant' just sit around and be pretty - if all fight, well, let them fight too! also, imagine, ms. tyler is getting a lot of money for 10 minutes of her screen time - she has to be shown off in all the glory and power.

there are hundreds of thousands tolkien fans all over the world, but there are still more people who are unfamiliar with his work or just plain ignorant. the movie is made to please all one way or the other. fans tend to be picky with every little detail and yet most of them can be satisfied by a wholesome screenplay, with a few minor displeasing things.

we can vent all we want on people like arwen (hi) who ask general questions, but there will be more of them, who never read the book and will very soon be spoiled by the movie. they will like it no doubt - but that's the hard truth of life - i think most of them wil NOT go back to the original novel to see what REALLY happens.

guys, we just have to live with it. do we really have the power to influence PJ or anyone else?
 
yes but we cant' do anything about it.... many good things get exploited... but i doubt it is a moral issue for him - think of the millions he will get!
i hear he is a tolkie fan himself... at least that is good. we could have had the film even more commercialized! we could have had arwen in xena outfit - to boost up the raitings! could have asked arnie to play aragorn. lurtz-the-purple-dinasaur is BAD but it all could have been worse...
 
true...i guess we r asking to much of PJ....we want everything to be right...and no movie will ever be that way...i don't like the idea that Pj is ruining our imagnation and all cause of money...
 
Imagenation awesome I use mine every day. My cousin read the first to LoTR books then when he got to the RoTK he stopped he said it was boring. That is my fav. book and is fare from boring!!!!!peolpe get so if they aren't entertaned every monite they lose intrest. personly I dont think any of the book is boring. I LOVE IT ALL!!!!!!!
 
It will be a masterpiece

I think PJ will make a monumental movie, a movie that will top charts for ages.

I think Arwen will be great I just love the "If you want him come and claim him scene". Very good. I hope she will not fight though and according to PJ she will be very much in line with the book and the appendix.

The one thin I hate is that the Barrow wights is excluded because how will Merry othervise in a good manner get the Sword that could kill the Witch King. It is not a common sword found at any smith or shop....

That is a real bad change..

But I really think the movie will blow us all away in amazement..
 
Chippy said,

true...i guess we r asking to much of PJ
Click to expand...

The official Fellowship of the Ring website says..


Peter Jackson said,


In a 1958 letter to Forrest J. Ackerman, J.R.R. Tolkien wrote,


It seems that the Scenery has been reproduced quite splendidly in this production, and for that Jackson deserves kudos...and the Plot, Hobbit finds his strength while stopping the dark lord Sauron from obtaining the One Ring, has been maintained. In the process many slight changes have been made in the actual actions involved in the Plot, but the basic struggle of Good versus Evil and the mechanics of the plot remain, so once more, Jackson gets my praise.

But to publish so widely that you are fulfilling the things that Tolkien cared about, when it is available even to lowly Forum Moderators like myself to actually READ what Tolkien cared about, and then to make sweeping changes in the CHARACTERS as Jackson has, the only thing I can conclude is that the only way that I have expected too much of Jackson is that I expected him to be HONEST with the Public about what he was doing in making the films...
 
Gosh, I don't log on for a couple of days and this thread EXPLODES with comment!

Rosie, I share your opinion about the forthcoming film. Don't feel too alone! It is good to find other members of this forum who share my opinion about the quinticential differences between a film and a book. I've already stated my position on this point and it has been made powerfully by others, so it does not need repeating. The answer to this argument has consistently been that it doesn't matter if the genre of film and novel is different as many changes are unnecessary and their effect, it has been alleged, will be to spoil the depth, mystery, plot, and characterisation within the novel. So much so that, in the end, the imagination of the reader will be sullied by the poisonous imagery of the Demon-lord Peter Jackson...

cue crack of thunder + cackling laughter

... That's the ultimate harm isn't it? If the film does turn out to PANTS then the only really substantial and important thing at risk is that our memory of LOTR will be altered and the view we have of Tolkien’s work will diminish indirectly. This truely would be a crime against humanity. The other perceived harms that may occur I don't consider that significant: If (stupid) people wish to claim they know of LOTR without reading Tolkien then they should be caste in to the same pit (preferably with spikes in) as those who believe they know of Frankenstein before they've read Shelly. If LOTR fans go to the movie believing it to be a true to form recreation - they wont buy the Frodo-doll (shudder), or the video. In my mind and imagination, I believe Tolkien's world is too strong a place to be washed away by the superficiality of Hollywood. A bad movie will be a missed opportunity and be mourned, but as no-one has yet seen this movie I wont be wearing my black vale just yet. It will be of great interest to me to see what opinions the members of this forum have AFTER the movie is released.

Regards

M
 
Xzizor, one of the most telling and important scenes in the book is Frodo at the Fords of Bruinen. He is almost overcome by the Nazgul blade shard still in his shoulder; feeling the increasing weight of the ring; having the Lord of the Nazgul beckon, nay, command him to submit and at that defining moment, Frodo raises up in his stirrups and says, "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair....you shall have neither the Ring nor me."

If you're gonna give that scene to Arwen... HELL! YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE HER LEAD THE FELLOWSHIP! HELL!!!! YOU MIGHT AS WELL LET HER CARRY THE RING TO MORDOR ALL BY HERSELF!!! SHE SURE DOESN'T NEED ANY HOBBIT WHEN, BEING THE MOST COURAGEOUS AND BEAUTIFUL WOMAN IN MIDDLE EARTH, SHE CAN DO IT ALL BY HERSELF!!!!

At least that's the way I feel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Similar threads

Is "Face Off 1997" movie a Christian movie?
Replies
0
Views
544
herlig9
The Eyes of Tolkien
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Eljorahir
Fanfic One Life For The Sake of The Rest
Replies
2
Views
1K
Tyelkormo the Fair
What 5 things would you change in the movies?
2
Replies
32
Views
11K
Radaghast
Character changes in the movies
Replies
12
Views
6K
Olorgando
O
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…