What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

Re: It will be a masterpiece

Originally posted by Xzizor
[BI 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..
[/B]

Click to expand...

????? On all counts!

How the changing of how Merry got his sword being worse then the butchering of Arwen's character, ESPECIALLY the "If you want him come and claim him" scene, is totally beyond me. I can't even begin to comment on the "according to PJ she will be very much in line with the book and the appendix," comment.

I'm afraid someone less haughty then this dwarf will need to make sense of Xzizor's post...I'm gonna leave it alone....

That sword didn't kill the Witch-King, but I understand.
If They included everything, the movie would have had to have been hundreds of hours long, instead of 8, which is what it will probably be.
If you go to www.theonering.com, (it took me to some site called www.3Tolkienonline or something like that instead) You can find the original casting call for the character Arwen, and I got news for you - she was described from day one as someone that in no way whatsoever resembled the Arwen we should have expected.
It included statements like "She rides hell-for-leather", "Must ride horse and wield sword", "Is the lead Romantic Role" "Lead female part in all three movies" - and some other stuff that described as a strong, take crap from nobody, ass kicker. I would like to have been able to peel the page off of my monitor and burn it.

Liv Tyler is every bit as guilty as Jackson. She volunteered to destroy the character for money. To her it was just another script. And she, rich as she is, decided she would take part in the blasphemy that is what has happened with her character. Any actor with a conscience should have turned that down when they considered the disappointment of fans. I'll bet Chris Tolkien had no idea the story would get so far out of hand when he joined up to be Saruman. Now, I think he's ashamed and embarassed.

Note: I ate at Burger King a couple weeks ago and saw LOTR on the paper bags. I said OH MY GOD out loud. Tolkien has rolled in grave about 1000 times by now.

And as for Arwen. If the movie (I mean all three parts) was made to represent the book as closely as possible, as should have been, women would have had an incredibly small role in this film, and would have been nearly absent entirely. Commoners in the Shire and Bree, extras playing elf women in Rivendell and Lorien, A significant scene with Galadriel (whose role, as small and brief as it would have been, would have surpassed Arwen's), extras again as commoners in Rhohan and Gondor, and Eowyn (who would have been the largest female role). But political correctness (also known as BULLS**T) in Hollywood won't allow that. That VERY plainly explains what happened with the whole Arwen catastrophe.

Dagorlad, my man. It seems to me that they could have made an eight hour movie that was true to the book if they just edited out some of the commentary and showed it visually. Movie length is related to dialogue and I'll bet that there isn't eight hours of dialogue in the whole of the LOTR. My problem with the movie isn't so much with the time constraints but with additional plot. PJ shouldn't tell us he is being true to the original work, all the while adding nonexistent scenes, nonexistent characters and nonexistent plotlines.

Our only hope is that the movie will generate enough interest in the books that we will have many new readers who will see what a travesty has been done in the making of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings!!

Grond, you know perfectly well that that is not going to happen. People, particularly the masses of youths, who see the movie w/out having read it first and then read the book will likely (as usual) find the book to not match their expectations, conceptions, and images. It would never be the same as reading first, then seeing the hollywood butchery. It is always this way. I'm with Thorin on that one.

Now, I'm flabbergasted and fustigated and discombobulated that you would suggest that the whole of the story contains no more than 8 hours of dialogue. I disagree.

I agree completly with you on your opinion of what P.J. shouldn't be doing.

But a should-have-been obvious notion occured to me when I was reading a post earlier written in this thread by Chippy. A real eye opener that I think will vastly save me from some of the terrible anguish and disappointment.

He said: "Having said that, I still want to see the movie, but I'm not going to believe that what I'm watching was written by Tolkien." -Chippy

Now that is simplicity in itself. Brilliant. I will go now, without so great an expectation of seeing the LOTR (I won't be able to quell it entirely, I'm sure), but rather I will simply go see some potentially decent fantasy movie made by some fat, ugly Englishman with a terrible beard. Now, admittedly, this implies that I will view what I'm seeing as blatant plaigurism, which is ultimately what the film will be, but I think I can handle that better than thinking of it as Tolkien's. This will require a very real and prepared concious effort to watch P.J.'s Big Adventure, and not try to see the Lord of The Rings, which it will NOT be. This will be difficult, but I think it will leave me much less disappointed.

Let's just go see a good Fantasy film. If P.J. can even handle making that (I think he's done it).

Oops Dag. I guess I'm just not of the mainstream. I saw The Godfather at the movies and then read the book, saw Jaws at the movies and then read the book, saw Silence of the Lambs at the movies and then read the book, saw Centennial mini series on TV and then read the book, saw Shogun mini-series on TV then read the book. That's just five of many that I saw first and then read. Not all the movies have been up to par with the books. The five I've cited were all well done and stayed within the spirit of the book with some ommissions but no character changes.

Having said that, none of those works have effected my life and imagination as greatly as the works of JRRT. I honestly believe if someone reads the book, they will be unable to dislike it and will have to think it is better than the film. I also firmly believe that there are less than 8 hours of "true dialogue" in the book, but I may be wrong. But... these are just my humble opinions That's what is great about this forum, we express our opinions and still enjoy the company of other Tolkien fans... even when we disagree.

Grond, you may find me a trifle offensive (some think so, but I've been trying to behaive).
I thought Interview SUCT and did grave injustice to the book. And surely, some can watch films first, then read the book and like it better. But I think most people would like the book better still if their view wasn't contaminated by a poor movie rendition. No? That's my belief anyway.

ReadWryt.
I missed the post I just saw a couple pages back that I'm presently responding to.
In regards to what it is about what P.J. is doing that I find outragous and disappointing:
It is not WHAT he (P.J.) is doing with the media in promoting the idea that he is creating as close a representation as possible, It is WHAT he is doing to the story.

I explain: Why should I care what he says to the media? If the film was true to the story, that's all that would matter. If the film isn't true (as is the case) then it would be that unspeakable discrepancy that would disgust me, not the lies that he told the media in the interim. I haven't watched t.v. in a year. I've no clue what he's said to the media. And yet I am thoroughly disgusted with him. Explain that.

I eagerly await the usual imperious and scholarly explanation from you(or Thorin I suppose) about why I'm missing your point, or this isn't what you were talking about. Probably kind of like the ones I try to make.
You DEFINITELY do not speak for me when you say that the value (or lack thereof) of his words to the media outweighs the importance of the quality of his reproduction of the story. You've expressed that opinion since before I left for a couple months, and I was as confused by it then as I am now. I've read it enough times to gather the same message repeatedly, and I say that I don't care if that guy was a mute, or if he told the media that the gods told him what Tolkien wanted, as long as the movie was right when I sat down in the theater to see it.

I just don't see how one can say that the movies would be so long if they adheared to the original Plot, Characters and Events...I have an experiment for someone to do some time. Take a beat up old used copy of the book, probably some dog eared set of Paperbacks, and use a Hilighter Pen to mark all the descriptions of Scenes and Actions and see what proportion of the text is something that would not be described to the Nth degree in cinematic terms, but instead just shown to the audience. The description of Orthanc is nearly a page and a quarter in my 3-in-1 paperback, but a simple high angle shot of Isenguard flying past the 4 500 foot tall spires of Orthanc and settling on Gandalf climbing the 27 steps to the door would take less then 40 Seconds on the screen...You would not have to focus and let the audience soak up the armament of the Orcs as they lay seige to the defenders of the Light, you just show them attacking and the viewers get the idea of what they are armed with.

Insofar as other changes that would need to be made such as the extensive narative at the Council of Elrond, I applaud Jackson's premise that it is faster and more interesting to show the events as flashbacks, though a Wizard's Duel would not have been on MY personal list of "Must Have" material if I'm trying to keep the length of the movie down..nor would footage of Uruk-Hai evolving from their Maggot state and popping out of Pods like some Cabbage patch kid from Hell.

See, that is where the "Time Factor" argument falls apart, where cutting scenes is concerned they have taken two steps back and one forward again, cutting out things that in some cases would not take much time to portray only to add garbage that detracts from the original theme, history and intent of the book...

Now to Dagorlad, I quote here myself...

It's not WHAT he's done with the film that has most people upset, it's what he's done with the Media in the promotion of the concept that he is making what Coppola did with Puzo's work, as direct a representation of the original work as is possible.

Click to expand...

Nothing "scholarly" here, just a statement that if Jackson had said from the start to everyone, Media and all, that he was going to make a bunch of changes in the Characters and add things that never happend, and change the plot some...then I would be of the mind that at that point anyone who wanted to go see a movie like that deserves what they see and that at least the Film maker was honest up front instead of trying so hard to hide what he is REALLY doing. That's all I meant by that...If I wrote a version of the Robin Hood legend and made it widely known that I was making him Gay, then anyone who read it and mistook it for the ACTUAL legend would have no excuse, but there may in many cases never be anyone to tell some of the viewers that this is NOT indeed Tolkien's masterwork...

I take both the opinion of Dagorlad and ReadWryt. I believe that both the changes to the movie and the two-faced messages PJ is sending to the public make for a disgraceful combination in violating Tolkien's masterpiece.

The changes in the film disgust me as a Tolkien fan who knows better....the messages PJ is sending out frighten me as a Tolkien fan afraid for the "newbies" to LoTR and Tolkien. What we have is a butchered story line and characters with the name The Lord of The Rings and a director who gives the public and Tolkien fans the idea that his movie is as close to the book as can be (and yes, I saw the interview where PJ admits reading the chapters before filming them). As I've said before people, though we are disgusted, we can handle it because we know who JRR was and the true story of LoTR and how he himself would have wanted LoTR to happen...the new people don't and some (Arwen here on the forum is a good example) show how PJ can suck in uninformed people to buy into his movie changes.

As for time restraints, another hypocritical stand by PJ....Add up all the time taken to film added and changed plot and dialogue and look at how much time to you have wasted that could have been used on doing LoTR the way it is supposed to be done. Think about that one. Take out:

1) Arwen scenes
2) Lurtz and pod scenes (including the fight between Aragorn and Lurtz)
3) Boromir's encounter with the ring on Caradhras
4) Arwen and Galadriel and Elrond and Celeborn meeting together.

And these are just a few...How much time do you think this could have added to the film to make it properly?

Down with PJ!!

Errm, quick question. How many of us here have seen the film and can, therefore, fully determine what changes are necessary for it to work as a screenplay?

What about Tom???

I've heard all these other things that tick you off but i never heard Tom Bombadil even mentioned. Is he even in the movie? After all he saved them from the Barrow Downs..!!! I think he deserves some kind of recognition. That just peeves me off!!!!

Tom ain't in da movie....... Sorry bout dat.

Maclock,

I take it you have not read this thread else you would have seen the list of myriad additions that have been made, Lurtz...Uruk-Hai emerging from Pods...a Wizard Duel between Gandalf and Saruman, things that were never in the book and quite honestly not needed beyond that which Tolkien created in the first place which do not make any clearer the Intentions, Fears, Desires or Strengths and Weaknesses of the Characters, nor do they make any easier to understand the Plot. These things are all verified from Photographs which have been published, not the least of which in the "Fellowship of the Ring(TM)" Desk Calendar from Cedco. Every third day listed is a Photo from the film (121 of them to be exact), with the other two thirds being taken up by Quotes, many of which are quite concise and accurate, and Trivia Questions, including one about what kind of creature does Gandalf convince to help him escape Orthanc? (The answer not being an Eagle, or that Radigast, who is not in any credit listing and therefor apparently not in the film) These are all events invented for the movie by the writer/director and add nothing that makes for any better film making, but rather simply detract in many ways from the completeness of the Middle-earth mythology.

As for Gandalf_00_00's fear, I state again...under other circumstances, assuming that time was really a concern and pretending that the film was not being lengthened by the addition of useless and stupid footage of events that never happened in the books, Tom Bombadil would be on my list of things to cut. Aside from providing some short arms and indirectly demonstrating the power of Sauron (Elrond saying that the Ring would not even be safe with he and Goldberry) Bombadil really adds nothing to the story that would be noticed if cut out. The BBC felt this to be true when bringing the story to Radio, and I see the wisdom in it myself. It would be nice if they had left him in and left out all the invented garbage, but alas we have THIS...

Wryt, in your second post pack we have another rare occassion where you and I are actually in total agreement.

But in your last post I must disagree, I thing Bombadil had more importance that you state. But I would definately Have left them out of the movie for a different reason. I think the whole feeling of Tom and Goldberry and everything about them would have been very hard to properly portray. A tremendous chunck went in to giving us the idea of them, and Tom's significance as a power even still inferior to Sauron. And more difficulty would arise due to Goldberry's unique sort of beauty, and her singing. Bad enough he has to strugle with adequately representing the other beautiful and marvelously gifted Elf-Women.

Dag, goin' back a few posts, you stated that Interview sucked. I assume you mean Interview with the Vampire. I agree with you in this instance. That one, I read first and then went to the movie. The biggest problem with it was giving way to much emphasis on Lestat instead of waiting for his book. The other movies I cited, however, were true to the plot and more importantly true to the "spirit" of the book. Peter Jackson could have been true to the "spirit" to the works of JRRT with minimal effort and still had a movie for the ages.

That's just my humble opinion.

In the case of Inverview with a Vampire, if you think back on the book it was mostly Louis looking back and seeing the monster that Lestat was. The next book, and all the others for that matter, are mostly from Lestat's point of view and looked more kindly on him because of it. Anne Rice, who wrote both the book and the movie, realized that making The Vempire Lestat into a movie would be problematic and that she wanted to soften Interview up so that the next film could jump to Queen of the Damned, which is in Post Production now. I have no problems when the Author makes changes in the Movie adaptation of their own Book though, just so long as, as was the case with Ms. Rice, they admit to having made changes before the film hits the screen.

Grond, I agree w/ you on the issue of the ability to make a great a great film from LoTR (a true film, not a plaigurized fantasy film of the director's imaginings).
But, I not only thought that interview (movie) sucked for a number of reasons, but the video I saw showed Ms. Rice at the outset stating that it was a good film and true to the book. My subsequent viewing of the movie made that appear to be a desperate effort to leave a good starting impression on the minds of the viewers (if she said it's good, it must be).
I was utterly disgusted with that insane butchery of that book. Worst of all for me was the casting of Tom Cruise. I couldn't believe they used him.

Steady on Wryt, I have read this thread and contributed to it (perhaps not as much as you) on numerous occasions. I may be guilty of obscuring my point in too much rhetoric, but let's keep things civil.

Essentially, my point is that I believe it to be a little premature to denounce a film as a travesty or a bastardisation before the film has actually been seen by anyone. Comment upon the copious evidence provided by members of this forum is obviously not a bad thing. Personally, however, I consider photographs (however numerous) to be an ill representation of a film. Questionnaires on the film, however much they may highlight changes, are clearly not enough to allow one that much insight in to the forthcoming film. Even the footage provided in the trailers is insufficient to justify condemnation of an entire 8hour trilogy. With regard to your previous comment

"These are all events invented for the movie by the writer/director and add nothing that makes for any better film making, but rather simply detract in many ways from the completeness of the Middle-earth mythology."

I may ultimately agree with you, as I do find the changes puzzling, but I shall gauge their whole effect whilst watching the film - and not make speculative denunciations beforehand.

One thing I cannot disagree with is that PJ + New line do seem to be promoting this as a very accurate version. Changes have been made, this is clear, and so it cannot be truly accurate. However, that does not necessarily mean that LOTR will be a bad, nor unenjoyable to the Tolkien fan. It's just that logically the judgement of the Tolkien fan should be more restrained until after they see the film.

Mac, we (the purists on the forum) don't doubt that the film will be bang up....probably one of the best films of all time with the visual effects, action sequences et. al. What we are the most upset about are the changes that have already been acknowledged. You can't judge a book by its cover but you can gauge a film by its press. PJ and the cast have already confirmed most, if not all, the changes we have cited... and we are not happy with the changes.

Deleting certain aspects of the book (Tom Bombadil for example) would be acceptable as directorial decision for time constraints. Changing the plot in the screenplay while all the time stating that it is true to the book, is unforgivable and a lie. One that many of us here are unwilling to forgive PJ for.

Having said all that... I don't know of one purist who won't be at the movie. I know that I will. But for you to insinuate that we have no right to form an opinion whthout having seen the movie or are jumping the gun in condemning admitted changes, isn't fair. PJ has been weighed and measured and has been found lacking (to quote a knight from another recent release).

"You have been weighed..."
"You have been measured..."
"And you have been found lacking!"

I so expected to hate that movie, but I actually ended up quite liking it. It actually constructed a somewhat believable and relatively accurate medieval atmosphere...language, cleanliness (or, more to the point, lack thereof), and the relative climes of France and England. Though it did sort of mess up Edward the Black and the battle of Poitiers...

Ok....yeah I am really quite worried about the Lurtz/Pod direction of the story but I am willing to accept it if the movie is good.

I am just going to clarify a couple things as well.....Arwen has not become ZenArwen. She says the come and claim him line for effect and then runs away. She is drawing them to the Ford so they can be cast down by the tides.

As for Gandalf's sputtering....I'm not liking that aspect very much either. However, I've been told that this is a dream sequence. I don't know if there is truth to this but I really hope it is true.

I also hope that they don't mess around with the growing relationship between Gimli and Legolas....I hope it reigns as true as possible to the book because that was one of my favorite aspects of it. However, they will probably treat it carelessly and use it for humour.

Anyway, although I say this, I am completely willing to take in this movie as an adaptation and as a movie. There is no way it will live up to the books and I have accepted that. The book and the movie are two different medians and I just hope the movie is good and does well. I'm most looking forward to the Two Towers.