What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

First of all, I agree with Moonbeam completly. In my mind, the novel is the best form of storytelling anyway, so why translate it to a far inferior form?
Next topic. I have always pronounced words in the english way, and I can tell you that I and everyone I have ever talked to pronounce it Tolkien (Tolken). In the english language, the "I" does not modify the "E" in this case. Furthermore, even if it did, it would be Tolkan, not Tolkeen. Also, there is only one way to correctly pronounce Sauron (as with all words) actually, which is Souron, but a common shortning, along with accent, is Soron.
Finally, boycotting is our only real option to be heard. Although our paltry amounts of money may mean little in the end, it is the principle of not contributing that counts. Check that; it is more like a vote. That is, a vote that you cast by buying a pass. Just as our votes for the elections may matter little individually, it is the same with our passes. In the end though, the principle still counts, what? Also, if you still want to "see what it's like", watch the trailors. If you train yourself to like for signs in the trailors, then you can start getting a feel as to whether this film or that is any good or not. Or you can at least wait until it comes out on DVD, then by a copy and watch it with as many interested parties as you can find, thus using a carpool principle to deprive them of enough sales as possible. If you do do that, sending negative feedback is also a good idea. If film makers receive enough negative feedback on a movie then the execs may feel that the formula will be less successful in subsequent films, and may alter their film making standards.

I think I can safely say that all the Americans I've heard talking about Tolkien have pronounced it "Tolkin" and all the Brits I've heard, with the exception of my dad, have said "Tolkeen." I did a poll on this a while back... I was actually surprised at the number of people who said it neither way.
I'm willing to trust the BBC on this and say "Tolkeen." I have no idea how he actually pronounced it... it's a German name, and I know nothing about German pronunciation.
I, for one, do say Sour-on. Note that this is also the way it is pronounced in the movie, so perhaps Mr. Jackson's pronunciation is just a personal quirk. I don't know whether or not there is a "correct" way to say it. I'm too tired to go searching through a million books to try to figure out what language it's in... you say that "Sour-on" is the absolute correct way to say it, and if so, I'd appreciate it if you could cite your sources...

I agree that the LOTR Trilogy is among the best yarns out there. BUT, I think one needs to consider the medium that JRRT used to transmit his vision to the rest of us....The Written Word. It may be a surprise to some...but the world captured in LOTR does not really exist...except in each of our minds...however EACH of us has taken the written word and VISUALIZED it for ourselves. And there's the rub!!! We each have images in our minds of how the different characters appear to us, the towns, the country, orcs, other creatures, elves, wizards, etc., etc., etc. True, these images are probably amazingly similar, but I would bet that if it were possible to compare these "images of the mind" directly, differences would be apparent. We have created our images each based on our own life experiences in what we have seen, where we live, other reading we have done, and numerous other factors.

Now comes this latest movie...an attempt by an individual(s) to convert the written word into images. Is it any wonder then that certain looks that we each expect may be somewhat different than what we will soon see on the big screen? Further, how long did it take each of us to read the Fellowship of the Ring? I bet it took more than 3 hours...which is another factor that REQUIRES choices of what there is time to show and what there isn't.

The last point I have to make is that not everyone who sees the movie will have read the book or the trilogy. So we come again to the 3 hour time limit in which the viewer has to be captured. Probably even less if you believe the viewer needs to be captured early or risk this category of people walking out of the theater. Some changes may be necessary when you don't have the weight of words JRRT used to help set the mood and pace to the story in the original work.

My two cents....

Welcome Peevan.
I agree with you, to a short extent... as a general thory, what you're saying makes sense. And if Mr. Jackson and his cronies had actually stuck to this, most of us wouldn't be so angry (I would, but that's just because I'm a purist). However, if we look at the changes, many of them (I'd venture to say most) cannot be reasonably justified by saying that this is a translation of the book to the movie. Arwen at the fords comes immediately to mind. If anything, the original coming of Glorfindel then Frodo's lonely stand are far more dramatic, decent "movie material" than any "If you want him, come and claim him" crap. Every single bit of dialogue we've seen has been fabricated. Take the scene in which the Ring is thrown into the fire at Bag End. In the book, Gandalf says of his translation of the verses: "But this in the Common Tongue is what is said, close enough." In the movie, the simple sentence structure is altered, running something like this: "In the Common Speech, this is what is says." No big deal, you might say. But why? Why change and twist a literary masterpiece apparently on a whim? Why give Legolas boots, or Gimli a helm, when they have neither? Why have Gimli attack the Ring with his axe at the council of Elrond? Why make Gandalf and Saruman do battle? Why not include Radagast or my favorite character, Glorfindel?
Other changes, such as the cutting of Tom Bombadil, can be recently justified. I, for one, still would not agree. But as for the other perversions... there is no point.

Greymantle, my point is that you and I would each have made a movie differing in many respects from each other, as would the next two characters down the street, and the next two, and so on. True, some of the changes I have read on this message board are arguably quite drastic (I haven't seen much else than the trailers and I have just now finished the FOTR again in time for when I see the movie on Wednesday).

I personally believe that the movie will play well, as I fall in the camp of those that go to the movies to be entertained. I don't think the changes that I happen to notice will bother my experience. But I won't know for sure until tomorrow. I am just extremely glad that a decent attempt is being made at last.

Thanks for your welcoming me to this board....

Welcome Peevan and Daerandir.

Umm, it's Toll-keen. Tolkien himself said so. I believe you can find the exact quote in T. Shippey's JRR Tolkien: Author of the Century. It's a German name, so the rules of English don't exactly apply.

Just to put the proper pronunciation of Tolkien to rest. Christopher Tolkien pronounces his name Tol-keene. Since he is the son of JRRT, his word should be authoritative enough. Also, Greymantle.... in the Silmarillion in Note on Pronunciation it states, "AU has the value of English ow in town; thus the first syllable of Aule is like English owl, and the first syllable of Sauron is like English sour and not sore." Nothing more definitive than the text.

BTW, Grond pronounced it Tol-kin for 30 years until he saw the Christopher Tolkien interview recently.

To go or not to go..that is the question

Peevan and Greymantle,

I see both of your points. I will be personally disgusted with changes because we were all led to this movie being lied to about PJ sticking to the text of the books. We all have a right to be disgusted when we are lied to, espescially when it is about something we care dearly about.

On the other hand, it is a movie, and it is made for entertainment. As I stated before, I first saw the Rankin-Bass Hobbit animated film on tv while I was in elementary school and loved it so much it made me read the books, which ironically, caused me not to like the annimated version and love the books. I then went to see the Ralph Bakshi version and viewed it on video countless times as a teenager (literally over 50 times---I know I'm a geek). I liked it, but didn't replace the books. The books are sacred and still will be. I will go and see the movie and then I will read the books again. The only way to cleansed the dirty changes in the movie will be to read the books again. And the best thing that will come about is that thousands of new Tolkien readers will be born, and they will put the movie behind them as well.

PS. thanks for the posts about the BBC version. I will definitely buy them

Achtung Moriarty !

I had a chance to see the sneak preview at midnight last night. At first I was going to renig on my oath not to see it. It was a heat of the moment kind of thing.

But, I didn't go. And I won't go today, either. Or tomorrow.
I choose to keep my integrity, unlike some people who direct b-buster movies.

By the way, I thought Jackson chose to do the films now because he now had the technology to do it 'right'. And from a tech point of view, it is probably an award winner. But, in the end, I don't think that's what the loyalist fans, who would have ably carried this film without non-LoTR fan money, wanted. They, we, want to see the real thing, neccessary visual and dialogue adjustments aside. I also think that has all been forgiven and understood as neccessity.

But, you can't change characters or character motivation. I refer again to how Lynch treated Dune, the second greatest story of our time. It was a great spectacle of visual wonder, but, he changed it beyond neccessary. It was so different that the book was almost lost itself. Characters were left out or amalgamated to allow a simpler film. But all that scripting buried the true plot.
And this movie will too.

Ha !
Well I don't say you have to enjoy it but how will you know unless you see it ?

I was not wondering why PJ did it now though but how the hell he got to do it at all.

And well it's no good saying you can't change characters and motivation .... HE HAS! and I don't like it either but I will watch it and be highly annoyed and critical of the bits ( and I hope it's only bits that don't fit in with my idea of things).

I agree about the Dune movie ( hmmmmmmm ...do you mean the latest one or the old one with Sting in it) being another good eg .... but never saw the ltest one ..... but I always thought those medieval space things were a bit daft on film anyway. SciFi like Fantasy is very difficult to do well ..... even as a book ......there is a lot of crap out there that really ought never have gotten written.
Personally I think Iain M. Banks beats Frank Herbert hands down.

Moriarity, Banks over Herbert??!!

Thats like saying Sword of Shannara is better than the LotR.

(Grond is sticken mute by the sheer horror of the thought)

German, eh? Well, that could change a lot of things. If Tolkien is a german name, then the "een" way may indeed be the correct one. You see, old english doesn't even use the "een" sound, really. All the "een" words that I know of are originaly from other languages. I will have to look into it further. Oh, and just so you know, critisising a man's speech is ordinarily below me, but Mr. "True to the Book" Jackson is an exception.

How can you say that Grond!,

Bank is way better than Herbert! I mean, I like the Dune series, but too many flaws! For instance I always hated that bit in Dune where the doctors are supposed to be super-conditioned for loyalty and then a simple kidnapping undoes it all .... big deal on the conditioning..... nah! Banks anyday! Banks just needs to write a few more culture books ..... ( and the way things seem to work - die ) to gain major recognition for his work.
But you're right that no-one matches Tolkien in fantasy ( and I hate using that word especially in relation to LOTR ).
And would someone please tell me why American published SciFi and Fantasy ( cringe ) books always have such naff cover art ..... I am too embarrassed to buy them most of the time......or even pick them up to look at the back ...... even when I know the Author is good writer.

Daer.... as much as I despise all this man has done, I still don't think we can critisise him based on the way he says the words. I mean, just look at this Forum. One of the largest online gathering of Tolkien freaks around, and yet the way we pronounce different words totally runs the gamut... I think we should find other ways of proving PJ's ignorance.

Hehe.... I'm walking around school with a shirt with "TOLKIEN PURIST" scrawled messily on it... I'm getting a lot of weird stares. But I still can't go until Friday.....damn......damn.....

Let me just say that I think it's not suprising that we all pronounce the names slightly differently. There are people all over the world here, we all speak different languages, and most of no-english speaking people are not going to pronounce thing the same as english speaking people. And sometimes, people even can't pronounce things the same way.
I live with five girls, and each of them is from a different country. Our accents are different, the way we pronounce words is different. The sound of our original language can still be heard. There are some sounds in Japanese that is impossible for me to pronounce, and in return, it's impossible for my Japanese roomate to pronounce words in my language. we just can't make those sounds exit our mouth, because we were never taught how to make them.
So it doesn't matter if you pronounce it Tolkien, or Tolkeen, as long as you know that it's not Tokilen.

1) Xenarwen the Warrior-Mage-Princess

2) Uruk-Hai (and by extension Orcs) HATCHING

3) No Barrow-Wight (I was really looking forward to hearing its spell-song)

4) Legolas grabbing Gimli by the beard

5) Balrog was just too big and has the wrong kind of whip (and it looked too much like an Infernal from WC III)

6) Too many people at the Council of Elrond

7) Orcs climbing like spiders in Moria

8) Entire Fellowship jumps into the water to fight the Watcher

9) Frodo guesses the riddle-lock to the Doors of Moria

I quite agree. Mr. Jackoffson is completely screwing the books. I saw the movie, and it was cool, but it was way different from the books. when Galadriel did that presto-chango thing, and Bilbo snarled at Frodo, I almost tossed my cookies. And by the way, it's not really a trilogy, it's a sextilogy. It's divided into 6 books, albeit in 3 volumes. Not that anyone gives a damn.

I quite agree. Mr. Jackoffson is completely screwing the books. I saw the movie, and it was cool, but it was way different from the books. when Galadriel did that presto-chango thing, and Bilbo snarled at Frodo, I almost tossed my cookies. And by the way, it's not really a trilogy, it's a sextilogy. It's divided into 6 books, albeit in 3 volumes.

I have just had an epiphany. The uruk-hai do NOT hatch from pods. they are born with an intact amniotic sack and incubated there until they are grown-up. but why is there Lurtz and where's Ugluk?

Grenadier: i've read the entire Dune series and i am convinced that with all the subplots and stuff it would be impossible to produce an accurate movie version less than 8 hours long