• 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?

Lots of Elves had lived in the Blessed realm with the Valar- Galadriel and Gildor, to name two. Glorifindel may have been to Valinor, but there is some debate about that. Some people think that he might be *just* a powerful Noldo who has been around since the first age. Others believe that he is *the* Glorifindel who was one of the two captains of Gondolin, that after he perished killing a Balrog in single combat (that sounds pretty powerful) he was returned from the halls of Mandos to Middle Earth. If that were the case, then he would be especially powerful, likely more so than Arwen.
As for the glowing bit, that happened at Glorifindel's introduction, as well as at the ford:
"To Frodo it appeared that a white light was shining through the form and raiment of the rider, as if through a thin veil."
 
Moriarty:

Now all I've read are The Hobbit, LOTR and The Silmarillion

My issue was whether is was fair to give Arwen special powers that were rather unique to Glorfindel (which were a result of his return from the Halls of Mandos which Arwen clearly had not done). Aragil cleared the matter up for me.

still confused?


Aragil:

Thank you. I always took the LOTR Glorfindel to be the same one who fought the Balrog during the flight from Gondolin - returned from the Halls of Mandos - and therefore rather powerful (hence his special appearance at the Ford).

However - thank you also for the reminder of Glorfindel's description at Frodo's first sight of him. I guess I take this appearance to be different from his appearance at the Ford and I suppose Arwen glowing in his stead can be accepted in that case. This clears things up -- issue closed.
 
Last edited:
Getting back to the thread's topic:

I think after careful cogitation. I have to say that Arwen's distortion and Saruman's blasphemous portrayal were the absolute worst thing about the movie. More than all the other changes in the movie put together, those two things spoiled the movie for me.

My students and others on this forum said "Oh, you don't really see much of Arwen and it doesn't really take away from the story", but I had a hard, hard time seeing Arwen doing what she was not supposed to do with so much added, cheesy scenes and dialogue that Glorfindel didn't even do in the book. ("Frodo, hang on!" tears falling from her eyes. "I've never seen a Ranger caught unaware." sword to Aragorn's throat). I was nearly choking in horror and frustration. I had to leave and get out, so I went and got some root beer and turned my back on the travesty. I've NEVER walked out on a scene deliberately before. That is how much it bothered me. Saruman was even worse.
 
Thorin:

Getting back to the thread's topic:

Was this directed at me? I was actually on topic - I was complaining about a specific aspect of Arwen's portrayal.

Of course, that's probably not the change that "ticks me off the most." I gotta go with these 3 (in this order):

1)Saruman wholly as Sauron's servant.

2)No acknowledgement of Galadriel's ring and the effect's thereupon of the one ring's destruction.

3)Aragorn allowing Frodo to go it alone too readily (although there is evidence in the book that he would have allowed it -- see Aragorn's response to Sam's "he'll screw himself up" speech at Amon Hen).
 
The Movie...

You have to be somewhat charitable about this...I was disappointed, but I expected to be. This is a work that simply defies translation into cinema. Jackson gave it his best shot, but it was an impossible task to begin with.
Even so, limited as it is, it blows away that puerile crap, the Harry Potter movie. (I've read one of the books and for the life of me I can't see what all the excitement is about. It's approximately on the reading level of Lewis's Narnia series without anywhere near the depth and charm).
You know, despite my disappointment they got some things right. The casting was excellent for the most part, though in some cases they actors involved misplayed the part.
The Arwen thing, which I had beforehand worried about, turned out to be minor. Basically she replaced Glorfindel at the ford.
Gandalf was more tentative and self-doubting than I thought he should be. There was way too MUCH time spent on scenes of Saruman and Isengard and way too LITTLE time spent developing Galadriel and Lothlorien and the nuances of the relationships between her and the members of the Fellowship. Blanchett turned out to be an excellent choice for Galadriel, but unfortunately not nearly enough time was spent developing her as a character, a KEY element of the book.
The Moria sequences were excellent (although too many mouldering corpses---and after that, Gimli is surprised to find that Balin is dead? Gimme a break!) as was the choice of Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn, something I wouldn't have said before seeing the movie.
The movie was overall too dark and gloomy. There's a lot of lightheartedness, fun, and sunshine---warmth, for lack of a better word--- in the book simply missing in the movie.
The good thing about this movie is that it may well encourage a whole new generation to read the book.
This, as I assume you here on this forum know (as a newbie I hope I'm not being presumptious) that this is not just a book, not just a good story. It is an epiphany, reading it an event that changes lives. It did mine. In my early 20's I was just sort of aimlessly drifting. Then I read this book. I was overwhelmed by beauties I had never imagined, by courage and goodness I could never have dreamed. I wanted, with all the power of my withered being, for this book to be REAL. It started in me a longing that will never be satisfied this side of heaven, awakening, to paraphrase Lewis, that primal ache for our lost Eden. I have read the books more than 20 times, and every time it is as fresh and magical as the first time.
Comments?
 
I Just saw this tragedy of a film

Dear All,

I just got back from seeing the mangling of a true historic masterpiece. I must admit that at my first intuition weeks ago was not to like this movie, because of the words "inspired by J.R.R. Tolkiens The Lord of the Rings", but as time passed and as some of the movies clips ahowed up, I was begining to have a change of heart and feel that this may actually be good. I even told myself to overlook Arwen's new role.

The movie began and I didn't care 100% for their version of thr Shire, but that's just my interpretation, though I did get my images of it from Tolkien's drawings. I thought the suspense and urgency created in escaping the Shire and getting to Bree was great! That said, I was really encouraged that this was going to be a fantastic epic film.

Mr. Jackson and his horde then proceeding to rape the book with his hollywood trash dialog, with a little "oh yeah, sprinkle a little line here or there from the book so we know what movie we're making" in. My God. I feel so sad and mortified for Christopher Tolkien and his family. The Dark Lord Jackson did get a hold of the ring and destroyed all of Middle-earth!

I feel like Thorin is my only ally on this thread's page. I only stayed till the end to be a witness to this sin. My soul was begging me to leave so many times. Like any tragedy, you have to try to make something good out of it. I doubt that I would ever travel to New Zealand, so by bringing those images to the screen, I will perhaps see a clear image in my head when I read the books again. That is all.

The stupidity of dialog the Merry and Pippin engage in is to make them completely unlikeable. Gimli also leaves alot to be desired other than his voice and look. That's the trick, where so many people will fall for this movie. They will fall for the visuals, and forget the genious of the story and the beauty with which it is written. Hollywood strikes again. I'm sorry to those who feel that it is acceptable that Samwise is battling orcs in Moria with a cooking pot, and after wacking a few on the head say, " I'm getting the hang of this".

I guess Gandalf also feels we are all so stupid as to only fall for the visuals, that he must give a sermon everytime he speaks, and explain how all of this will come together in the end because none of us can put two and two together if you don't help us. Oh the sin of dumbing down to the public. "Remember we gotta sell more Burger King trinkets!"

I will never see this movie again.

And to Peter Jackson. GO FRODO YOURSELF YOU TRAITOR!
 
To Radagast the Brown: I think you are upset because your role was cut out.

To Bryheinnen, and PRH: I'm almost positive that the brevity of Lorien was due to editing, not to the screenplay. Someone else on these boards pointed out that everybody's wearing nice cloaks after leaving Lorien, despite the fact that the finished version of the film does nothing to explain this.
Galadriel does point out that 'Frodo's coming brings doom to' the elves in her telapathic message as they're all entering the wood. She also insinuates that she knows the burden of a ring of power when she says 'You are alone. That's what it is to be a ringbearer.' And I think that Galadriel is shown in the beginning when the voice-over narration is describing the three rings given to the elves. I'm pretty sure that there's even more ring talk lying on some cutting room floor.
If my edit theory is right, and more of the wood had been shown during the day rather than at night, then the movie would also have lost its 'gloomy Lorien' feel that so many have complained about.
 
Aragil,

Very clever reply. It made me smile for the first time since seeing the movie last night. I only wish your comment was true and that that was the reason.
All the subtle grace and beauty of the "words" of Tolkien were cast aside. To be honost to everyone here. I did say that I thought the beginning was great. Maybe not to "my" exact imagery, but that's impossible as we all have different images of the places, and even if we tried to create what's in our minds, making it come to screen exactly like our minds eye is very difficult. So I cut plenty of slack.
But why change the very nature of nearly every character and what they say and who says it? when you do that, it is no longer the Lord of the Rings.
Some stories it doesn't matter what the backround, you can still pull it off. Example: Kurosawa's Rashomon was remade as Courage under fire. Time and place different, but characters basically the same. In our case with Tolkien, Hollywood invaded Middle-earth. So we have same place with different characters. And like I said before, sadly, that is where so many will be fooled. They will like the backround and effects ( which for the most part were quite good ), but once they get to Rivendel, everything falls apart and the story goes into P.J.R.R. Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Something none of us would have bothered reading a second time if it were in print.
 
Undoubtedly I agree; Arwen, a disgrace, Lurtz, a travisty and the ommission of Galadriel's revelation of the ring shows me that PJ does not understand the Lord of the Rings.

Before going to the film I was aware of these changes among the many others which make the film a total farce.There were only three things that I was looking forward to.


The first: A fight on the slopes of Orodruin, the noble and valiant slaying of Sauron by Elendil and GIL-GALAD and in the process being destroyed themselves. However PJ decided to make Elendil look like a bumbling old man who is knocked aside and killed by Sauron without any effort at all and Gil-Galad does not feature. Not content with demeaning the Royal family of Gondor and Arnor PJ follows this up with Isildur's pathetic, timid, cack-handed, almost accidental cutting off of a still fighting Sauron's finger.

The second: " But even as the orc flung down the truncheon and swept out his scimitar, Anduril came down upon his helm. There was a flash like a flame and the helm burst asunder. the orc fell with cloven head. His followers fled howling, as Boromir and Aragorn sprang at them". PJ obviously thought this passage bland and uninspiring because the smart man replaced it with a Harry-Potteresque "cave-troll" whom Bormoir introduces in a flippant "James bond" fashion. The ensuing fight scene almost made me vomit my popcorn, I genuinely forgot which film I was watching.

PJ, however, the cunning devil and blasphemer of LOTR,lured me into a fase sense of security before delivering his Parthian shot
After Boromir's passing I was just looking round for my coat when he unleashed it. Quoth Aragorn: "Lets hunt some orc". Make no mistake I was wroth. PJ removed one of my favourite passages: "With hope or without hope we will follow the trail of our enemies. And woe to them, if we prove the swifter!" and replaced it with a corny, American, Rambo-type, macho, anachroninistic slur.

Peter Jackson you disgust me, you have attacked something I love and you have dishonoured the name of JRR Tolkein and his family. I don't suppose you will ever read this since you aren't really a Tolkein fan, nonetheless, I felt I had to register my utter contempt for you.
 
Well said, and welcome to the Tolkien Forum! :)
I agree totally (though, let it be known, contrary to popular belief I do not hate Peter Jackson or wish any harm to the ignorant, misled, arrogant hypocrite)! I hope you continue to post... the number of loyal purist dwindles while the ranks of the movie supporters continues to swell!
Damn, someone's brought up that gross line again... I'd just finished cleaning up my keyboard from the last time someone reminded me of it after I'd just eaten. :rolleyes:
Welcome also to Radagast and anyone else I've miseed...
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by mickyplums
PJ, however, the cunning devil and blasphemer of LOTR,lured me into a fase sense of security before delivering his Parthian shot
After Boromir's passing I was just looking round for my coat when he unleashed it. Quoth Aragorn: "Lets hunt some orc". Make no mistake I was wroth. PJ removed one of my favourite passages: "With hope or without hope we will follow the trail of our enemies. And woe to them, if we prove the swifter!" and replaced it with a corny, American, Rambo-type, macho, anachroninistic slur.

:D Ah....goodness! (gets off of floor). My, that is the best laugh I've had in a while reading that...micky you have a way with words. Thanks.."Quoth Aragorn"...snort.


Even though I have been trying to find the good scenes in the movie, I must say that I agree with your sentiments, micky. The few scenes that PJ did right cannot counteract the horrible butchery he did on the rest of the scenes and the cheesy dialogue in most places. Well said! It's about time someone other tham Greymantle, ReadWryt and me can take some crap on the homefront from all the movie lovers whose only defense is "The movie will never be like the book, so stop complaining." Sheesh.
 
HMMMM??

Peter Jackson you disgust me, you have attacked something I love and you have dishonoured the name of JRR Tolkein and his family. I don't suppose you will ever read this since you aren't really a Tolkein fan, nonetheless, I felt I had to register my utter contempt for you. [/B][/QUOTE]


Interesting, stong opinion and you are certainly free to express it. I have come to respect you "true" purist. I however would like to put a lifelong survelliance (sp?) on you to make sure you never ever go see the forthcoming TT or ROTK. If you ever do, than all of your beliefs and convictions do not mean smack and you could possibly be as hypocritical as your buddy PJ. You may respond that you want and that is ok but you will live with the "eye" ever watching you!
 
Changes that tick me off the most

I went to see this movie yesterday. The changes in it that ticked me off the most were.....the changes. Period. Weathertop scene, Arwen and her ride to Rivendell (gasp of horror), Prancing Pony scene, Rivendell council, and so on and so on. Taking the same scenes that were used, if they had been done correctly, they would not have added more than an additional hour of film which would not have been an ungodly amount of time for a movie (i.e. Braveheart, etc). I did enjoy the scenery and the actors portraying the characters for the most part, but the storyline changes were sickening (the character alterations were as well). I've been a Tolkien fan for about 23 years and when my sister asked me in the movie yesterday if Gandalf "fell" in the balrog scene my response was "he should, but with this movie, I just don't know..." If nothing else, maybe this movie will make newcomers read the books and see Middle Earth the way it should be seen - in print.

Thanks for listening - I've enjoyed reading your posts over the last few days :)
 
I'm glad this board seems to be coming back to life. Reading the last few pages prior to this one It seems the opinions of those who saw the movie were favorable. The more I think of the just outright stupidity in the way the characters were changed I get more angry at this farse of a man-director and the actors who so willingly followed him. I will dive into my books again. There is nothing more.
 
Against my better judgement ...

I'll list the things that bothered me about the movie. This doesn't help my 'The movie was basically faithful' argument any, it is a conciliatory gesture to the 'Purists' (really, NPW was so much more playful) and a bit of catharsis.

1) 'Come and claim him'. Arwen development aside (I think it's necessary if she is to have any presence at the wedding, movies just can't wait for appendices), this was a pretty bad line. It doesn't need to be as long as Tolkien, but please try to make it sound as intelligent. For the sake of brevity I'll through in 'Let's hunt some Orc' as being the same complaint.

2) Cave troll skewering Frodo instead of Orc chieftain (see Mickyplums' FOTR quote for reference). I realize that if you have a big special effects budget you're going to want more than just the foot of the troll to get through the door. But the Orc ducking and dodging in order to spear Frodo was an action sequence which I loved (it reminded me of playing NA football), and Bakshi showed that it can work on screen, in my opinion. I think it would have been just as easy to stay a little truer to the book here by having the fellowship be completely concerned with eliminating the troll (as in the film), and having them finally kill it, a lull and let down in watchfulness (as in the book), and then voila, Orc Dickerson breaks one open (he could ... go ... all ... the ... way!), crossing the goal line with a celebratory spike into the chest of Frodo, just prior to an outstanding bit of late hit/unnecessary roughness by Aragorn. Of course this is a very minor detail, and the special effects guys were probably not about to give the bad-guy glory away to some extra in an orc suit after spending months on troll animation. Again I'll throw in the flight to the ford, for the sake of brevity. I just loved the idea of Asfolath being so much faster than the horses of the black riders, that even with a considerable head start they couldn't cut him off. I would have loved to have seen the look on the ethereal face of that last black rider, as Frodo and Asfolath blew by, just barely in front of his sniffling nose.

3) This didn't bother me, but everybody's addressed it, so I'll give it my view: Saruman- fence straddler in over his head, or mindless servant of the dark lord? This is going to play out in the Two Towers, no point in passing judgement after the introduction. What will Ugluk and company be taking the halflings to Isengard in spite of the protests of Grishnak's faction (assuming they exist)? This will mean far more to me about Saruman's allegiance than anything that has happened in the film so far. Here is one scenario PJ might have: Saruman, considering himself to be without any tangible options, feigns allegiance to the dark lord. Gandalf comes, and Saruman entices him to join the dark lord, *just as he did in the book* ('This then is the choice before you, before us. We may join that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf'). However, he learns from Gandalf that the ring has been found, and a new plan begins to develop in his mind. He will build an army as Sauron bids, but he will use it to capture the ring for HIMSELF, not to enhance the might of Barad-dur. This scenario would be quite in-line with the book, and I don't think we can write this scenario off until we've seen the Two Towers. If Saruman turns out to be the spine-less Grima that the Purists have proclaimed, then I PROMISE to rail right along with them. But not yet.

Finally, on a 'something I found altogether pleasant about the movie' note:
After being mentioned by an alert reader on these boards, I paid extra-special attention to the scene in which Arwen first comes to Frodo. To my delight I noticed that Frodo was laying underneath the shadow of everybody favorite stoned trolls: Bert, Tom, and Bill! I thought that this was a wonderfully subtle touch. No hyping prior to the movie (at least none that I know of), just waiting there for fans with an attention to detail (granted it could have been the sole survivor of an edited scene). This was all set up perfectly by Bilbo's recital at the Birthday party, too. I'm sure that there are more little gems like this scattered in the movie, a reason that I'll be watching the DVD release vey carefully. This also gives me faith that PJ is not some soulless pillager of classics, willing to wring every penny out of a desicated version of Tolkien's tale. He loves Tolkien's works, and enjoys these sorts of details.

Well, looking back at the top of my post, I realize that eleventy-one lines is far too short a time to spend conversing LOTR with such excellent and admirable ringers. I regret to announce that this is the end of my post, I won't make it a single word longer, GOOD-BYE!
 
Well I think some people here are going a bit far. Walking out is a bit pompous !( wow I'm sure everyone admired your resolve in that cinema Thorin - Yeah right ... I expect everyone was thinking 'I wish that idiot would hurry up and sit down or get out'!) ... after all it was a very entertaining movie .... it just wasn't the book people! ( and that is a good arguement Thorin when you simply expect the film to be completely faithful to the book.) And you all knew that before going. And PJ hasn't attacked anything (Mickyplums and Thorin) he has tried to make an entertaining movie that will appeal. Ok to a broad spectrum of people .... but if it didn't it wouldn't have been made ...... (and the film is introducing a lot of people to the books. .... I'm in Singapore and very few people here seem to have read the book but the film is changing that fast! .....also you lot wouldn't have anything to complain about).

We all knew there were changes, there had to be some changes, and of course when you know the books so well ( as do all of us here - I'm sure ) you tend to spot them everywhere ........ this it is bound to irritate and to be a bit of a shock.

Even when I was annoyed at certain changes I thought the movie was good, even great, and it will be a classic series in years to come.

But really for me I was disappointed in the dialogue ...... I really think that a lot of the original lines in the books could have been used and would have improved things a lot. I'm mean if they wanted something snappy at the end they could have just had Aragorn saying " forth the three hunters" instead of the lame hollywood line 'lets hunt some orc".

I agree with Bryheinnen that the casting was excellent.
 
Aragil,

What you say makes perfect sense ! Some of the characters like Arwen have been filled out for later appearances which otherwise might appear an afterthought. Boromir also was given more background motivationin the film than in the book maybe.
I also enjoyed the little touches like the stone trolls.
 
One theme that seems to keep recurring throughout this discussion and elsewhere on this board is the idea that If the movie was truer to the book that it would be "better".

But that's simply not so. It might be a better adaption, but I do not believe that, for example, having the balrog be 14 feet tall exactly would make the movie better than it is.

Whether Frodo accepts his role of ring-bearer at the Ford (book) or in a moment of illumination during a heated debate in the council is of no difference to the storyline.

I would have liked to hear "Come back, come back, to Mordor we will take you" as I felt this line really worked well in the animated movie. However, I must admit that it would not have made the movie better.

Although it may not be the closest adaption of Tolkien's work possible, I am really sorry to see people not appreciating what is essentially the best fantasy movie ever made.
 

Today's events

Latest posts

Similar threads

Back
Top