What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

Originally posted by Talierin
For me, it's not Arwen, it's Lurtz, and the orcs hatching out of pods. That just bugs the heck out of me. You would think, since the orcs were made in mockery of the elves, they would reproduce as elves do. What is with the pods and cocoons!!! Does PJ think they're ants or some sort of bug??? And this Lurtz dude, what is with adding him in? I'm not sure if he is actually purple/blue, but in a couple pics I have seen he is purple/blue. What is up with that? He kind of reminds me of......Barney the purple dinosaur *shudders* in a way.

So, what change is really ticking you off?

Click to expand...

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thought the pod creatures sucked! Why on earth did Lurtz look like Braveheart gone bad?!? We did not need to seem him hatching or whatever happened there. They could have cut all of that out and had more Lothlorien but NOOOOOOO!

I found it horrible that the whole part with Tom Bomadil was Missing. On the one hand I'm sad about this, on the other hand I'm happy because who knows who would have played Tom in the film. Because of this my picture of him hasn't changed.

We needed to know the Uruk Hai were different from normal orcs, simply telling us would have been lame...

Kidfury,

Your criticisms are fair to us purists. But, you are doing the same thing that you accuse us of saying. Since PJ didn't stick more to the book we can't say which would be better. Unless he shot the same scene twice, once traditionally and once a la Hollywood and gave it to us to compare you can't say the traditional one wouldn't have made the movie worse.

What the purists are stating is the obvious, that we prefer Tolkien's words and descriptions of characters better than Peter Jacksons. Just remember Sam hitting the orcs with pots and saying "I'm getting the hang of this", and "Let's go hunt some orc" and leaving out the fact that they never bother wondering where Sam is. Or the fact that he distorted Merry and Pippin (Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure versions) so badly that everyone I know who saw the movie wished they both fell in the well in Moria.

Boromir's death was just like he lost his battle, not at all that courageous dramatic feat which it was via the book and which the Bakshi version pulled off greatly.

Did anyone notice that they didn't leave Rivendell with Bill the pony. They didn't have him crossing the snowy mountains, but he miraculously gets a cameo appearance at the gates of Moria, for no reason and is never seen to be threatened by the monster at the gate?

I didn't think that Sam hitting orcs with his pans was a huge departure from the books. This just reminded me that Sam carries all those pots around all the time. Remember how hard it is for him to let them go in Mordor? And Sam *is* just getting the 'hang of' it in Moria. This is where he fells his first Orc, as is pointed out in the book. I don't know why you think that the characters aren't wondering where Sam is in the movie. They probably were, they just didn't see an opportune moment in the heat of battle to stop and remark on the fact.

There are many here who count themselves as either Purists or Movie Appreciators who feel that the death of Boromir was one of the most touching and true to the book scenes in the movie. This doesn't make it true, as how you feel on the subject is a matter of opinion.

As for Merry and Pippin, I really liked their portrayals, as I've stated here:
http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1327&perpage=15&pagenumber=2
Again, I guess it's just a matter of opinion.

And finally, Bill *was* in the movie prior to the gates of Moria. He was shown with Sam as each member of the fellowship crested that hill in sequence, leading to Mike B's infamous Bill as a horse debate. He is also shown when they're panning over the lower shoulder of Caradhras, just before Frodo falls. And why does he need to be threatened by the tentacles? In the book he clearly avoids them well enough to make it back to Bree, and hopefully we'll see the onscreen version in another cameo in The Return of the King.

Originally posted by KidFury
We needed to know the Uruk Hai were different from normal orcs, simply telling us would have been lame...

Click to expand...

I dont know....I think that just from the looks of him we knew he was different...lol Also, didn't someone (I've forgotton who) say something like "Saruman is breeding a race of goblin men at Isengard" ? So, I think they did basically tell us that they were different from normal orcs. I just thought that the pod creature bit was lame...

Years without the light has made them blind

Originally posted by Radagast


Did anyone notice that they didn't leave Rivendell with Bill the pony. They didn't have him crossing the snowy mountains, but he miraculously gets a cameo appearance at the gates of Moria, for no reason and is never seen to be threatened by the monster at the gate? [/B]

Click to expand...

A prime example of a purist trying to follow along in the book during the movie that they can not even see what the hell is going on, LOL. Put down the precioussssss, open your eyes, watch the movie without blinders and parameters and you might actually enjoy yourself. Just a thought.

Do they let you take books and things into the movies these days??

Markrob, please, don't you have anything better to do than sit there and harass us all day? Please, that's just sad.

You bring it on yourself my friend.

I'm in the "purist" camp, but....

I wasn't as disappointed as many because my expectations were low to start with. First of all, no matter what
Jackson had done, there would be some who would have had a hissy fit about something.
I just think that the whole thing was mission impossible from the word go. This is a decent enough adventure movie in its own right, but how in heaven's name could you hope to get the essence of LOTR on screen? The soul of this book lies in it's innumerable details, it's poetry---yes, especially the poetry and song---and language, its ambiance, none of which is easily portrayed on screen. This movie's misfortune is that it purports to be a distillation of the greatest fantasy epic ever written.
Jackson probably did the best that could be done with it and still make a movie that will sell tickets. I would challenge anyone on this board, given all the fortune of Bill Gates to devote to it, to do much if any better. If you followed the book rote, you would still not have it's essence, and not only would no-one want to see it, the person who produced it would probably go insane from frustration trying to portray on screen just what makes LOTR so special, so magical, so beautiful, so compelling, what kindles so much helpless love for it on the parts of those who read it.
The good news is that these films will probably introduce a new generation to this incredibly wonderful and beautiful book. The thoughtful ones will buy LOTR, read it (and reread it, and reread it) and will become as hooked as the most passionate Tolkien fanatic on this board.

My God I thought it was impossible!

Bryheinnen:

I wouldnt have believed it if I wouldnt have read it myself. You are a purist but not only that you are a realist purist. I knew somewhere, someday, somehow I would find one. Bless you for you have seen the light. That is the first sense that has been made since I have been on here. Thank you for your brilliant insight, and I sincerely mean that.

Bill the pony

I saw bill the pony several times before the gates of moria. I even seen him get buried iin the snow.....

Maybe your gandalf hat was in your eyes?

Re: Bill the pony

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
I saw bill the pony several times before the gates of moria. I even seen him get buried iin the snow.....

Maybe your gandalf hat was in your eyes?

Click to expand...

Foe, you are killing me. A man's laugher can only take so much!!

Re: Years without the light has made them blind

Originally posted by markrob


A prime example of a purist trying to follow along in the book during the movie that they can not even see what the hell is going on, LOL. Put down the precioussssss, open your eyes, watch the movie without blinders and parameters and you might actually enjoy yourself. Just a thought.

Do they let you take books and things into the movies these days??

Click to expand...

ACTUALLY.....I did take my precioussss book into the movies with me (not joking)

Is PJ really a moneygrubbing exploiter of the great JRRT?

If a quick return on cash was all he was after, he could have used a really bankable cast. Lets see....

THE LORD OF THE RINGS EPISODE 1
by New Line Films
featuring

Robin Williams as Gandalf

Bruce Willis as Frodo

Sam - Brad Pitt

Aragorn - Arnold Schwarzenegger

Boromir - Jean Claude Van Damme

Sauron - Alan Rickman

Elrond - Anthony Hopkins

Gimli - Danny de Vito

Legolas - Hugh Grant

Galadriel - Pamela Andersen

Arwen - Nicole Kidman

Markrob,

It 's amazing that so many are so eager to argue with people they don't know on a message board. That's okay I have thick skin.
In all fairness, to answer your question, I think it will bring more readers so we will all win.

As for the Bill scenes, I believe I did phrase it in a question. I may have missed it. I have no problem admiting it if that's the case. But do you guys really have no problem with Sam in the midst of battle fearing for his life saying comically "I'm getting the hang of this" or Boromir's quip about "they have a cave troll" practically said as if he's rolling his eyes like a Han Solo.

There were good parts to the movie, as I have stated before, mostly scenery. I would also go as far to say that everything was great up until Rivendell. But all this crap about how PJ couldn't have pulled it together no matter what because it 's an impossible task I think is wrong. He had everything going for him, but then he turned aside from what Tolkien wrote for the characters to say. The Bakshi version did a good job at it, so it's not like it couldn't be done.

Maybe he was scared of being accused of copying that film, or not doing anything creative aside from following the book. You'll have to ask him. But what would you all have from fans of the book. Do you want us to want something so different. Somethings have to be cut, but to make up your own new sub-plots that didn't exist, that's asking a lot for book fans to accept. There are people who respect what Tolkien created for all of us. It's just sad to see that Tolkien's wishes that his characters not be changed were really ignored here.

So go ahead and attack the people who loved the books, that were really disappointed with much of the movie. We may not all be able to express it eloquently all the time, which I'm sure I do not, but that's what we feel about it. So it will bring new readers, that is the silver lining. But PJ didn't have to depart from it the way he did.

I can only agree with Radagast on this one. Hope the message is understood, doubt it, from what I have seen/read.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. When one spends as much time justifying the omitions from the story as being necessary due to the constraints of cinematic reality, then you make a 3 hour movie anyways, one can hardly expect NOT to get blasted for inventing 20-30 minutes of footage that has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING in the books.

Simplification is often best done by reduction not addition, and the only people who believe that they are capable of adding something that improves are those who believe that they are as good, if not better, then the one who created the original source. That being said, if Jackson really believes that he is as good a story teller as Tolkien, why not simply write his own original story that could be filled with the inventions of his imagination instead of wedging them between the bones of the story that he borrowed the name of?

Have we missed the point?

I've read with interest all of your posts. Thanks for the opinions. Thought I'd add mine too.

Firstly, I thought it was a good film. I saw it with friends who enjoyed the film (all the guys had read LOTR, the girls hadn't) so that may have influenced my impressions.

Most of your observations were things that I noticed too and my opinion on a few of these:
1) Arwen - more strength, courage than explored in the book - but probably justified in the absence of Glorfindel's character. Elven beauty was portrayed well.
2) Elrond - xenophobia was a bit disturbing (seemed to detest humans), thought Sam Neill would probably have been better casting choice than Hugo Weaving.
3) Gandalf - tricky character to portray onscreen but thought was carried off well by Ian McKellen, majesty was not as clearly brought across but his warmth and personality was more clear than Tolkien's original (gasp - sacrilege!)
4) Frodo - looked frightened most of the time, as he should
5) Samwise - hopefully his character will be developed more in subsequent movies
6) Merry and Pippin - foolish enough but not scared enough, impression from Tolkien's work is that they fight more out of desperation than courage
7) Saruman - hope his desire for power is more clearly developed in subsequent episodes, I preferred Tolkien's plot where Saruman's forces add an extra complexity to the global conflict, a 3-way war between Saruman, Mordor and the allies with the twist that Saruman did not realise he was serving Mordor's ends
8) Sauron - very nice opening sequence depicting the dark lord and good concise presentation of the immediate history surrounding the events of the FOTR for the girls who hadn't read any LOTR
9) Nazgul - initially looked menacing but were surprisingly easy to kill, even the hobbits seemed to eat them for breakfast

I've noticed many of you in the "purists'" camp, mainly have three main gripes - the character changes, the plot changes and a couple of dumbly scripted lines.
I agree that some things could have been better portrayed or written, but I don't believe that deviation from Tolkien's work means something necessarily worse.
Some of the characterisations I've already commented on. The plot deviations of Saruman's role in the conflict I've also mentioned.
The problem is probably one of a lack of depth in the movie - some of the characters haven't been apportioned the time onscreen necessary to develop their personality or their relationship with each other. This would have made the film more solid.

As I understand, Tolkien's experience of war in the attritive trenches of France with its mud, blood and plunder of human life (even his friends'), were an influence on his writings of conflict. I thought the film did well in bringing across a sense of danger (didn't you only feel relief in the realms of the elves? ... and I'm not just referring to those of you who took the opportunity to go to the dunny during those scenes.) Jackson also did well in terms of the pace of the action scenes (I really liked the battle scenes in the opening sequences.)

The "dumbing down" of some of the lines was quite far removed from the lofty language of Tolkien's pen. While it occasionally grated, it was not an entirely bad thing. Tolkien loved ancient European legend and that comes through clearly in his writing but a mainstream cinematic portrayal of LOTR must be an entirely different animal unless you're doing arthouse LOTR. Maybe that's what some of you were expecting.

Ultimately, what good is entertainment unless it entertains? And moreover, what a joy when it does not just amuse but inspire? I thought Jackson did that. Perhaps the movie was anathema to some but for many, it can still thrill and inspire... wasn't that JRR Tolkien's desire?

Originally posted by Radagast
Kidfury,

Your criticisms are fair to us purists. But, you are doing the same thing that you accuse us of saying. Since PJ didn't stick more to the book we can't say which would be better. Unless he shot the same scene twice, once traditionally and once a la Hollywood and gave it to us to compare you can't say the traditional one wouldn't have made the movie worse.

Click to expand...

I will concede that. However, you must realise that producing a movie and writing a book are two different processes. Not only is the medium different (this horse has been beaten to death) but also in the fact that producing a movie is a team effort. PJ is the leader but everyone involved in the movie does his little bit to add to the vision the director has. It is to PJ's great credit that the movie does NOT turn into a star vehicle like so much of what hollywood typically offers.

It is highly possible that they tried to film "Forth the three hunters" as is and found that it seemed too stilted in live action. I for one was grinning isanely when Viggo spoke these lines which, if I recall correctly where preceded by something to the effect of "we will not abandon merry and pippin to death and torture.."