• 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?

You might say it again Readwryt but you fail to see the reason. In a book you can describe the background to event and give it terms of a narrative ..... To narrate background info in a film gets boring .... even the opening sequence to this movie is a difficult thing to do but has to be done in that way.
Some of the additions give a background that wouldn't otherwise be possible to show in the medium of film.
I seem to be coming out in favour of the film although I was feeling critical at the time ...... but some of you guys are just too blinkered.

And about attacking people who love the books ..... it bit tough to accuse Markrob of that Radagast ..... all here loved the books or they wouldn't be here !!
But several so called book fans have used some pretty strong terms regarding PJ ........ "raped the LOTR" etc.

I think some people here need to get out more ....... hey there's a good film on at the moment by the way ........
 
I was thinking that maybe some narrarating would have helped the film. It seems to me that it might have helped Lothlorien a great deal since Lorien's true essence was not well represented in the film.
 
First off, I have already posted to this thread and one may read my likes and dislikes there.

Secondly, apparently a lot of you have not read the book in a long, long time. Many are saying that the intrusion of Arwen simply replaces Glorfindel. Nothing could be further from the truth. Glorfindel does not carry Frodo to the Ford on Asfaloth. He loans him his horse. As a matter of fact, Glorfindel does three things for the company. 1) Eases Frodo's pain by using some of his elvish healing art, 2) loans Frodo his horse Asfaloth and 3) startles the steeds of 6 Ringwraiths so that they panic and jump into the ford. He doesn't rescue Frodo as Arwen does in the movie. It is Frodo himself who defies the Nazgul and it is one of his most prolific moments in all the books. IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHANGED!

Lastly, I have noticed that we have many new forum members who are making arguments for the movie and your opinions are valid and expected. We desire intelligent debate and constructive conversation. That is what this forum is about. What disturbs me is the blatant attacks being perpetrated by a few who attack particularly purist opinions in a very mean spirited way. Especially people who say we purists bring these blatant attacks on ourselves. I have three words for all of you, and especially to markrob and Foe-hammer. QUIT BEING PRICKS!!

You can make your points without portraying yourselves as something you are not. Because it is apparent you are not people who loved the books. I am one who loved the movie but will never equate it to the books. There were entirely too many things changed and distorted. The difference was that I went to the theatre prepared for the changes and did not expect to see anything like "The Lord of the Rings". Had I expected to see my favorite work on the big screen, I would have been terribly disappointed. So, this purist looks forward to the next two movies, both of which I will see. I go in with the understanding that I must forget everything I've ever studied about tLotR and just enjoy the "flick", cause that is all it is, a very good "flick".
 
Well, Grond, I believe you're right. It is a good movie and we have to realize that it will never be as good as the books. This is because we all see things differently in our own minds when we read the books. I don't even think that I myself could do justice to the books on screen...no one could (well except Tolkien). However, some changes were not needed. I don't understand why PJ (or the writers?) changed some essential things in the movie. I would have liked to see Glorfindel but alas, he was replaced by Elven Warrior Oh well, I like the movie as a movie but nothing will ever live up to the books.
 
Couldnt have said it better myself


It is funny how we come off rude and never even get to use big words like "Prick"; nonetheless, We do love the books or else we would not be spending all of this time here. But your whole quote begining with "I am one who loved the movie .......... is exactly what we have been trying to say the whole time. Thank you for conveying the message for me and others. Yes you are a purist but you can apparantly seperate fantasy from reality. Look at our (my) previous post if you feel I am in error. I do believe you did see something akin to LOTR (surely you are smarter than that). My only regret is that I most likely will not be able to accompany you to the opening night of the Two Towers.
 
I did not like how the forest of Lorien was not all golden and stuff. Wasn't it supposed to be known as the golden forest? And i thought Elrond was creepy looking. Also they should have had more elf music. Did they have any? i can't remember.
 
i just want to know th eaddress of the man who casted elrond as the dude off the matrix, so i can go hit him
 
I think Mr. Weaving was quite splendid as Elrond. He was very cool in the beginning, in the War of the Last Alliance, and in Rivendell although he was a bit 'ah-who-cares', he was enthusiastic enough. And his expression when Merry and Pippin lunge into the centre of the Council (which is held outside? hah) is quite humorous.
"This is the Fellowship of the Ring!"
"Great! So, where are we going?" LOL
 
I agree, Pontifex. It was always my understanding of the elves that men perceived them as rather cold and aloof-ish. If Hugo decided to play this angle up, then I think it was perfectly defendable from the books.
And the more I think about it, the more I love Pippin and Merry. Two cheeky hobbits, willing to follow Frodo to the ends of the earth, even though they don't necessarily appreciate all that this may imply. And who could have read the Lord of the Rings and never laughed at some of the things that Pippin said?
Fully agreed then.
 
I agree with grond about enjoying the film in its own right which I did, HOWEVER its the misrepresentation of characters that upset us. Aragorn is portrayed as turning his back on his heratage when he goes wandering in the wild. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is serving a right and proper apprenticeship out there. preparing for the ordeal of his life to rescue his people and save the free world as he has been destined to do. I also think that although every detail and word of the book cannot be faithfully reproduced, the basic ethics could easily have been and were not
 
merry and pippin

When Pippin made his "Great, so where are we going" reply to Elrond's grand gesture, some ignoramuses in the cinema began to titter and indeed some laughed loudly. At this point I exclaimed quite loudly: "shut the f*** up you stupid f***ers" by the laughing at PJ's pathetic attempt at Hollywood-style humour to which I certainly do not subscribe ( nor do I expect Tolkein would) they are in effect mocking Tolkein.

I despair that you purport to be a Tolkein fan Mark Rob, PJ did indeed rape the Lord of the Rings. He took its name and its reputatation and said to the slavering consumer driven masses: "Here, this is the Lord of the Rings, this is the great classic which Tolkein wrote". But he lied. He has changed so much of the book, the storyline, the characters it no longer is the Lord of the Rings it is now a elements of Harry Potter, Dungeons and Dragons, Starwars and various horror films clumsily hacked into the storyline from the Lord of the Rings.

"Lets hunt some orc" instead of the real lines. I'll tell you the thinking process in PJ's mind. It was not, as some have conjectured, that the real lines simply didn't work on screen.PJ simply decided to appeal to ignorant, illiterate, red-neck American teenagers and include a line which they can etch onto their skateboards.
 
 
Mickyplums

I am very offended by your comment about Americans. If you don't like us, find another forum where you can spout anti-American sentiment. If you do it again here it is my hope that your membership is removed. This forum is for Tolkien appreciation, not American-bashing- learn to separate the two!
 
Re: merry and pippin


I do hope you NPW's continue to have post like this. It only serves to prove FAD's point that we can seperate fantasy from reality and books from movies. Dont let this one get away.
 
aragil your reply is immature and lacks insight.

Tolkein lived virtually his whole life in England he wrote the history of Middle-Earth as a history of Britain and Northern Europe.

Hollywood is in America isn't it? The American box office is the biggest by far isn't it? "Let's hunt some orc!" sounds like a line out of an American action film, in my opinion anyway. Had Tolkein, in a last minute revision to LOTR decided to replace the real lines decided to use Peter Jackson's line would no doubt have changed the word "orc" to "orcs". However since Tolkein had a true appreciation of the English language, he would, of course, never opted for such a pathetic line as this.

Before you, in your hysteria, attempt to elevate me to enemy of the American people you should realise that if I resent the American influence on the film(albeit directed by a New Zealander) it is because Tolkien himself would have resented it.

Do not try to discredit my points by falsely portaying me as a xenophobe in an attempt to gain crowd support.
 
I agree with markrob on this one!

mickyplums should be rejoicing that someone like Spielberg didn't get his mitts on LOTR ; forget the word 'rape', that would have been American-history-X-style! And if you can't picture that, go read Jurassic Park and then watch the film of it - you will cry...
 
mickyplums

Say what you want about me, sticks and stones. You can discredit the movie all you want- this is a forum about the movie, the point being that people who liked the movie will say that they liked it, people who didn't like the movie will say why the didn't. But do not relate us as
'ignorant, illiterate, red-neck American teenagers and include a line which they can etch onto their skateboards'
This isn't needed for your argument about what has been done in the adaptation. Say that you think that PJ compromised the story to sell tickets. If you bring my nationality into it, and you make such gross stereotypes about it, then you are a racist, whether or not you admit it.

Incidentally, in my copy of the Lord of the Rings Tolkien dedicates the edition to his 'Friends across the water.' I think that Tolkien was a big enough person that he would not resent an 'American interpretation' of his works. He certainly wouldn't have insulted us.
 
mickyplums, your statement is immature and lacks insight.

PJ simply decided to appeal to ignorant, illiterate, red-neck American teenagers and include a line which they can etch onto their skateboards.
Yeah, this is defiantly discriminatory and racist. Pretty much no argument there. What is sad is that mickyplums feels the use of such means is the only way he can further his cause. He even goes on to defend himself, as though he is justified in his racism...

So sad.

Actually, I think a quote from mickyplums sums it up nicely: "Tolkien himself would have resented" what mickyplums said.

It is interesting how mickyplums purports to speak the truth of what Tolkien would think of the film, as though he had the deep insight into what Tolkien would want, yet it is so obvious Tolkien would have only resented one so racist speaking for him.
 
What change bugs me the most?

Hmm...

Aha!

The absence of the Gimli and Galadriel scene. I would have dearly loved to see it's conclusion in the wedding, ie. Gimli's challenge to Eomer. Oh well, not too bad a nit in an otherwise glorious movie adaptation.
 
I think the change that bugged me most at the time was the lack of an intermission after the Flight to the Ford. One large pepsi and I was bursting...

Actually I really liked the film, and so did two non-afficionados I went with. The film has to be judged firstly in its own right as a film. I think the pacing of it was wrong, precisely because PJ was trying to get as much in as possible, and maybe the main criticism I have is that everything is too hectic and themes are not developed well enough.

As an adaptation, for sure you can take your pick for things to do differently. One that I haven't seen referred to although I haven't scanned all 32 pages to check was this: I didn't like that Gandalf didn't want to go via Moria, but everyone else was up for it. In the books the dynamic is that Frodo follows Gandalf's advice despite the misgivings of the rest of the fellowship (bar Gimli). Worse still was him saying that Frodo should choose. Frodo, like Bilbo before him, feels terribly out of his depth and needs Gandalf's support. I don't think it works to reverse the roles here. This underplays the sense of loss when Gandalf falls from the Bridge of Khazad-dum, and also understates the vulnerability of Frodo.
 
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…