What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

"yet it is so obvious Tolkien would have only resented one so racist speaking for him."

Let us not mix JRR Tolkein up with Jesus Christ. I am not a racist but Tolkein, to a certain extent probably was. The man was born in 19th century South Africa, possibly the most racially racist country in the world today, back then it would have been ten times worse. The only black characters on his book are evil. Just because his books are wonderful it does not mean we have to deiify Tolkein the man.

"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. "

I didnt say this is what you are. I said that PJ included this in his film to appeal to such people. In addition the grammar is so bad in this passage I find it difficult to read.

You "relate to" not "relate as"
It is also inadvisable to start a sentence with "But"

Aragil you say:"Tolkien was a big enough person that he would not resent an 'American interpretation' of his works." I think you will find Tolkein would resent any interpretation of HIS work that changed the dialogue. Lets remeber he was a professor of philology, the use of language would be the most important thing. He would not appreciate it being Americanised, Frenchised, Irishised.

You take criticisms of the insult to Tolkien, which is the film, too personally. If I say that PJ should not have Americanised the dialogue in the film this is not a slur on the American people but a criticism of Peter Jackson.

in response to:

'ignorant, illiterate, red-neck American teenagers and include a line which they can etch onto their skateboards'



This does not make sense - how can someone who is ignorant and illiterate "ETCH" something on a skateboard? if they can't read, surely they can't write either? inquiring minds want to know....

Gee, just how many Black Characters are there in the Canterurry Tales, the Arthurian Mythos, the Kavelala, The Norse Myths, the Anglo-Saxon tales of Heroic Mythology and such. I guess that when one is born in South Africa and moves to England at the age of four one may have been effected by the social atmosphere of one's birth, but I doubt that at four years of age J.R.R. had formulated an opinion about Racial Matters.

No, I think that you will find that in Middle-earth, as with any other Mythology about pre-historic Euorpe, contains tales about only the types of peoples that existed in that region, or minor variations thereof. Were I to go to South Africa and have related to me the mythology of the origins of the world and the adventures of it's inhabitants as they have been passed down, then inquired as to the color of the skin of the individuals that the stories were about, I would be told that they were all black. This would not make these people racist any more then Inuit stories lacking Caucasion characters.

Truth to be told though, Tolkien never says that Numenoreans are all Caucasion. I for one would have no problem with seeing Black Numenoreans as they were acomplished sailors and would have traveled the globe widely...

You are right none of those tales do have black characters, but the Lord of the Rings does, and they are bad. That was Tolkien's choice, to introduce them and to make them, to the very last man, the enemy

What does Grond hate about the movie? Grond hates that the movie has turned a wonderful forum, where ideas are batted around about the most prolific book of my time, and turned it into a bunch of children agruing and fighting. I'm tired of the argumentative diatribe. All of you, GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR BUTTS AND GET ALONG!

This forum is for friendly discourse and discussion about The Lord of the Rings. This section of the forum is about the movie. This thread is about What changes ticked us off the most. People on both sides of the movie issue should be ashamed for their behavior.

I am most angered by a select few who have attacked other posters on both sides of the issue because of their view. Tell me about your view! Tell me why you think my view is incorrect, but whatever you do, don't tell me that I'm an idiot or moron for having my view. That is not what this forum is about. Everyone should step back and take a deep breath.

For you newbies spoiling for a fight, you will get if from me. I am not a moderator, but have been a respected member of this board for a while and a student of JRRT for 30 years. If current patterns of abuse and violations of rules continue, I will make it my mission to see that offendors are punished. Take that as you will.

ok ok, coming from northern ireland i understand the problems caused by pride. I apologise for any offence caused by my use of the adjective American. I appreciate how it was misunderstood in these sensitive times. I only wanted to make the pont that jacko has dumbed down the syntax to appeal to the masses.

Apologies,
mickyplums

I appreciate the apology. That was a much better post.

What does ReadWryt hate about the Forum? ReadWryt hates that folks can't just ignore the posts and threads and forums that they know will annoy them and go have fun elsewhere in the board.

C`mon kids, I HAVE to come and read these things and you don't. If you don't like something someone said and it annoys to THAT much, then put them on your ignore list...don't make US ALL suffer along with you while you complain, not about the movie....not about the misconceptions about Tolkien's work, but instead about something someone said in a thread...*Shrug*

I've started a seperate thread on the issue of whether LotR is racist. This is something I've thought about quite a lot. There is a case to answer I think, but I don't think its the obvious one about goodies being white and baddies being black. The URL is below...

Is Lord of the Rings racist?

Originally posted by mickyplums
ok ok, coming from northern ireland i understand the problems caused by pride. I apologise for any offence caused by my use of the adjective American. I appreciate how it was misunderstood in these sensitive times. I only wanted to make the pont that jacko has dumbed down the syntax to appeal to the masses.

Apologies,
mickyplums

Click to expand...

I'm confused about your response. A leading member of the forum and recently elected moderator, Anclagon the Black is also from Northern Ireland. He happens to be a close friend of mine and doesn't reflect, at least to me, the idea that Americans are somehow different from the rest of the world. As for you, mickeyplums, I agree with your statement that PJ made a movie for the greater masses but don't necessarily agree that those masses need to be lumped as All-American. There is already a world wide mass of over 90 million fans who would and have gone to the movie... no matter whether it reflected the book or not.

Concerning you comments about Americans, I would guess that by and large the greatest number of Tolkien readers worldwide are Americans. And most American readers, of whom I've spoken to hundreds, would rather have seen a faithful representation of the book. I suppose you must mean the masses who haven't read the book, yet I think a faithful adaptation would have been just as well received. I do appreciate your apology and hope you'll continue to meaningfully contribute to the forum; but, please remember, this is a forum about the works of J. R. R. Tolkien and not one for political debate. There are many of those available on the net.

clarification

i shall clarify Grond:

My point about Northen Ireland was simply that most of the problems caused in Northern Ireland are caused by pride and the refusal to accept that something you have done, even if it is something you still stand by, has offended others. This is why I apologised.

My statement about "American teenagers" was, I will admit, overly stereotypical. Remove the word "American" from my post and my point still stands.

Grond of course I know American Tolkien fans would appreciate a true representation and I am sure they would be as incensed as I at the changes in the dialogue. I never stated otherwise. I said it was Jackson who had decided to change the lines, dumbing some down and replacing others with colloquial American idioms.

To those who accused me of racism:
a) the American people are not a race
b) I did not state or imply that every American teenager was a skate-board riding, action film fan, I said the movie had ben changed to have some appeal to those people of which there are a lot in America, and indeed in Northern Ireland, but a lot more of them are in America.

Re: clarification

Originally posted by mickyplums

My statement about "American teenagers" was, I will admit, overly stereotypical. Remove the word "American" from my post and my point still stands.

Click to expand...

Oh that's gonna go over well!

(Just having fun. I'm NOT getting involved in any conflicts about this overrated and rather unimportant movie that's getting way too much attention.)

Isn't there a perfectly nice E-Mail system capable of handling discussions about Nationality and the act of accusing American Teenagers of being all of a certain mind and mentality?

What I hated most about the movie

Good God, where to start. Arwen warrier elf, for one. Galadriel and Elrond being nasty and intimidating, instead of wise and sad, for another. We don't even see that Galadriel holds one of the Three and we aren't shown her gifts to the Fellowship - all of which are vitally important to the survival of all the Fellowship in the other two books. Gees, the Golden Wood isn't even golden!!!
And what's with Saruman being the one making Caradras attack the Fellowship! How cheesy could PJ get?

I'm not sure that every item that Galadriel handed out was vitally important to the fellowship. When I think about it, her gift to Frodo was definitely a life-saver, and it was shown in the movie. Sam's gift of soil and Mallorn seed are interesting, but don't save any lives. Gimli's gift is definitely important to the story as it shows him developing a friendship with the elves, but it is hardly necessary to his survival. Boromir, Merry, and Pippin received Belts. Unfortunately Boromir's couldn't save him, and I don't recall Pippin and Merry getting that much service out of theirs either. Legolas got a bow upgrade. This certainly allowed him to shoot farther, but the difference in range of bows between the Elves of Mirkwood and those of Lorien is never addressed in the movie, so in the context of the movie it was not that big of a deal. Aragorn got a scabbard- nice, ornate, but just not a life saver. The golden wood was not golden because the fellowship arrived in winter, not fall. Blame Tolkien for that one. Perhaps Saruman brought down the mountain because it would be hard to visually show a flaming eye controlling storms on a mountain. Since Saruman was taking orders from Sauron via the Palantir, he could just be carrying out Sauron's wishes.

The point of my post is that you can certainly criticize the film with valid complaints, but these particular complaints are not that valid.

I am beginning to think aragil worked on the film, for however someone finds fault with it he (she) is there to defend it.

Aragil, what changes in the film annoyed you?

There had to have been something.

To mickeyplums. I am an american. no offense taken at the teenager remark. although some of the other stuff was pushing it.

Some of the things that I didn't like about the film are listed on page 30 of this thread. There are certainly others, most notably the insinuation that Aragorn chose exile from Gondor. But my arguments in defense of the film are mainly due to the fact that a lot of people on these boards say that the film was bad because it was not in the spirit of Tolkien, and that most of the characters were mangled from what Tolkien had intended. I think that the film was very much in the spirit of Tolkien, and I feel that my appreciation of the Lord of the Rings has been increased by my having watched the film, which is saying something. The more I debate this topic, the more possibilities I see for themes in the movie having come directly out of the books. I don't mind people saying they didn't like some of the stuff in the movie, just please don't say that the movie is not in the spirit of Tolkien when so many arguments can be made to the contrary (see any post by Greenwood or Mandella).

My complaint and a note re: Galadriel's Gifts

On the whole, I think the movie is a nice *adaptation*. There were jarring moments, annoying changes, and amusing omissions, but I enjoyed the movie as a work "inspired by" LOTR. (In constast, seeing the Harry Potter movie was like watching a "checklist" of important scenes and plot developments from the novel.)

If I had to pick one gripe, I (like lgtaylor) really did not like the manner in which Elrond was portrayed. The Council scene was a travesty, and Elrond just seemed off: creepy and not respected. I can't help but worry that the director is trying to make Elrond (of the present, not of the Isildur era) as icky as possible so the audience discounts his disapproval of Arwen and Aragorn.

As for Galadriel's gifts, the cloaks were lifesavers on many occasions, as were the lembas cakes for Pippin and Merry. I can accept that the gifting scene had to go for the story to work in the format of a movie, but I disagree that the missing gifts were eliminated because they weren't lifesaving!

Aragil wrote:

<<I'm not sure that every item that Galadriel handed out was vitally important to the fellowship. When I think about it, her gift to Frodo was definitely a life-saver, and it was shown in the movie. Sam's gift of soil and Mallorn seed are interesting, but don't save any lives. Aragorn got a scabbard- nice, ornate, but just not a life saver.
[...] The point of my post is that you can certainly criticize the film with valid complaints, but these particular complaints are not that valid.>>

The fellowship did receive their cloaks in the movies- look very closely at what they are wearing after they leave Lothlorien. The scene where they received them must have been edited out (or maybe it will be remembered in a flashback).

Aragil, you are hereby dubbed "The Great Defender of Peter Jackson and his adaptation of The Lord of the Rings".

Of course, how could Galadriel give Aragorn a sheath for Anduril when he ain't yet got the friggin sword. I'm sure Sam will flash back when he uses the elf-ropes at a critical time and explain how he got them and their import. I'm sure that the lembas will appear with a logical explanation as to how they were gotten and what they do. When Pippin ditches his elf brooch to let Aragorn know they still live, I'm sure there will be a flashback as to how and why they received both the cloaks and the brooches.

Gosh Aragil, wouldn't it have just been easier to devote three minutes to Galadriel giving these things to the party. It would have added to the power of her character and added to her importance in aiding the fellowship. Never was a role raped worse than was Galadriel. She is supposed to be "The Queen of the Elves" in a figurative sense, and yet all we get is a demented witch queen who "passes the test".

At least that's the way Grond sees it, but Grond could be wrong.