What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

back to the movie and how it irritates people...

Thorin and Harad- very nice debate.
As always, I thought I'd open my big yap in defense of the movie. I don't think that the movie is neccessarily presupposing where Saruman's allegiances lie. Remember, we have a fairly accurate idea of what Saruman's intentions were because we have thoroughly digested the whole of the narrative, from Saruman's first mention in the books right through his demise at bag end (I hope no newbies are reading this). I for one can not recall what my impressions are of Saruman after my first reading of the Fellowship, prior to reading the Two Towers. I think that the film has left itself plenty of wiggle room. A scenario I posted earlier: Saruman has been duped by the Palantir in a similar way to Denethor, and believes that there is no hope outside of allegiance to the dark lord. Gandalf brings him tidings of the exact location of the ring, and then Saruman begins to hatch a plot to get the ring himself, all the while not declaring himself to Mordor in order to avoid confrontation. What we don't know yet is how (or if) the movie plans to portray all the quibbling amongst Grishnak and Ugluk. This could be a very decisive point where we learn that Saruman is in it for himself.
As for whether Saruman could have been using the storm for his own purposes instead of furthering Sauron's- of course he could. The crebain have given him coordinates on where the fellowship is, and we can assume that since Gandalf is with them he expects the ring to be there as well. Saruman has not yet dispatched his orc commandos, and for whatever reason in the film he thinks that Gandalf is terrified of Moria- he says as much. Perhaps his plan was to deny Gandalf the crossing of the Misty Mountains, thereby bringing him down to the Gap of Rohan where he can more easily overcome them with his Uruk-hai, thusly claiming the ring for himself without allowing it to come one foot closer to Mordor.

I would suspect that the Balrog, being a creation of Morgoth, would have recognised Gandalf as being a supernatural being like himself, and so because of his wicked nature would have wanted to screw up his day anyways, no matter where his loyalties lie. *Shrug*

"As the power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to controll it."..."Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us."

If Jackson had spent more time relating the story which is contained in the book he borrowed the name from instead of inventing magical battle scenes, folks would not need to feel compelled to invent rationalizations for the confusion he caused by portraying Saruman as Sauron's lap dog.

What I don't get is that the conversation between Gandalf and Saruman clearly shows that Saruman has aspirations for the Ring himself. This conversation, and the revelation that he desires the Ring for himself, was the whole reason Gandalf went to Orthanc in the first place. Otherwise Tolkien would never have even mentioned it.

I suspect that when Saruman dies in the next film we will finally see why Jackson did it this way...

"Well the choices are, it seems, to submit to Sauron, or to yourself. I will take neither. Have you others to offer?" ...what in THAT line makes you think that Saruman had any intention of working for Sauron? I think that it is very clear that Jackson has made one of the 'major changes in the characters" he claimed he would not...

Embelishing on Harad's last point... (well, almost his last point, I'm late again)

I really think that people should cut movie Merry and Pippin some slack until we've at least seen the Two Towers, if not the Return of the King. I'd hate to say that they were useless, but in the books they really hadn't accomplished much by the end of fellowship of the ring. Pippin was responsible for the Fellowship's discovery in Moria, after all. Personally I liked Merry's selfless decision to draw the orcs away from Frodo once he understood Frodo's intent to leave the party- perfectly in-line with the noble Merry that Tolkien created, and rather more developed than he was after the first book. One of the great parts of Two Towers is the maturation of the duo- Pippin with all of his cleverness during their captivity with the Orcs, Merry keeping a level head once free and leading them into Fangorn, as well as his curteous treatment of Theoden upon entering Isengard (never mind Pippin almost blowing it with the Palantir). This all sets up the undeniably epic actions of the two in Return of the King: Merry wounding the Witch-King, Pippin wilfully marching to war with no hope of return and single-handedly felling a troll-chief (how will that play in the movie?). This is one of the great parts of The Lord of the Rings- these two rather innocent and naive hobbits getting swept up in epic events, and then maturing and becoming epic heroes themselves. By the end of The Fellowship of the Ring (both book and movie) all they have done is get swept up into larger events- it is in the following chapters that they come into their own.

I think in the book one of the subleties is that Saruman is building his own strength in imitation of Sauron, while telling Sauron that he is working for him. This is not apparent in the film, but I think this can come through. For example there is the Grishnakh - Ugluk exchanges, and the debate with Saruman after the defeat of his forces.

Same as Aragil, I'll wait and see.

ReadWryt- that quote was not ambiguous, but it is not the only quote:

''A new power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Numenor. This then is one choice before you, before us. we may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it."

PJ decided to work off of that quote, rather than the one ReadWryt stated above. If he sticks only with that quote the 3 films and never addresses Saruman's desire for the ring, then he will not have remained true to the books. If instead PJ has been playing that quote up in order to surprise newbies with a double-crossing Saruman in the next movie, then he will have remained true to the books. I'd say it could go either way right now.

Some more quotes to ponder:
Theoden: 'You hold out your hand to me, and I perceive only a finger of the claw of Mordor'
Gandalf: 'When last I visited you, you were the jailor of Mordor, and there I was to be sent.'
Gandalf: 'Your servants are destroyed and scattered; your neighbors you have made your enemies; and you have cheated your new master, or tried to do so. When his eye turns hither, it will be the red eye of wrath.'
Gandalf: 'Easy it is now to guess how quickly the roving eye of Saruman was trapped and held; and how ever since he has been persuaded from afar, and daunted when persuasion would not serve. The biter bit, the hawk under the eagle's foot, the spider in a steel web! How long, I wonder, has he been constrained to come often to his glass for inspection and instruction, and the Orthanc-stone so bent towards Barad-dur that, if any save a will of adament now looks into it, it will bear his mind and sight swiftly thither?'
Gandalf: "So whether he will or no, he (Saruman) will appear a rebel (to Mordor). Yet he rejected us, so as to avoid that very thing!'
Parentheticals were added to the above quote to give context.

Yeah, what Aragil said.

Aragil, all of your quotes are correct, just as ReadWryt's quote is correct. It is very clear from the text that Saruman meant to double cross Sauron. That doesn't mean he would not pretend allegience to the Dark Lord. And it doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a willing servant if Sauron prevailed.

It is also apparent from the conversation with the Mouth of Sauron, that Saruman was to rule the West of Middle-earth if Sauron was successful with Saruman's aid in overthrowing Minis Tirith and Rohan. But, since Saruman betrayed his Master, the Foul Mouth commented that someone more worthy than the traitor Saruman would rule, meaning that Foul Mouth would have been set up in Orthanc.

The movie played Saruman as a total ally to Sauron. No ifs ands or buts. I will concede that PJ may bring the betrayal aspect into TT of RotK but why would you do that? Why not just play it like it is in the book? I guess I just don't understand movie making.

Thorin

Originally posted by Thorin


To make Gimli's superstitous comment about Caradhras being caused by Sauron to match Gandalf's comment about Sauron's arm growing long is stretching it. To make Gimli's comment to match Gandalf's comment to include Saruman is REALLY stretching it and seems to me to be an effort to make Tolkien match the movie's interpretation which seems to me to be the way a lot of you are going. Many of you are re-interpreting Tolkien's scenes to match what you've seen on the screen. As a Tolkien fan, that is nothing short of travesty.

I, in no way am insulting anyone's opinion by saying, "limited reasoning" but the method and way they go about it. You have to admit that there is a lot of bull headed comments with no basis in Tolkien fact that are belligerent towards Tolkien-based comments. That is reasoning that is not only limited, but pig-headed and ignorant and sometimes downright rude. Have an opinion, but be reasonable as well.

Click to expand...

Thorin - I have not re-interpreted anything. I simply said that the fellowship speculate as to what is causing them to turn back up on Caradhras. Indeed in the book I thought it was the mountain and was suprised when it was directly linked to Saruman. You have chosen to believe I am justifying the scene in the film...... I'm not ...... I just don't mind it.

And with regards to you second comments ..... now you are implying that people that don't agree with you have not only liimited reasoning but are now ignorant, pig-headed and rude... it is you who are being unreasonable. Oh yeah and nicely done by the way ....get in a few more insults under the guise of asking me to be reasonable. Your debate with Harad was better put. Don't wreck your normally clear and reasonable arguements with insults, it is unnecessary and doesn't help you make your point.

Variag of Khand

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
I think in the book one of the subleties is that Saruman is building his own strength in imitation of Sauron, while telling Sauron that he is working for him. This is not apparent in the film, but I think this can come through. For example there is the Grishnakh - Ugluk exchanges, and the debate with Saruman after the defeat of his forces.

Same as Aragil, I'll wait and see.

Click to expand...

Interestingly I got the opposite impression.... I thought the Saruman's build up of his forces came across much stronger in the movie than the book with all those shots of the underground workshops and orcs and destuction of the trees ( which will lead nicely into the last march of the Ents ). I felt in the books that Saruman suddenly has all those forces and they never really seem to originate in Isenguard. Well of course a lot were hidden underground as we are told in the book.......but even so.

I was a bit surprised with the palantir being shown so early and wonder how Pippin is going to be able to take it when it is thrown out by Wormtongue when Gandalf already knows about it being in Isengard. We shall have to wait and see!

Radagast

Originally posted by Radagast
For those of you who think myself and others too purist, well I can only speak for myself, but with the things he had to cut or change slightly from the Shire to Weathertop, I think the movie was excellent. If he kept changes to this level the movie would have been very satisfying to me, and maybe other purists here. But once he got to the peoples and characters outside the Shire, he blew it.

I still don't like the way he did Merry and Pippin, but up until Weathertop, I cut them some slack with the hope their movie characters would mature as things got tense. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they became more immature about the whole situation.

Click to expand...

I was not prepared for the time-line and event changes at the beginning from the Shire to Weathertop ( hell I was even waiting for the bang when Bilbo disappeared ) but by the time Awen came on I was resigned to the fact that there had been some major changes and resoved to enjoy the movie for what it was ..... a movie based upon the book.
As I have said before, I really wished that more of Tolkiens dialogue had been used and that was probably what I missed the most .... the power of his words.

Yes... Merry and Pippin are supposed to be carefree and provide some comic relief in the books but not quite that much! They were the weaker of the characters in the movie but I also hope they will mature a bit (as they do in the book) in the next film.

The palantir being shown early won't be a problem. Pippin got to it first simply because of where he was standing on the steps when Grima threw it out the window and he can easily do so in the movie, despite it being revealed in FOTR. In the book, Gandalf suspected it for what it was almost straight away so him knowing about it in the FOTR movie won't produce any discontinuities for TTT.

As far as Merry's and Pippin's characters are concerned, I always thought they were a bit immature for a long while. It wasn't until Return of the King that they really grew up. All the stuff up till then was them enduring horrible and painful lessons and gradually learning to cope with it all, starting with their capture by the Orcs and ending with them returning to the Shire as noble lords (well, hobbit version anyway) and captains of war. I think someone earlier on this thread made similar observations.

I like Merry and Pippin at the moment and I'll wait for the other two movies before I judge their characters as a whole.

The point is not what Jackson has decided Saruman might do, the point is that here he is making changes to the character that serve no purpose, that do NOT make it easier for the audience to understand what is going on, as some folks seem to feel so many of the changes are made for, nor does it portray Saruman as he is...backstabbing and decietfull to all who deal with him.

What good does it do the audience to see Saruman suddenly turn against Sauron and then die in the next film? Mark my words, you will all feel differently when Wormtongue has pushed Saruman off the balcony of Orthanc in the next movie and realize that Jackson isn't making The Lord of the Rings, he is making "What the Lord of the Rings would be like if Peter Jackson had Written it", which actually sounds like the title of a MAD magazine parody more then anything else...Oh wait, this IS a lot like a Mad Magazine parody...

Theoden: 'You hold out your hand to me, and I perceive only a finger of the claw of Mordor'
Gandalf: 'When last I visited you, you were the jailor of Mordor, and there I was to be sent.'
Gandalf: 'Your servants are destroyed and scattered; your neighbors you have made your enemies; and you have cheated your new master, or tried to do so. When his eye turns hither, it will be the red eye of wrath.'
Gandalf: 'Easy it is now to guess how quickly the roving eye of Saruman was trapped and held; and how ever since he has been persuaded from afar, and daunted when persuasion would not serve. The biter bit, the hawk under the eagle's foot, the spider in a steel web! How long, I wonder, has he been constrained to come often to his glass for inspection and instruction, and the Orthanc-stone so bent towards Barad-dur that, if any save a will of adament now looks into it, it will bear his mind and sight swiftly thither?'
Gandalf: "So whether he will or no, he (Saruman) will appear a rebel (to Mordor). Yet he rejected us, so as to avoid that very thing!'
Parentheticals were added to the above quote to give context.

Click to expand...

Interesting bunch of quotes, where in the movie did they appear? You see, that would be the only way that they might apply to your argument, because if they only appear in the books then they do nothing toward helping the audience think that Saruman is anything BUT the unfaltering right hand of Sauron.

I wasn't trying to argue from the naive audience member's POV. I am way too biased to try that. I can't even remember what I thought the first time I read Lord of the Rings (I remember the Hobbit really scared me). My point in that post was that PJ was not extending beyond the books to portray Saruman as being to some degree under the control of Sauron. Before anybody jumps on me, I also said that PJ NEEDS to show that Saruman wants to get the ring for himself as some point in the Two Towers. If PJ does not do this, than he will have mis-represented Saruman's character.

Harad,

I would have to agree with most here that that chapter will prob. be cut. For the most part because it's-so far as a movie ending is concerned-rather anti-climatic, esp considering all that went before. It may be covered in an eplilouge however, just as the history of the Ring was done at the beginging of the flim. I personally love to see Sam coming home after helping to save the world to find a young Hobbit girl telling him that now he can get on with all the really important stuff like settling down getting married and have kids...but that's just the Sadistist in me I suppose.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

Name of the book

Why did PJ change the name of bilbo´s book There and Back Again a Hobbits Holiday to There and Back Again a Hobbits Tale.

I know this is not a big change, but it´s a change nonetheless and i don´t think it was necessary.

Welcome to the Forum, Baraka.
I agree with you, and for many of us the stupid, unnecessary changes are one of our biggest "gripes" with the new film. Please do join in the discussion...

Ohh I agree, to see the Shire as So beautiful and tranquil at the beginning and then to see it at the end...absolutely. Keep this in mind, however...the Shire afterwards was hinted at in the movie when Galdriel (I know it's misspelled...it's late) had Frodo peer into the mirror. So who knows it may be worked in some how...but since we never saw her give the acorn to the fellowship...*Shrug*

Love Always
xgothgrrl

Originally posted by Harad
Yes.
PJ But if he does do the right thing, there will be a lot of crow served to some others not mentioned.

Click to expand...

There is no crow to be eaten. It is interesting the different tacts taken by the DEFENDERS OF THE MOVIE... if one makes a valid argument against a viewpoint, it's "let us wait and see what he does in the next movie" or "it's a movie and not the book", or "a direct adaptation of the book is impossible to achieve through film media".

If you challenge on an issue that is, indeed, debatable, they chastise you for not understanding that JRRT really didn't mean what he said. Or that he was ambiguous and not definitive on the point of contention. But... this is the movie thread and I am resigned that people who support the movie as THE REAL DEAL and a great adaptation won't be swayed and I'll just have to stay the way I am. I'm a guy who loved the movie but feels it could have been so much better.

*Claps*

Quite well said! I think you hit the essence of this entire debate right on the nose.

Oh darn, this is another one of those pointless posts, again. Sorry all for wasting your time.