What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

Howdy ho,
On the topic of Legolas, and Elves in general, aren't they supposed to be TALL ( I say this as a 6'8" man myself, so maybe I'm biased, but I digress). I thought PJ made a good effort with the Hobbits ->Dwarves -> Humans height differentials. Why make those Keebler folk human height? I have always hoped for the role of Legolas....oh well, there's always the Lord of the Ring's B'way musical, I suppose........

Did you ever consider Basketball to sitting in front of a screen?

Legolas green?

I've seen the Bakshi film far too many times. But just for those who haven't seen it. He is fair skinned and has blonde hair. Sorry, not green. Also there are quite a few parts of the film that are wholly annimated. Maybe you're thinking of the Rankin-Bass "The Hobbit" film, where the elves were green and looked like they were made of wood themselves.

As for character changes, besides Saruman, well there's Elrond the pissed off mean elf, Aragorn the guilt ridden in need of some child psychology because he can't re-assure himself that he won't make the same mistake as his ancestor did a couple of thousand years ago. Boromir, well I just like the way the Bakshi film did him better. More of a dark Viking charater, not ready to chastise Aragorn for not giving everyone more time to mourn Gandalf's passing. Arwen. Gimli the ever bragging ever faltering dwarf. etc...

I liked Frodo's portayal, Gandalf was Ehh, Legolas was perfect, Sam was good. But this is all just my insignificant opinion, so take it for what it's worth. It's too late to change anything now.

Originally posted by Harad
And BTW, how "devious" is to say face to face to the person that you are trying to fool, Gandalf, both that you are getting the ring for the Wizards, and for Sauron. That is not "devious" in my book, that is "nuts."

Click to expand...

Aragil, you have sent me on a hunt and I have found your answer in The Lost Tales, The Hunt for the Ring. It reads in part,
"Two days after Gandalf had departed from Orthanc, the Lord of Morgul halted before the Gate of Isengard. Then Saruman, already filled with wraith and fear by the escape of Gandalf, perceived the peril of standing between enemies, a known traitor to both. Hid dread was great, for his hope of deceiving Sauron, or at the least of receiving his favour in victory, was utterly lost. Now either he himself must gain the Ring or come to ruin and torment. But he was wary and cunning still, and he ordered Isengard against just such an evil chance..."

To me, Mr. Tolkien seems to be talking about a very sane and devious individual. Have I tracked this down for naught or are you yet convinced?

The only hunt I've sent anybody on lately is the hunt for ReadWryt's 'Here you go, you old fart' post. Frankly I'm a little disappointed nobody's found it yet- it was pretty funny. I think it is somwhere in the early goings of this thread, but who can be sure with 45+ pages of posts?
As for Saruman, sure he's still cunning, wary, devious etc. I don't think that he would have been a candidate for an insane asylum, if one had existed. But I also think his lust for the ring and the domination of Sauron via the palantir were causing him to make very poor decisions. Who in their right mind would try to double cross Sauron? Of course, as you pointed out to Harad, this is an opinion. For what it's worth, I do think that Saruman was in a lot better mental state than poor Denethor, who by his end had gone quite clearly mad. I also think that PJ should at least show that Saruman has double-crossed Sauron in the movie, but I won't be upset if this is only revealed to us in The Two Towers and not mentioned in The Fellowship of the Ring.
Harad and razorink: Legolas was not a Noldo, or of the Quendi in general, so he wasn't one of the tall elves. He was of the Sindar, or 'slightly less tall elves', unless you listen to Greymantle, in which case he could have been a Sinda/Sylvan cross, making him downright average height. And remember, Aragorn was a remarkably tall human, so much so that his nickname was Strider. Boromir was described as being only slightly shorter. Gandalf was also tall, though he tended to stoop. I read on the movie site that they figured Gandalf to be about 7'!

Yes sorry Aragil,

I had better things to do New Years Eve than go through 45 pages or so of posts!

While sneaking about the set in NZ, I came across a scrap of paper that has a rough sketch of what they thought the size comparisons were.

Oh, thanks for blowing it for me!

Harad- while you're current, I thought I'd take the chance to mention: to change your tag- hit the 'user cp' button, and then the 'edit profile button'. You can change your tag line to read anything you want (even 7'2")!
I can't believe that the movie guide lists orcs at 6'6", taller than the Uruk-hai. That could be a typo- maybe it should have read Numenorean (they were taller, I know Tolkien addresses it somewhere).

ps. To xgothgrrl, whenever you read this. My character-defense thread is 'Characterization in the movie was absolutely PERFECT!!!'

I still have the actual piece of paper, although it looks like it came from the "Official Movie Guide" (from Walmart $9.88 US).
I will sell it for round trip air fair to New Zealand. And while I'm there I'll try to "aquire" some more "original" movie stuff.

user cp, edit profile, custom user text.

I still think they should have a range on Uruk-hai, making the biggest possible Uruk-hai larger than the biggest possible 'normal orc'.

Foe- good luck in selling that 'item from the set'. Perhaps E-bay?

It should have been there...

...right after birthdate, right before additional information. Maybe it is a netscape problem, thank goodness I've finally been assimilated by Microsoft (my resistance was futile).
If ReadWryt is out there in cyber-space reading this, he might help you (be nice to him). On a related note, I have selected to not have e-mails regarding new posts on subscribed threads sent to me, yet I still seem to be getting them. Help me ReadWryt, you're my only hope!

Aragil,
Quite correct re. Strider. I may be mistaken, but I seem to remember him being described as nearly 6 1/2 feet tall. I prefer Bakshi's portrayal of Boromir as more Viking-esque. It seems all the Humans portrayed in the film need some kind of therapy (touching on a previous post) to deal with childhood issues (Aragorn), ego (PJ's Boromir, although some of that is due to the Ring's influence), and in Bree maybe AA. What a sorry looking bunch of drunks. Nobody has said they miss the song and dance at the Prancing Pony, but it would have perpetuated the image and feel of a "friendly" pub instead of a room full of leering alcoholics. Speaking of which, it's just about time to go to the French Quarter for New Year's.

saw it again

Okay I just saw the movie again last night. I have to say that I thought I might feel different about the flim after being exposed to this forum and all the cristism of the flim. Well, I did'nt all hair spiltting aside (some of it's justifiable on the part of the hair spiltters) I still experienced all the Magic and wonder that I did the first time, if not more. I have to belive that anyone who is not overwhelmed by the flim and what it is attempting to do...honestly choses not to be. Your not enjoying the flim because you have made a prior decision not to. I could be wrong of course...but that's the impression I've gotten. It's not the book and yes I did notice a lot more that was out of synch with the book but on the whole...I cried from the first time they showed the shire...I cried when Gandalf fell...I cried when Boromir fell...My breath caught in my thoart during almost every battle scene and I laughed several times throughout.

All that said there is one glaring prob with the flim that I must bring up here. ANY MOVIE 3 HOURS LONG NEEDS TO HAVE AN INTERMISSION!!! 3 hours and two large cherry cokes is way to long to go without a bathroom break.


Love always
xgothgrrl

Re: saw it again

Originally posted by xgothgrrl
Okay I just saw the movie again last night. I have to say that I thought I might feel different about the flim after being exposed to this forum and all the cristism of the flim. Well, I did'nt all hair spiltting aside (some of it's justifiable on the part of the hair spiltters) I still experienced all the Magic and wonder that I did the first time, if not more. I have to belive that anyone who is not overwhelmed by the flim and what it is attempting to do...honestly choses not to be. Your not enjoying the flim because you have made a prior decision not to. I could be wrong of course...but that's the impression I've gotten. It's not the book and yes I did notice a lot more that was out of synch with the book but on the whole...I cried from the first time they showed the shire...I cried when Gandalf fell...I cried when Boromir fell...My breath caught in my thoart during almost every battle scene and I laughed several times throughout...

Love always
xgothgrrl

Click to expand...

XGG, You are mistaken in thinking the majority of the purists didn't enjoy the movie. While I can't speak for all of us, I thought the movie was great and did a good job at conveying Middle-earth to the public that hadn't been exposed to JRRT's works and to those who have only read the book once or a few times. Most of us who have emerssed ourselves in the works feel that there are two problems with the movie adaptation.

First and foremost, it is just not true to the plot and characters. That is a fact that speaks for itself. You can argue to degree of distortion but not that the distortion occurs. (Arwen is a prime example as is the portrayal of the conflict between Saruman and Gandalf and the palantir revealed, bla bla bla.)

Secondly, and almost as important, is the betrayal of Peter Jackson as perceived by the loyalists (me). He stated all along that he, too, was a purist and took the book with him on set and reread chapters as they were being shot to make sure he maintained the vision of the author. Sorry, but a purist would never, ever jack with the plot and characters and from a purist's point of view, he failed miserably. We would have given him lattitude to delete things (aka Bombadil) and shorten things (aka The Council of Elrond) but to change basic character precepts is just unacceptable to us.

I still loved the movie and was moved by it. I will also enjoy it again.... but it doesn't quite fulfill my vision of Middle-earth. I'm not sure anyone could have have; but, I expected more. That doesn't make me an enemy of a movie or PJ supporter, just someone that disagrees with them.

And, yes, I do have a life outside of Tolkien.

Anybody who thinks that characters in the movie are at variance with those in the books is invited to post at:
http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1531

Harad. If you would have simply left in Glorfindel and deleted Arwen's enhanced role, you would have a convert in Grond. I didn't like what PJ did to Elrond or to Galadriel but would have cut him directorial slack in interpreting the character. That is his right as a director/screen writer. I've made it clear in all my posts that had he simply deleted scenes or shortened scenes (both for the sake of time), I would be fully on your side.

Changing basic character traits and encounters (Saruman and Gandalf) or added plot that is non-existent in the book, is unacceptable. I would even given PJ as pass on adding plot that could have happened (the Merry/Pippin fireworks scene which was not in the book but could have happened). I will not give him a pass on changing plot. (Arwen).

I guess we'll just have to disagree about movies never being "true" to the plots and characterizations. I will agree that they are never identical, but I have seen many movies where the plot is intact and characterizations are accurate. (The Godfather and the TV mini-serise Shogun are two examples of many that I have been a fan of both the book and the movie.)

Harad....................

PEACE!!!

By far the most ****ed up part of the movie, although most of it was awesome:

They cut out my sig!!! Instead they replace it with one of the lamest lines I have ever heard: "Let's go hunt some orc." AHHHHHHH! SO LAME!!!

Ah, c'mon Harad. We live in the age of Shakespeare in Love and Elizabeth. After all, we're not asking the audience to hear something different than 90 million other people have already read.

And Viggo, is one actor that I thought was exceptionally cast. But, I suppose you won't be convinced until he has much more screen time and more importantly more voice time.