What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

Frodo's Fighting Spirit

Can someone explain to me why Frodo doesn't seem to use Sting at all in the Movie. He looks at the sword when orcs are about and it turns blue ( he didn't seem to check if it had turned red when the Ringwraiths were close) but never seemed to use it in anger. Per the book in 'Flight to the Ford'
"At that moment Frodo Threw himself forward on the ground, and he heard himself crying aloud : O Elbereth! Gilthoniel![/I] At that time he struck at the feet of his enemy(The Ringwraith King)."
Later as well in 'The Bridge of Khazad-dum'
" 'The Shire' Frodo cried and springing beside Broromir, he stooped, and stabbed with Sting at the hideous foot. There was a bellow and the foot jerked back, nearly wrenching Sting from Frodo's arm. Black drops dripped from the blade and smoked on the floor." Frodo's lack of action in these fight scenes in the movie and Arwen making the stand at the Fords ticked me off the most.
Don't get me wrong I think Glorfindel doesn't have enough involvement in TTT and RoTK to justify his inclusion and I agree with PJ to have changed him for Arwen. (I know this has been thrashed out already but just my opinion). I just think Frodo should have been given more fighting spirit in the movie and it ticked me off.

For my personal movie enjoyment I think PJ should change more details in TTT and RoTK from the book. I know ReadWryt has said many times that PJ said he would be following the books closely. Personally I haven't seen this comment attributed to him apart from this forum. I've heard him say recently that he had created his own version based on the book and would be deviating from the books much more in TTT and RoTK.

Myself I can't wait that long for the next two movies. I watched FoTR on opening night and searched to Net to learn more. I have plowed through this thread over 3 days and got drunk on all the great interaction. It is a powerful movie, a great tribute to the greatest book, you are a genius Peter Jackson for having brought it all together.

Okay Lets try again...

This movie was a unique undertaking. In order for it to have the look and effects necessary to bring Middle Earth and the events of this story to the screen in a credible way it needed money..a whole lotta spending money or it could have come off looking like some second rate junk such as "Heman and the Masters Of the Universe" Special effects, set design, costumes and CGI can't make a bad movie good but they can sure blow a good movie all to hell. Want an analogy? The plot and acting are like cake and the effects are like the icing on the cake. The cake may be whats most important but its sure hard to eat it if the icing tastes like s#*t. Which brings us back to the money. The big money was a must have to make this film but with that kind of capital investment comes the responcibility to make a profitable film. (No such thing as a 300 million dollar art house film) SO< PJ was walking a thin line between being true to the book and including elements in the film to attract the widest possible audience. Also of no small matter was how to cover the essentials of the first book and keep the running time of this film from becoming longer than a Ken Burns documentary. I am really pleased and shocked that they made LOTRs into three movies of approximately 3 hours each. Theater owners really don't like three hour movies. So to film three of them at the same time is a huge act of faith in itself. I am also hopeful that a longer DVD version will be availble one day. So Jospeh, its not that I am some backwoods Forrest Gump that has to see a "purdy" explosion every 5 minutes to enjoy a movie, Its just that I am not so anal retentive that I have become incapable of enjoying a film unless its the second coming of "Lawrence of Arabia" And no I don't "HAVE" to see TTT and ROTK but I sure as heck want to and therefore I am glad this one is a box office success.

Holy crap!! So much good stuff, I don't know where to start.

Joe,
I think everyone has put you in your place. But you are a wacko zealot just the same! If Tolkiens work is soooooooo great, why does it take a movie to garner support and appreciation? Tolkien wasn't even on the top ten list. Who knows where his work will be after this movie?
"Dumbing down" is a phrase you use to explain something you don't have a clue about. What you want is a documentary. You want the pictures with a narritve voice over to keep you in line with the book. That is because you are un-imaginitive and boring and require someone to explain to you exactly what you're seeing. The rest of the world has an imagination and knows how to use it to get the most out of what they read and see.

Grond,

Tolkien didn't like the media of film. How do you expect anyone to write for something they don't like and didn't have a clue about?

The bakshi film is closer to what you purists want, yet it bombed in an era when scifi was starting to boom. It bombed because the book was not meant to be written as is for film, and they tried to stay close enough to be faithful to the npw's. PJ has made an entertaining movie based on the book and is making money hand over fist. Again, these are facts. He's the expert and if he did it this way, it must be the best way, or he would have done it all differently.
You purists are over estimating your worth to the success of this film. The purists view has already killed one movie and PJ wasn't about to let that happen again.

>>>>You purists<<<<

Need I say more? Not the best remark you could have made. Am I a purist for being critical about changes I had a bad feeling about?

To state my own opinion again, the movie was good. From my knowledge of the story itself, I didn't like some things that were altered, changed or whatever you wish to name it. I know nothing of this bakshi., but the way LOTR was made was not the best way. It was the way of Peter Jackson, his own interpretation, as he has said himself. Maybe in your opinion it was the best way, not in mine. It was good, it was close, it was visually a great piece of work, but IMHO not the best and certainly not the only way.

You're more than welcome to pony-up $300 Mil and do that better job. Movie making requires 3 dimensional thinking. You just can't add and delete scenes and expect it to stay successful.

Changes make sense.

All. Hi. Longtime fan and have had multiple reads of LOTR as well as just about every other book on Middle Earth.

I'm one of those "glass half full" folks. I didn't have a problem with the "orc pods". If you read closely into the books, Tolkien describes the orcs as "breeding" or in many ways "mass producing" in some horrific manner other than regular reproduction. It reminds me of some sort of German experiment or something from the 40's where you would "breed" the ultimate race through test tubes or something. Also, I don't remember ever having heard of female orcs...so I guess PJ would have been hung had he created a female orc, huh?

What we have to keep in mind is that these movies are just a representation of the books, just like all the artwork out there. Pictures of the same things but drawn differently...and we should treat it like a representation and not the end all interpretation of J.R.R's work.

Kenny

Changes do make sense and I understand the need for them, but still can't help it that something that definitely ticks me off is Arwen made into a warrior princess... I don't think there's anything else in the movie that's *so* much in disagreement with the images I have in my mind. Oddly enough, the passages describing Glorfindel, Elrond and Arwen were missing from the translation into Finnish which was my first introduction to LOTR in late 70's, so it wasn't until a few later when I read LOTR in English for the first time that I got to read the descriptions. And I immediately knew how Arwen was - this really beautiful, silent, dignified elven *lady* sitting under a canopy at Elrond's table. And that's how my Arwen will always be like.
The "orcs from pods" also annoys me... When Treebeard says to Merry and Pippin "has he blended the races of Orcs and Men" I got the impression of a "natural method" although that means that Saruman must have started to prepare his army quite a few years earlier, unless Uruk-hai mature very quicly! Hmmmmm....
Oh, and I do wish Aragorn would've Narsil/Andúril and not just "a sword".

Silme , you of course have the right to like or dislike whatever parts of the movie you desire. And I respect your opinions. There were things I would like to have seen done differently too. The difference in myself and a lot of the NPWs is that I didn't let the changes ruin what was otherwise a very good movie. LOTRs is my favorite book but it hasn't become a religious text to me like it seems to be for many on this forum. Furthermore I think many expected this movie to be perfect because it was based on what they percieve to be a perfect book. This was a prescription for disappointment from the start, since no movie has been or ever will be perfect. And furthermore the book isn't perfect either. There are many inconsistencies and things left unexplained yet I still love it dearly. For example how could Aragorn have fended off so many Ring Wraiths with just a brand of fire when later in the books they seem almost invincable. If Saruman bred his Urac Hai
(Spelling) the natural way it would have taken generations to have enough for an effective fighting force. Surely someone would have noticed an undertaking of this scope over the decades and therefore his betrayal would not have come as a shock in the book. i could go on and on but alas I am not a NPW so I won't.
P.s I also like your thoughts on Sarumans breeding program and as you see in my post I have also considered this very thing.

Foe-Hammer

I don't have my little book with me, but when I find it I will refute what you suggested about Tolkien's popularity. LOTR is the best-read and most widely loved book of the century, verified as such by several polls and studies, much to the chagrin of the literary elite who like to disparage its worth as a piece of literature (they, of course, much prefer the current postmodernist and deconstructionist trash)

Back later with the goods.

Back to the part about the movies being "dumbed down." I do think that the movie was simplified quite a bit, but those changes, I believe were neccessary.
I think that the main reason the movie turned out so different from the book, is that they were made for completely different reasons.
LOTR the movie was made to make money and appeal to as many different types of people as possible(which many people have already said).
The book LOTR, however, was not written with the hope that it would be known worldwide or that it would make a tremendous amount of money. It was made for the few people who enjoy fantasy novels and/or have many of the same views as Tolkien.

Originally posted by Courtney
...The book LOTR, however, was not written with the hope that it would be known worldwide or that it would make a tremendous amount of money. It was made for the few people who enjoy fantasy novels and/or have many of the same views as Tolkien.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, Courtney, those few people who enjoy fantasy novels now number 90 million by the last count of worldwide book sales of TLotR. And are going up all the time due to the increased publicity from the movie.

On popularity and literary opinion

Bryheinnen,
I agree with you on the popularity issue, however, I think the so-called literary elite were much more divided in their opinions about the book when it came out in the 1950's. W.H. Auden loved the LotR and reviewed the RotK for The New York Times when it was finally published, but he admitted to the following in his review:

I rarely remember a book about which I have had such violent arguments. Nobody seems to have a moderate opinion: either, like myself, people find it a masterpiece of its genre or they cannot abide it, and among the hostile there are some, I must confess, for whose literary judgment I have great respect. A few of these may have been put off by the first forty pages of the first chapter of the first volume in which the daily life of the hobbits is described; this is light comedy and light comedy is not Mr. Tolkien's forte. In most cases, however, the objection must go far deeper. I can only suppose that some people object to Heroic Quests and Imaginary Worlds on principle; such, they feel, cannot be anything but light "escapist" reading. That a man like Mr. Tolkien, the English philologist who teaches at Oxford, should lavish such incredible pains upon a genre which is, for them, trifling by definition, is, therefore, very shocking.

Click to expand...

Todd 1700

Good points re: Aragorn's fire-brand, and also the uruk-hai breeding taking a long time by natural means.

As far as I can see many of the changes made in the film were fairly unavoidable and made to reduce plot and character-confusion of the sort that made the Cinema "Dune" movie incomprehensible to people who hadn't read the book.

Glorfindel would have taken far too long to introduce and explain for a character who never reappears. Arwen needs her story told in real-time rather than flashbacks, and in the book spends most of her time just looking beautiful. Saruman controlling the storm and the attack on the fellowship, strengthens his role, and also ideas that are left very vague in the book.

I have some criticisms of the film (bad dialogue, loss of bombadil, lack of the right atmosphere in certain parts) but all in all I think it is a positive effort.

Re: Foe-Hammer

Originally posted by Bryheinnen
I don't have my little book with me, but when I find it I will refute what you suggested about Tolkien's popularity. LOTR is the best-read and most widely loved book of the century, verified as such by several polls and studies, much to the chagrin of the literary elite who like to disparage its worth as a piece of literature (they, of course, much prefer the current postmodernist and deconstructionist trash)

Back later with the goods.

Click to expand...

I have the link somewhere, but the bible is #1 and tolkien isn't even mentioned in the top ten.

My point is that the movie is doing more to promote the book than the book is.

When the book was first written, not published, but written, there were not nearly so many fans of fantasy novels as there are today. I do believe that Tolkien's novels revolutionized the world of fantasy, and that is why there are so many fans today. I'm am just saying that the movie and the book were made for different reasons and that is why so many people who like the books do not like the movie. I also know a few people who liked the movie and didn't care for the books. I'm not trying to make either the movies or the books look bad.

Now look at all this. I go away for a few days of happy sking and the whole place goes to heck and back again. It will prob take a day or two to wade through all the backed up posts, but fear not...or fear, whichever you prefer. I will be back to piss people off soon enough.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

p.s. still cant belive someone starting a thread about my apparently infamous "dwarf tossing" comment.

The only reason I cared about the movie being successful is that success will mean Peter Jackson will have more freedom for editing and making the other two movies what he wants them to be.

It would be pretty scary if it had not made that much money and the studio would have attempted to make the other movies strict money makers to recoup losses.

hey joseph - wiping out the masses has a name and has been done. It's called genocide. Hopefully you are gone for good.

Hey Daisy

Get a dictionary and look up what genocide actually means. Also, infant, the more room Peter Jackson has to change things the more--I believe--he will deviate from the novel. Not really a good plan.

You're a very confused. You dislike commercialism on the one hand because it limits Peter Jackson's abilities to change a film around but you like it enough to support it making a film version of the book. A film version which butchered the book.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

Just Imagine

Just found this little piece of history read the quote and imagine how long this Thread would have been had there been only 2 movies or heaven forbid just the one.

January 1997: Studio Miramax acquires the rights to The Lord of the Rings for Peter Jackson. Director and studio agree to make two three-hour films, called The Fellowship of the Ring and The War of the Ring.

Click to expand...

Here's the rest

July 1998: Miramax gets cold feet, saying it wants a single movie of no more than three hours duration. Jackson refuses. Miramax's Harvey Weinstein gets "a bit angry" and threatens to hire another director. Cameron fast-talks and Weinstein gives Jackson four weeks "to find someone to make the film that you want to make". August 1998: With time running out, Jackson approaches New Line boss Bob Shaye. After a 45-minute presentation he gets what he wants and more. Shaye says if there are three books, there should be three films and on the 24th announces plans to make them all at once - a first in Hollywood history

Click to expand...