What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

Its true. That is still to come in the movies.

And, BTW I did not mean to welcome you necessarily with an argument, so,

Welcome to the forum.

Thats's alright. and ta for the welcome.

Re: Changes

Originally posted by baraka


Why did PJ change the name of Bilbo´s book. Do you like that change also. It was totally innecessary and stupid.

Click to expand...

I didn't notice that change. In the movie it was called "there and back again, a hobbits tale" that is what it was called in the book. I didn't like all the changes but the movie was better than the animated one.

To Samwise

Keep in mind that animated movie was created at least 15 years ago. Correct me if I am wrong. Even then it followed story better than the PJ's movie. Offcourse they couldn't have made every scene from the book. But ceating scenes that weren't in the book and forgetting more important scenes,which is a case with PJ's movie (or mesing up scenes that are in the film and a book) just isn't right.

I would have said it was a great movie only if they made a short little signature.

Based on book by JRR Tolkien

Then it would mean they took characters, some scenes and some events from the book and made up everything else.

That would be fine, except for the fact that the PJ movie followed the book very closely:

characters, plots, concepts, general feel of middle earth

with minor changes, that had no importance compared with the overall spirit of LOTR.

It is was a story about a cross country car race with Frodo and Sam in one car and Sauron and Saruman in another, then it would be loosely based on LOTR.

About Arwen

I heard feminist groups demanded that TFotR is removed from the cinema until more females were brought into the movie. So I wondered where the changes would be:

Film needs a major female character:
So either Frodo, Gandalf would be female (probably Gandalf becouse there isn't any female wizards)
Some of supportng cast should be female (ofcourse as a part of fellowship) so that would be Sam (posible romance with Frodo), either Mery or Pipin and Legolas (people wouldn't want to see female dwarf).

When I picture those changes I'm almost glad movie turned the way it did.

Oh please, feminists are blamed for everything, including the downfall of civilization as we know it. (Evil working moms!)

Did they change Harry Potter into a young Joan of Arc instead of a wizard because Christian groups wanted their input?

The only influence on big movie productions is the almighty dollar and what might bring in more of them ... not that there's any thing wrong with that. I'm all for capitalism, but I seriously doubt that special interest groups all want to have their way with the plot to the best book ever written.

(clunk) sound of not-so-gracefully falling off of soapbox

Originally posted by Thorin
I don't think Lurtz saying he serves Saruman shows that Saruman is in it for himself at all.. It shows Lurtz acknowledging who HIS master is...If during WWII you took an American soldier and said, "Who do you serve in all this?" He would have said President Roosevelt and America, sir." But that doesn't negate the fact that these soldiers were part of the allied forces with Britain, fighting the war with them.

I don't really feel the movie does show Saruman deciding after all that he wants it for himself. It shows contradiction at best. It doesn't seem like a very smart move to all of a sudden switch sides with no explanation to the movie going public when the book makes it quite plain that Saruman was in it for himself all the time. Gandalf knew it and Saruman knew it...Tolkien showed how wily he is. He tried to get Gandalf to his side to give their order, the wizards more power. The movie ignores this part of Saruman's character by turning Gandalf off immediately with no hope of Gandalf even contemplating giving up the ring to benefit himself (or Saruman would have Gandalf think) by saying, "We must join Sauron!"

That's like telling a kid, "Here, stick your hand in this running blender that looks like a cookie jar." Instead of having the blender hidden and saying, "Hey kid, you want a cooookieee???"

Click to expand...

Thorin, you are certainly entitled to your interpretation of Lurtz' 'I serve Saruman!' scene and while your analogy to WWII soldiers may be valid, that doesn't rule out the possibility that the scene can be interpreted in other ways by other people. It can just as easily be interpreted as Saruman's declaration of independence. There is nothing in the film to contradict that interpretation.

In the book, Gandalf (despite whatever doubts he may have had) did not truly know Saruman's true intentions before their actual meeting. This is reflected in the movie. I agree that the Gandalf-Saruman encounter could have been handled much more adroitly. I missed not seeing Saruman's shimmering many-colored rainment and I was particularly disappointed not hearing Saruman's bombastic speech about his new duds and then Gandalf's priceless retort in response, "I think I preferred white." (One of the best lines in the book, IMO).

So the depiction of Saruman's motivations doesn't speak to you, Thorin. That is fine. And you can quibble with the director's execution too, I'm just pointing out there is room for other interpretations of what was seen in the movie and that Peter Jackson wasn't necessarily doing nor intending to do whatever it is that you seem to think he was doing.

I´m sure this has already been posted, but I can´t browse through all the pages to check, so:
Isn´t it slightly annoying that everything that happened after Bilbo´s birthday party until Frodo wakes up in Rivendell takes just a month? The hobbits´journey in the book does, but in the film we also have Gandalf going to Minas Tirith and coming back. And then he goes to Orthanc in the same month. And there is also some implication that he has seen Gollum in this month also, since he can report that Gollum disclosed the names Baggins and Shire.
Why the rush?

In the Book its 17 years. The movie could have the pages of a calendar rip off or the season's changing (like the Bakshi film) but...

it doesnt.

That is one thing I didn't understand. They put 60 years later on when frodo first shows up, and they have all the Elvish in subtitles, why couldn't they put 17 years later on? I don't think it would have been all that much trouble.

They put 60 years later on when frodo first shows up,

Click to expand...

Memory going..disk full...

In the movie, after Bilbo gets the Ring, they put on the screen "60 years later"?

Movies are all about pacing. I guess after the times jumped around in the Intro-- and THEY really jumped in the Intro, about 3000 and 60 years--PJ figures, best now to have a "continuous" time line without more "unnecessary" jumps.

Yep, it's right at that first shot when they show Frodo under the tree.

I just thought of something. They never actually stated that Bilbo´s birthday was on the 22nd of September in the film, did they?
So maybe it didn´t all happen in a month, and I should stop being annoyed. But it´s still too rushed.

Originally posted by Talierin
That is one thing I didn't understand. They put 60 years later on when frodo first shows up, and they have all the Elvish in subtitles, why couldn't they put 17 years later on? I don't think it would have been all that much trouble.

Click to expand...

sure and dont forget the "TO BE CONTINUED" caption

The things that tick people off.....

Hello all, I'd like to share my thoughts about the film if I may. Firstly though, I've been waiting for this film scince I was 7 years old. I'm now 32. My dad read the Hobbit and LOTR to me when I was young and it's been a constant companion since then, never far from the bedside cabinet and regularly dipped into with the full reading every couple of years or so. My son is now getting to the age were I hope to pass the magic of Tolkiens writing onto him.

The film for me is a triumph. I can understand the disappointment about Arwen, Legolas appears a nobody in the film when, for me his relationship within the fellowship (Gloin obviously and the race to save Merry and Pippin) are magical. Sadly he's reduced to Aragorns side kick with a wicked archery skill!

Merry and Pippin are too brave in the face of the Nazgul, (in fact they all are if you ask me. I always felt that the opening of bowels was the best you hope for when faced with a black rider and the way the film shows us Borimir giving sword lessons on the hillside, then taking on legions of Orcs and a cave troll in the tunnels of Moria did seem a little silly. Why at this rate, Gondor won't need an army, just send out the Hobbits!

Lastly, I miss Gollum. In the cartoon version, forgive me I don't know who directed it or who did the voice of Gollum, was SUPERB. "Sneeeaaakiinn!" The new film has made him an ineffectual computer animated baffoon, when in reality, both Gandalf and Aragorn relied completely on him to fill in the missing gaps to the ring history and the on-coming danger that was heading for the shire.

"Do you not yet understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folk to do so."
Bumbulin' crazy wizard...I ask you?

Re: The things that tick people off.....

Originally posted by B Proudfoot

Merry and Pippin are too brave in the face of the Nazgul, (in fact they all are if you ask me. I always felt that the opening of bowels was the best you hope for when faced with a black rider

Click to expand...

LOL...I agree with that one! The only real fear they show is when the Nazgul is peering over the tree stump...And Sam coming up to Aragorn and saying, "Let him go or I'll have you, Longshanks". Was a pretty cheesy line that was out of place for what should have been a frightened hobbit, despite the fact that Sam was protective of Frodo.

Thought the movie did a pretty good job of making the Nazgul look scary, it did not make those who encountered it afraid as much as they should have been.

Things that ticked me off the most:

- Galadriel / Lorien looked too dark and evil, and didn't really seem like a place of rest.
- The Uruk Hai were overdone and looked too man-like

I can go with the comments about Galadriel and Lorien but the one about the Uruk-Hai is interesting.

Do you remember from the book the 'southerner' at the Prancing Pony and later Aragorn and Merry/Pippin discussing how the Isengarders looked like him? That suggests that the Uruk-Hai must have been quite man-like for the southerner to pass for human.

This isn´t exactly a change from the books, but something that has annoyed me just a (very) little every time I´ve seen the film. When Saruman orders his orcs to cut down the trees they comment on how deep the roots are, when we can see that in fact the roots are very shallow. I´m amazed the trees have lasted so long. One storm and they would have collapsed.

And the orcs should have looked more human, not less.