• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

Hey! I've got one!

What in the world did the orcs of the Dwarf City do for food? How many were there? 10, 20 thousand? More? Maybe they have underground mushroom farms... Or they eat their own. If they were to reproduce at a rate that a child is born every three days or so for every 3-4 orcs, they could feasably eat the oldest of them at a similar rate to keep the population going. You think?
 
Hey Smurf good to see they've got the internet out to your isolated self-sufficient rural community. The rest of us rely on bit of trade and barter to get hold of food, and I'm guessing that's what the dwarves did too!!
 
drowning Sam

I dont know where the criticism of this was-might have been here-it took about 20 seconds of movie time from when Sam went under until when Frodo's hand grabbed Sam's hand.
 
drowning sam again

I thought the same thing about that criticism. Whether you liked it or not it hardly deserves mentioning among "things that tick you off the most". It belongs more in the "whatever" or "who cares" pile.

Does anybody have a take on what they think Jackson was trying to express with that drowning Sam image? A: I've only seen the movie once and B: I didn't get the point of that series.
 
Everytime I see the movie I like it more, so with that in mind: the Sam Drowning scene demonstrated the growing (non-gay) love between Frodo and Sam in a very real way by Sam risking his life to accompany Frodo, and Frodo saving his life. 20 seconds of movie time is worth making that point (made also in the book).
 
I had only one problem with that scene - Frodo appears to disappear from the boat at one point! I sort of noticed it the first time I saw the film, and subsequent times I'm still not sure if its just a trick of the camera angles. But anyone he appears to not be in the boat at one point.

I wondered if they had tried doing the scene with Frodo invisible (as per the book), changed their mind and then got mixed up editting. Has anyone else noticed this?
 
Saruman the Many Colored

Some have criticised the movie (again I am not sure if its this thread, but it might as well be) for the fact that Saruman seems to be a confirmed member of Sauron's band rather than a free-agent playing both sides. The movie, in fact, makes this point but subtly.

1. The Uruk-Hai that Saruman creates for "Sauron's army" acknowledge "Saruman" as their leader.

2. Saruman's orcs are retrieving the halflings to Saruman at the end of FOTR. This is bound to lead to bad feelings between Sauron and his erstwhile underling, as any viewer could intrepret.

3. I think during one of the wizard wrassling matches that Gandalf points out, as in the book, that only 1 finger can wear the Ring at one time, casting doubt on Saruman's motives.

In any case, the criticism of PJ's Saruman in the first movie, can easily lead to praise of PJ if he has kept this "book secret" hidden, and reveals it as a plot "twist" in TTT.
 
Are the Nazgul Wussy Girls Blouses?

Watched the movie for #3 the other day. The majic I think is starting to wear off a bit but still loved compared to all the other movies on offer.
The Hobbits need to be stout in the face of fear. PJ shows the terror of the Nazgul at certain times but I agree he is not consistent. In the book however the hobbits every so often would 'snap' from being petrified to being beserk and having a crack at any bad arsed mother in sword range.
In the movie the dog barks snarls and then backs off before the hobbit watchman looses his head. This is enough to give the idea that the nazgul are not to be toyed with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to dsay that ok, there are a few scenes in the movies which are a bit "cheezy" to but it mildly: Such as sam drowning at the end of the movie.

The scene which really ticks me off (and I'm sure its already been mentioned before thousands of times) is the one with, yep you guessed it, Arwen and the Nazgul by the river near rivendell.

Sorry, should have stuck with the books version of events, Arwen, you didnt save Frodo, Elrond and Gandalf did!

sheesh!

 
Woooooooo.
Back from a hospital stay (getting new guts).
Hey, when they say they got new guts, you don't argue...
Thanks for keeping the post going.........
 
quote from greypilgrim:

"the arwen scene was BAD. worse still was the council of elrond! and what was that scene on the mountain, where boromir picks up the ring, on carahdras?"

Boy, it sure is nice to have a bit of support after I've harped on this exact problem since September! Denounced as a purist for preaching against the heresies against Tolkien on a Tolkien forum! Though the heresies and persecution against the faithful from the heretics aren't as bad as before.

I have been continually frustrated by members who have found every argument under the sun to justify the above scenes! Arwen was bad..So bad that I decided to go get some rootbeer by the time that Arwen was cradling Frodo and saving him after saving the day.....It was just sooo bad and wrong!

COE was bad as well...I went and made an alternate screenplay for COE as well, but apparently it is gone for good because it was a while ago.... I was miffed at Boromir's picking up the ring on Caradhras as well (though as an actor, Sean Bean redeemed his character by his great scenes of trying to take the ring from Frodo and defending the hobbits to the death, and his redemption...Great job!)

My second biggest beef (besides Arwen) was the way that Saruman was portrayed and the ridiculous amount of scenes that were put in about Orthanc and the orcs...
 
Last edited:
yes, peter jackson did some bad things. but he did do alot of good things also with this movie. special effects and scenery, plus the acting was excellent. it doesn't matter, alter the story as much as you want to pj, because i will see the next movies as many times as i saw the first! i'm at 4 now, but i'll buy the dvd.
he didn't do that bad on the movie thorin, NOBODY could have gotten it ALL right!
 
it's true. PJ did a really good job despite all of the changes he made. I'm not completely happy with some of the changes he made, but overall, it turned out to be an awesomely wicked movie.
Actually, I wonder how the movie would have turned out if Tim Burton had directed it....what do you guys think?
 
Well.

Judging from his Batman stuff he would make the movie and the book as close together as humanly possible. Then he would claim he reinvented "The Lord of the Rings."

"You know all the crime-fighting in Batman? That's all me!"
"Uh, yeah, sure it is Tim."

Don't get me wrong, "Planet of the Apes" notwithstanding Burton is a great director. One of the best around. I prefer Croenenberg but Burton is still good.

Sincerely,
The Joseph
 
i will wait to see the next movie before i make a formal opinion of peter jackson.
 
Originally posted by greypilgrim
i will wait to see the next movie before i make a formal opinion of peter jackson.
Click to expand...
Ditto!!!
 
The part with Boromir picking up the ring was to help the general audience (people who haven't read the books) to understand how the ring was very tempting to use. Gandalf, Frodo, Bilbo, Galadriel, and Boromir were all examples of how powerful the ring was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Similar threads

Is "Face Off 1997" movie a Christian movie?
Replies
0
Views
544
herlig9
The Eyes of Tolkien
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Eljorahir
Fanfic One Life For The Sake of The Rest
Replies
2
Views
1K
Tyelkormo the Fair
What 5 things would you change in the movies?
2
Replies
32
Views
11K
Radaghast
Character changes in the movies
Replies
12
Views
6K
Olorgando
O
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…