What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

Originally posted by Talimon
...I think the key point in that quote is this:

"...Which is why we have really tried not to lose anything that we feel is key or important to the books and why, almost without exception, all those things that are memorable and vivid from reading the books are there in the movies."

As you can see, this statement by it's very nature is subjective. It immediately claims that it is only staying true to what the film-makers feel is memorable, but on top of that claims that there might actually be some exception even to that. I can understand, however, how some folk might have been caught up in the hyperbole that these statements appear to be presenting. I think PJ is just taking it for granted that folks recognize this is his movie, with the story being told his way. For me, that story resonates, "almost without exception".

Click to expand...

Talimon, if that is the case, he should have completely left off the part where he states, "Nevertheless, I fully accept that I have a responsiblity not to disappoint those many people who love the books."

He then proceeded to take actions that were sure to disappoint many of "those many people" who have read the book by completely changing the way the relationship of Arwen and Aragorn is presented. And by trying to create new scenes and characterizations "in the style of Tolkien," rather than presenting them in the manner Tolkien "wrote them himself."

In reviewing the movie again tonight, I tried to envision how the movie would have suffered had he allowed Glorfindel to rescue the Hobbits at the Ford and then introduced Arwen at Rivendell. He could have elucidated the relationship there as was done anyway. The Cave Troll was bogus to me and I felt that a more serious battle with orcs and a great orc chieften would have not injured that scene at all either.

In summary, I again stand by my assertion that Jackson gained nothing from the changes. The audience would have been just as entertained with characterizations remaining truer to the way they were written by Tolkien. And, I think that is the purist's position. We just don't understand why he changed it.

I have never said that FOTR (and probably the other films) were not visually stunning, especially the Shire which matched almost every image I had in my mind.

I have never said that it would be possible to put in every jot and tittle that's found in the book in the film(s). Indeed the attempt to do so would destroy the films by making them so complicated and unwieldy as to become nonsense for most viewers.

I HAVE said that I enjoyed the first film and expected to enjoy the other two, BUT as Mr. Jackson's version of the story. I no longer expected an attempt to bring Tolkien's story to the screen for there have already been too many changes for that to be possible. However, that does not make the film(s) BAD, only "different".

I HAVE defended vigorously the points I have made wherein I believed that the Director erred in either framing the characters (Merry and Pippin) or having the characters do things that were not in their nature at least in the original story (Aragorn and Arwen). This, by the way, does NOT mean that the altered characters as they appear in the film will be awful, but it does mean that perhaps - only perhaps - my joy in the story will be somewhat mitigated by what I perceive to be egregioius errors and/or changes - but that is a personal thing.

I have also countered arguments defending the Director's revisions when I have considered the revisions as unnecessary or not in the best interest of the story and the arguments as lacking in validity. But in countering the various arguments, I have never cast aspersions on the person offering the argument. If anyone has read that into any of my comments, you may rest assured it was NOT intended.

The name of this thread is "What changes in the movie tick you off the most" - not high prose, but certainly understandable enough for all to realize that this is NOT going to be a thread in which one will find a lot of praise for the film in specifics - although you may find it in general. I didn't start the thread but, like everyone else, I have participated in it to the best of my ability and with the intention of taking seriously the thoughts and comments offered by my fellow forumites(!). Again, I will apologize for any comment that may have been taken amiss for certainly it was never intended to be anything more than a vigorous intellectual debate on the topics raised and debated.

Originally posted by Grond
Talimon, if that is the case, he should have completely left off the part where he states, "Nevertheless, I fully accept that I have a responsiblity not to disappoint those many people who love the books."

Click to expand...

By the very virtue of creating these films, yes, he has that responsibility. But I'd argue two things. One, he has not dissapointed many people who have read the book (as I, and many hundreds of thousands of others are testament to). Some have disagreed with this claim of mine, but my general feeling (both from online reviews, forum-browsing, and talking to Tolkien readers) is that the majority of those who have read LotR (at one point or another in thier life) thought it was a good adaptation. I mean, other then on forums and what-not, you have to confess that the movie has gotten favorable press, from both book-readers and otherwise. Certainly the "general" consensus isn't "FotR was a bad movie/adaptation". As such, I think PJ has stuck to his claim. And two, that claim does not say nor directly suggest that he will be staying true to Tolkiens written word. All PJ is saying is that he has the responsibility to not dissapoint. As to exactly what would dissapoint, and what wouldn't, he doesn't elaborate.

Originally posted by Grond

In summary, I again stand by my assertion that Jackson gained nothing from the changes. The audience would have been just as entertained with characterizations remaining truer to the way they were written by Tolkien. And, I think that is the purist's position. We just don't understand why he changed it.

Click to expand...

There it goes again: that all-encompassing "audience". I'm not trying to kill this arguement, but I just don't think you can make claims that apply to the Tolkien-reading audience at large, let alone the non-Tolkien reading. I think, on both sides here, we are assuming that too many of the changes were carried out because they "had to be". In making this assumption, we are clearly robbing PJ of any artistic vision he may have had on his own. It's not a matter of saying Tolkien was wrong, I don't think. I think it's just more PJ seeing an opportunity to create something that would work cinematically. I think one comparison that really ought to be made is between PJ's adaptation technique and the one being used on the Harry Potter film/s. To me, one is an artist with a clear vision, and the other is a committee working by the numbers. To me the former is leagues more exciting and inspiring. The Harry Potter movie was all nice and clean, yes...but I couldn't help feeling, when it was over, "That's it?". It just felt as if the film-makers were hopelessly opressed by Rowlings book, and made every decision along the way in a very systematic fashion. To a certain degree I don't care much to see Chamber of Secrets... which, considering how much I enjoyed the book, is kind of sad. I guess for me what's so exciting about PJ's movie isn't so much the fact that I'm seeing LotR visually... I mean, that is nice, yes, but my imagination is quite good when I want it to be. For me what is really exciting here is seeing somebody else tell the tale, interpret it in thier own way, explore it's different aspects.

When discussing the movie with a lot of "purists", I often feel as if for them the movie is doing something completely different... It's not so much the excitement of seeing Tolkiens tale unfold, but more just making sure everything is "done proper". For me there just isn't that pressure, that worry of "Jackson butchering LotR". For me the book is powerful enough on it's own. I don't need a "by the numbers" interpretation. I want to see how the director feels about different scenes. To summarize, for me it's how the tale is told that makes it so fresh, not just what is being told. I've read LotR, I know what it's about. If you are going to tell me this tale again in a cinema, make it cinematic.

Please remove "the audience" from my comments and simply insert an "I" there. I have reviewed the movie again and I can't see where PJ gained anything by "changing the story". He could have remained true to the plot as the author wrote it and still developed Arwen into a more "fleshed out" character. That was what I was getting at. The fact that he chose to insert his "own vision" is something this Tolkien fan wished he had not done. I appreciate what PJ has done, I just wish that he had been forthcoming that this was "his" adaptation of the work, in which he tried to bring "his" vision of Middle-earth to the screen. I wish he would have left me, the Tolkien fan, out of his statements. By including me, the Tolkien fan, in his statements he has given me the right to critique not only what he has presented but also the right to critique what he said about making the film, prior to his making it.

What I think PJ did was try to have his cake and eat it to. He wanted to add his own vision to the LotR, yet he didn't want to alienate his 70 million member audience of pre-existing Tolkien fans. If Mrs. Maggot and I want to feel betrayed, that is our right. You, Talimon, read a different meaning into PJ's words. That is your right. You want to defend his actions and his vision. That is your right. I just don't agree with your opinion.

Talimon

It wasn't so much that I was in a direct debate with you on any particular topic, other than the "PJ Lying" discussion, but more the observations I made in the way in which you were debating/arguing with others (where I was lurking) that promted my comments.

As for the tone in which things are being discussed now. I think it is much more respectable for everyone who feels a passion for Tolkien's story.

But I would REALLY like to know; What, if anything, really irked you about the film? After all, that is what this thread is all about.

Cheers

Certainly the "general" consensus isn't "FotR was a bad movie/adaptation". As such, I think PJ has stuck to his claim. And two, that claim does not say nor directly suggest that he will be staying true to Tolkiens written word. All PJ is saying is that he has the responsibility to not dissapoint. As to exactly what would dissapoint, and what wouldn't, he doesn't elaborate. <quote Talimon>

Mr. Jackson missed his calling. If indeed, he was INTENTIONALLY careful not to elucidate what he KNEW would disappoint Tolkien enthusiasts, then he was being flagrantly disingenuous and should have taken up politics rather than film making. If, on the other hand, he believed that presenting the familiar names, places and general plot line that would be ENOUGH for Tolkien enthusiasts, then he was probably being as truthful as he knew how to be.

No one will know - but Mr. Jackson himself - how many of the revisions/changes/additions/ deletions etc. that he made to the script were the result of cinematic necessity and how much were occasioned by his own attempt to "improve" the original story. I would bet that the whole Arwen/Aragorn and eventually Eowyn thing was his own invention and not in any way necessitated by cinematic considerations. Tolkien's story was about a mythic quest and its consequences on those who became involved within it willingly or otherwise. Mr. Jackson has kept the quest aspect, but he has decided to focus strongly on OTHER incidental plot lines (the "romance" of Arwen and Aragorn for instance) for their cinematic "punch". In doing so, he has deleted a number of characters (Glorfindel for one) and certainly changed the author's original characterizations of others (principally Arwen and Aragorn). Does it make good cinema? Yes, it does. Does it "remain true to the original story?" No, it does not.

Hey, Gronderator, Mrs Maggott said "tittle" *juvenile snicker*
(aaah, Carlin said it never really belonged on the list anyway)

Grond is correct when he says that Jackson didn't fail me. I never expected to see any film of the story as, for some strange reason, most seemed to regard the story as unfilmable(?); so the fact that he was able to put the whole thing together in the first place and deliver a film of the caliber that he did is a victory in itself, IMO. On the whole, I think he stayed fairly to quite true to the story. Did he make some changes? Yes. Were there some "unnecessary" changes? Matter of definition of course, but sure. Were there some changes I could have lived without? Definitely.

Though I have been a frequent defender of the Ford scenes, I actually have serious problems with it; specifically the "she-elf" line sucked Bruinen water, and especially the depriving Frodo of one of his rare defining moments. I also am not a big fan of the "broken carrot". I think something along the line of

Pippin
"OOOF! I think I squashed my 'Shrooms!"

Click to expand...

would have been far more "in the spirit of Tolkien".

That being said, I am going to commit borderline blasphemy here and admit, flat-out, that I prefer Mattel's Action Arwen to Tolkien's Eye-Candy/Needlepoint Arwen, as I never felt I knew her (at least 'til I read the app's); but that's me, a rebel without a clue. Do I think it could have been done just as well with Glorfy in the action roles and Arwen being better developed in Rivendell? Probably, but the audience would have....... hah, psych! didn't think I was really going to go there at this point did you?

For me, I think it just comes down to preferring to applaud the film for what it is rather than fretting over what it is not. With that mindset being my foundation, I tend to defend the film most of the time even though I know I am nowhere near as passionate about it as Talimon or some others. I like these debates for the mental exercise as much as anything and that is the side I have chosen. No apologies.

As for the question of whether PJ lied about his intentions, or strayed from the path somewhere along the way; I would present another possibility; that maybe he merely "not realized". Not realized how much the hard-core fans have completely internalized this story; not realized to what intense scrutiny changes to seemingly minor characters would be held; basically just not realized the heavy implication of saying that he would remain true to a story this subtle, complex, and beloved. I know Jackson claims to be this huge fan, I thought I was a big LoTR fan until I came to this site and found out I was just a whelp, maybe he just made the same miscalculation. Either that or he just decided to make as much money as he could, LYING FAT B*****D! (jeez, I miss RW ) (that is an inside joke and not intended to offend anyone)

P.S. Yes Ma'am, I believe it is a McCaw. I actually looked into buying one one time, but have you seen the price tag on one of those dudes?

Originally posted by Talimon
he has not dissapointed many people who have read the book (as I, and many hundreds of thousands of others are testament to).
....
There it goes again: that all-encompassing "audience". I'm not trying to kill this argument, but I just don't think you can make claims that apply to the ....audience at large.....

Click to expand...

First you claim to know what hundreds of thousands think,
then you say one cannot make claims for audiences at large.
You really can't have it both ways.
The fact is no-one can KNOW what more than a few people of their acquaintance think. Attendances and DVD sales say nothing FACTUAL about that.

Originally posted by Parrot
Hey, Gronderator, Mrs Maggott said "title" *juvenile snicker*
As for the question of whether PJ lied about his intentions, or strayed from the path somewhere along the way; I would present another possibility; that maybe he merely "not realized".

Click to expand...

I say it too, so what "ticks me off" most about these posts is that they are about things that "tick people off"! How on earth did the expression come to have this strange meaning?!
And I think you're close to the point there, about PJ straying, and not realising. When I see him making the claims on the DVD extra the impression he gives is of naivety, immaturity. It makes me guess he has soft spots for slushy romance, and for blood-and-mud scenes, and takes it for granted that audiences share his fancies. I can't see him as a great "artist" offering us his thought-out impression of a work that he acknowledges to be great.

I have been watching this thread and must throw my two cents in....

I believe that those who constantly defend PJ based on his "interpretation" of LoTR are really making him worse then he is. Anyone director who reads the flight to the ford and the roles of all involved and then ends up putting another minor character there who replaces the actions of many other major character and weeps and cries over Frodo saying ridiculous Hollywood melodramatic lines like "Let my grace pass onto him", cannot have a very good sense of how to properly interpret LoTR.

As for the Eowyn/Aragorn thing. IMO, I don't care why it's being put in. It SHOULDN'T be in there. What purpose does it serve? To show Eowyn's desire to be in battle? Tolkien did that quite well, thank you. I agree with Mrs. Maggot on this one. PJ decides to go the typical Hollywood way on this one and goes over the top (like most other scenes) to make it his own. The whole director's interpretation is only a good argument until something happens like elves at Helm's Deep that upsets the defenders. Then the "spirit of Tolkien" argument and "director's interpretation" becomes forgotten.

Let's talk about the elves at Helm's Deep that seems to have some of the film defenders upset. When you throw in the film defenders' arguments that PJ is first and foremost trying to make a GOOD movie, and not a faithful adaptation, then the elves being at Helm's Deep, and any other over the top change is a great move...Something that some film defenders seem miffed by or would be miffed should Arwen replace Eowyn or something else.

Who in the movie going public who want to see a "good movie" will really pick up (or care) that the elves don't belong at Helm's Deep because this is the battle that men need to do on their own? Cinematically, it is a great move to create a good exciting movie (again, what FADs seem to use to justify every foolish change PJ makes). Cool elves scrapping with orcs and kicking butt along with other races of ME...Why not?

Or that Arwen fights at Helm's Deep or takes some of the roles of Eowyn.
However, from a faithful adaptation perspective, they (and other foolish changes) do not belong their and it would be better for the purists were they not there, but that sort of complaining draws all kinds of arguments that PJ is not out to do a faithful adaptation but make a great movie....

He has done that with this move with the elves at Helm's Deep and there seems to be issues over that...And yet Arwen is perfectly acceptable.

Joxy, how it came to pass, I have no idea; but "something that annoys or angers" is pretty much the accepted meaning of "ticks off" here in the states.

Thorin, while I am, to say the least, reluctant, to attempt to speak for Talimon, whom your statements seem aimed at, I will say something.

I think Tal has been quite consistent in his position that PJ be allowed some artistic license in the telling of the story provided that his telling captures the main themes. As I understand it, it is his position that the involvement of the elves (as well as cutting the "Scouring") changes a major theme, ergo the problem. It violates one of the conditions he has maintained from the outset, I don't see this as contadictory or inconsistent at all, unless one twists his words or trusts the others here don't know what it is he has actually written on the subject.

I think maybe what really bothers you is that the great length you have gone to in portraying the defenders as mindless schills, who would defend any and all changes, has been defused by Talimon with a single post. Don't you hate it when somebody breaks up a perfectly convenient stereotype?

Originally posted by Parrot
I think Tal has been quite consistent in his position that PJ be allowed some artistic license in the telling of the story provided that his telling captures the main themes. As I understand it, it is his position that the involvement of the elves (as well as cutting the "Scouring") changes a major theme, ergo the problem.

Click to expand...

And I am saying that Tal and other's position is contradictory. How do you reconcile "as long as he keeps the main themes" and yet justify changes by saying that PJ's priority is "making three good movies"? Making three good movies can justify the main themes changing and still be a good movie. Which argument do you cling too? Either it doesn't matter what PJ makes, as long as he makes three good movies, or certain changes are not acceptable.

The question Mrs. Maggot asked (which I consistently asked when the first movie came out) still stands: At what point does "artisitic interpretation" and the "spirit of Tolkien" and "making three good movies" stop being a justification and the changes become a serious problem with the film defenders? To be honest, I think the film defenders have painted themselves into a corner with all the justification's they've done, because any answer they give can be pooh-poohed away by their former arguments.

Ex: "Provided that PJ doesn't change the major themes, it's okay" Oh really? But they are still good movies and they are still the director's interpretation...etc etc..And as far as Im concerned, Arwen's role was definitely a major theme change, not an interpretation.

Maybe the FADs need to revise their arguments.

Originally posted by Thorin
....ridiculous Hollywood melodramatic lines like "Let my grace pass onto him"

Click to expand...

This is one of the main messages I have been trying to put over. Whether you call them cheesy, cliched, OTT, or now melodramatic, the point is that SOME of PJ's new lines, are so inappropriate, so against Tolkien's style, indeed so against the style of MOST of the film, that the only conclusion has to be that, AT TIMES, PJ simply becomes tone-deaf to language just as some are tone deaf to music.

Originally posted by Talimon
I think one comparison that really ought to be made is between PJ's adaptation technique and the one being used on the Harry Potter film/s. To me the former is leagues more exciting and inspiring.

Click to expand...

I've held back long enough from extending these FOTR discussions into HP, but you DO keep mentioning the point. I've watched HP almost as often as I have FOTR and I have to say that HP has never hit me in the face with false action or dialogue as FOTR does.
I obviously haven't read the books as often as T's, so I'm not sure how accurate the film is, but it seems to me to have a unity that FOTR sadly lacks, and if that is due to accuracy, good for the makers, not bad.
HP is hardly meant to be as exciting or inspiring as FOTR, but I defy anyone to match the Quidditch match for excitement!

To Thorin:

I have no problem with elves at Helm's Deep as especially Legolas was there, so if PJ wanted to throw a few in, I would not consider that counter to Tolkien's vision. The business with Eowyn and Aragorn, however, CERTAINLY is, as is the "love triangle" among the above two and Arwen.

As I have said countless times, many things had to be done to make the film flow and less cumbersome. On the other hand, Jackson ADDED many things to a film that we were told had to be severely CUT! Then there were changes to and among the characters that frequently made no sense from the point of view of the original plot line and only later played out as a NEW plot line or the overdevelopment of a minor theme in the original work. AGAIN, when we have been told that EVERY MOMENT COUNTS, I, at least, have to wonder WHY we are developing extraneous plot lines, enlarging characters and generally ADDING to a story that is already THREE FILMS LONG!

It is obvious that Mr. Jackson had a vision long before he began to bring LOTR to the screen. There's nothing wrong with that as he acknowledged that the films are only "based" upon the book, but it would have been better for all concerned if he had been more forthcoming about his intentions and less public in his assurances that he was going to attempt to adhere to the original as much as was feasible given his medium.

If there is any "corner painting" being done here, you're the guy with the brush, and I for one, ain't goin' there. I will let Talimon state his own case in his own time. I would say, and I think pretty much everyone would agree, certain changes are in fact not acceptable, as you say. The problem is that it is a sliding scale dependent on the individual, except in the most extreme cases. Kind of like the old pornography saw - 'I can't define it, but I know it when I see it'. Some have seen it already, some have not!

Seriously though, what "theme" does Arwen's portrayal change? The "Women should be seen and not heard or better yet neither seen NOR heard!" or maybe the "Women should sew, not ride!" theme? Please discuss.

To Parrot

At a local fair this fall, we had a parrot rescue society giving rescued birds out for adoption. If you want a bird - and I know they are expensive - perhaps you should check on line or locally for other animal/bird rescue groups who rehabilitate the birds and then find good homes for them. It would be worth looking into as one lady went home with a beautiful sulphur crested cockatoo.

I was mad that they took out Tom Bombadil and I really hope they don't overlplay Arwen and Aragorn.

Originally posted by Parrot
If there is any "corner painting" being done here, you're the guy with the brush, and I for one, ain't goin' there. I will let Talimon state his own case in his own time. I would say, and I think pretty much everyone would agree, certain changes are in fact not acceptable, as you say. The problem is that it is a sliding scale dependent on the individual, except in the most extreme cases.

Click to expand...

What corner? I sure would like you to point out how that applies to me.
I have not been justifying every change to the nth degree and coming up with so many explanations that contradict myself at every turn and come back to bite me on the butt.

I do not approve of the major changes that are being made. I think that PJ is taking things to the extreme and making many unnecessary changes. I don't accept them, and in most cases I don't see the logic in those changes. I have no problem with artistic license provided that they remain in the proper context (much of the Shire scenes at the beginning would fall in that category). I have no problems with changes that need to be made for the sake of time and cinematic purposes (the cutting out of Bombadil and the songs fall into this category). Had PJ stayed within the proper boundaries, this purist would have had no problems....However, the majority of changes affected the characters and story to the point that it seems ludicrous.

Had you just said "Hey, there's no reason for the changes, PJ just decided to make them for cinematic purposes, but I like them" You would have had room to say later "Hmm, I don't like that change". But within the parameters that you and Tal and others have set to justify all these foolish changes, you have no real room to complain about ANY changes. They can all be explained away and justified by your own arguments. Hence the painted corner...

I was not saying that you were painting yourself into a corner but trying to paint us by putting your own spin on what has transpired before.

Again, I am loath to speak for Tal, because I know if I say something he will does not agree with, it will be applied to all "defenders" en masse, hence much of the so-called being "bitt in the butt".

However, my own opinion as follows as to why there is no contradiction in his position (I feel like his lawyer):

Defense Exhibit A -

• the movie should be entertaining and some liberties can be taken towards this end;
• the movie should capture all the major themes of the book to be a passable adaptation.

Now, I would point out to the jury that I used two separate bullets above, to delineate that these are two separate, independent, and equally weighted criteria to be met. Two distinct and unique points which the movie must meet to pass Talimon's muster. Nowhere does it say or imply that as long as the movie is entertaining enough then the themes be damned; anymore than it says as long as the themes are sufficiently stressed the movie can be as unentertaining as a three-hour root canal. They BOTH must be met, separately and independently.

If I say would like to marry a tall blonde; I am not saying I want someone short provided she is blonde enough, and I don't want a brunette provided she is tall enough! Dammit, I want a TALL BLONDE!

(added in edit)Mrs. M., Thanks for the pointer, but any idea I had of owning a bird went out the window when I got the lab I have now. He is bird killing MACHINE. I am actually glad winter is here so I won't have the trauma of finding little piles of feathers and carcasses every time I rake the yard.