What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

Male or female?

Male or female?

Click to expand...

Now that I edited in the whole bird/dog thing before I saw this post, others may be really confused. But I am partial to the soft, curvaceous persuasion.

Originally posted by Parrot
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.

Click to expand...

I would rather that Talimon speak his piece on his position because to me, this is a change from what was previously defended, nor does it sound like Talimon's position.

Any changes according to your first bullet are according to the personal limitations of the viewer. Talimon, however, has not taken that position. Rather he is justifing that, should there be ANY changes, they should be attributed to it being acceptable as long as it falls within the SPIRIT OF TOLKIEN, that it is DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION, and that it is more like A MYTH being told as a FIRESIDE TALE, i.e. Getting the facts aren't as important as capturing the "spirit". Talimon has also said that one must judge the movie within itself.

Within these parameters, bullet number two is nullifed, nor have I heard Talimon take that position until the Elves at Helm's Deep became an issue. And IMO, the elves at Helm's Deep is not a major theme, nor is it an issue according to the movie. As I've previously stated, it is a great cinematic move. It sounds like bullet number two was created as a loop hole for film defenders to be able to complain about the movie should the need arise. However, this is not the stance that was previously taken.

Define "capturing all the major themes"? These are the major themes that everything pretty much boils down to:
1) Frodo knowing and fulfilling his task
2) Aragorn fulfilling his destiny
3) Rift between elves and dwarves being healed
3) The downfall of Saruman
4) The liberation of the races of ME from Sauron
5) The downfall of Sauron

Are you telling me that everything else in the middle is filler to be played with as long as these themes are being met?

Please....

Hey, maybe I'm dead-wrong about Talimon's POV, I am sure he will make it clear in time. As for myself, I have defended specific changes on specific grounds and I don't believe I have ever made the all encompassing statements that you would attribute to me. If this is not the case, please provide quotes, so I can retract.

BTW, you forgot the major "Arwen" theme.

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

Click to expand...

ROFL....

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.

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out Parrot a rediculous point in Thorins arguement. You can't simplify the opinions here down the middle, into "Purists Vs. FADS". I have never spoken for another fan of the movie, and never will. I am not part of some great "movie-defenders-union", who holds a carefully penned constitution. In fact (SHOCK) I am fully susceptible to having my opinion changed. There are some things that I said half a year ago that I would never say now. In fact, and this might shock you, after my first viewing I thought the movie was merely "ok", if not "bad". Nobody speaks for me, and I don't speak for anyone else. My opinions are my own, and if others agree with them that is thier own case. Surely you can't argue that everyone who loves the film loves it for the same reasons? Or all those who criticize it criticize it based on the same arguements? And what about those who just "like it", and are down the middle?

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.

Click to expand...

I would rather that Talimon speak his piece on his position because to me, this is a change from what was previously defended, nor does it sound like Talimon's position.

Click to expand...

I am slightly puzzled here, Thorin, as this is exactly what I have said. Indeed, I credit Parrot for being able to sum up my arguements much more efficiently that I have.

Perhaps we have different for deffinitions the "spirit" of the tale. You may have not understood me correctly, but I associate the "spirit" of the tale as being the main themes of the tale. Indeed, my main point behind calling this movie a "myth" has been along the same vein as the first point Parrot mentions (making a good movie). To me, movie-making is the same as story-telling, and I have made this point very clear. All I have claimed is that PJ, being the story-teller, has the right (and in my opinion the obligation) to tell his story in the most entertaining and moving way possible, while retaining the meaning (spirit) of the tale. As Parrot notes, this does not mean he should change the tale top to bottom. I have said over and over that PJ has had to walk a fine line between the adaptation and the movie. Yes, they often overlap. But when they don't he has, nearly 99% of the time, gone with what he believes is a good movie. But this has never, in my opinion, been at the expense of any major themes.

And IMO, the elves at Helm's Deep is not a major theme, nor is it an issue according to the movie.

Click to expand...

That is a completely different arguement that you are presenting, and in my opinion irrellevant to the current discussion. I still stand by my opinion that they shouldn't be there, however, but I don't feel that this is the right thread to discuss this. In fact, I'd rather give PJ the advantage here and see the movie first before judging. As it was presented to me, at the time I stated my opinion about the Elves at HD, the change did not make sense to me. Neither did Arwen, before seeing FotR. I'm giving PJ the benefit here and not judging. Yet.

First you claim to know what hundreds of thousands think,
then you say one cannot make claims for audiences at large.

Click to expand...

Those are two different instances. It is possible to know that people liked the movie without knowing why they liked the movie. Grond was stating that those scenes would have lost nothing in the audiences eyes had they stayed closer to Tolkien. I was just claiming that you can't judge what the audience will like and what they won't. In fact, it is quite likely that some will like some scenes and other won't like some scenes . But the fact that FotR has gotten good press and reviews is not my opinion. It is a well established fact, one that I can back up. This doesn't refer to the quality of the movie, only how it has been percieved by "popular opinion" (make of that what you will). As for the 100's of thousands, that was me being extremely conservative. considering that tens of millions have read Tolkien, and considering that at the very least half them though it was a "good" movie, I think that is proof that PJ has not "lied" (as some were claiming).

Define "capturing all the major themes"? These are the major themes that everything pretty much boils down to:
1) Frodo knowing and fulfilling his task
2) Aragorn fulfilling his destiny
3) Rift between elves and dwarves being healed
3) The downfall of Saruman
4) The liberation of the races of ME from Sauron
5) The downfall of Sauron

Click to expand...

One of the main points I made earlier in this thread was that there aren't any all-encompassing, all-applying themes, meanings, or messages. I thought I made this clear by quoting from the introduction. Maybe I'll do this again:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.

Click to expand...

...for I find from the letters that I have reiceived that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved.

Click to expand...

I think the fact that Tolkien himself pointed this is enough. Ultimately the point was this: LotR means different things to different people. PJ has made the movie with what he feels is important. It just so happens that I agree with what he has chosen to put emphasis on. If for you LotR means something else, all the better I say. All I really take issue with are these statements that seem to be applying to all: "PJ did not capture LotR", "PJ has butchered Tolkien", "PJ has changed the meaning of LotR". By the very nature of art it is impossible for you to "prove" PJ didn't capture LotR. At the very most you can present your own opinions in a persuasive manner. I have not attempted to do anything more.

I am not part of some great "movie-defenders-union", who holds a carefully penned constitution.

Click to expand...

WHAT?????????
Then please return your copy (we actually prefer the term “Bylaws attested with Blood and to be Defended to the Death or until We Intractably Paint ourselves into a Corner!”) and official FAD crest emblazoned sweater vest! It simply WILL NOT DO to have these floating around! BTW, you ARE still obligated to provide that yummy potato-salad to the Central Cabal’s monthly meeting. That "secret Berkeley herb" of yours just makes it! We are planning to have it with sacred-cow burgers, slow roasted over the “Burning Professor Tolkien in Effigy just for the Pure Dang Fun of it!” presentation! Good Times!

(Again, this is a (lame attempt at a) joke, no actual professors or sacred-cows, living, dead, or otherwise, were burned or butchered in the composition of this post.)

Originally posted by Talimon
But the fact that FotR has got good press and reviews is not my opinion. It is a well established fact, one that I can back up. This doesn't refer to the quality of the movie, only how it has been perceived by "popular opinion" (make of that what you will).
As for the 100's of thousands, that was me being extremely conservative. considering that tens of millions have read Tolkien, and considering that at the very least half them though it was a "good" movie.

Click to expand...

Once again, reviews say nothing about popular opinion; they say what the reviewers thought.
And twice again, neither you nor anyone else KNOWS how many people think it is a good movie.
That may sound pedantic, but it's a fact; the sort of fact that I seem to remember you using when you said that no-one has changed the books, which indeed was true.
You seem determined to stay in that corner and close the line of paint around yourself.

Ultimately the point was this: LotR means different things to different people. PJ has made the movie with what he feels is important. It just so happens that I agree with what he has chosen to put emphasis on. <quote Talimon>

In order to put "emphasis on" something, it has to exist in the first place. One cannot put "emphasis on" something that is does NOT exist. And this is what Jackson has done and we must assume, continues to do.

He "emphasizes" a "warrior princess" Arwen (who doesn't exist); he "emphasizes" an Aragorn who has "chosen exile" and rejected his birthright (who also doesn't exist); he "emphasizes" a relationship between Aragorn and Eowyn (which doesn't exist) - and lest you think I am back to my "rant", I am leaving out the (possible) duel bit. However, the movie poster with the two fierce looking women on both sides of Aragorn who stands with his sword raised (and if THAT isn't symbolic of something other than war, I don't know what is!) is enough to let the audience know EXACTLY where the director is going!

On the other hand, I have no problem with Jackson's emphasis on Saruman rather than Sauron because Sauron is an "absentee" villain and a film NEEDS a visible contending force and not something seen only in flashes of special effects. I have no problem with Jackson's emphasis on battle scenes because the film NEEDS that excitement to keep the audience's attention. I can even excuse Jackson's emphasis on the comic aspect of Merry and Pippin though it clearly diminishes the characters.

But all of the second group mentioned EXISTED IN THE STORY! Mr. Jackson merely enlarged or changed their importance. HE DID NOT INVENT THEM as he did the first group. And because he saw fit to "improve" in such unnecessary and, frankly, inferior ways on the author's work, I believe that he did NOT remain faithful to either the meaning of LOTR or his word that he would try to do so.

Originally posted by Talimon
Surely you can't argue that everyone who loves the film loves it for the same reasons? Or all those who criticize it criticize it based on the same arguements? And what about those who just "like it", and are down the middle?

Click to expand...

No, I cannot argue with someone who loves the movie. As a matter of fact, I respect that opinion. What I do argue is the reasoning of those who seem to think that every change PJ made was for a really good reason that actually added to Tolkien's LoTR, and try to make so many parallels to the actual story to justify these needless changes. I will admit, Talimon, that you haven't taken that stance like others before you, though I still believe you contradict yourself by your own arguments.

Originally posted by Talimon
Perhaps we have different for deffinitions the "spirit" of the tale. You may have not understood me correctly, but I associate the "spirit" of the tale as being the main themes of the tale.

Click to expand...

Hmm..Maybe you should have said that to begin with. We could have taken all these arguments in another direction. I went over the top with my examples to show how the whole "spirit of Tolkien" was a fallible argument. You never corrected me in the least or clarified your position with this whole "main theme" argument. I would almost say you invented it just recently to make your past arguments make sense.

Originally posted by Talimon
All I have claimed is that PJ, being the story-teller, has the right (and in my opinion the obligation) to tell his story in the most entertaining and moving way possible, while retaining the meaning (spirit) of the tale. As Parrot notes, this does not mean he should change the tale top to bottom.

Click to expand...

And IMO, this is the reason why you shouldn't be complaining about any changes, short of Arwen and Aragorn storming the gates of Mordor hand in hand. To me, it is more of a stretch of the imagination to tell the story of the flight at the ford and make so many substitutions and changes from the original, then to tell the tale of another race fighting orcs, though they don't belong there in the original...Where's the logic of the "fireside tale" now?

And I say again, define "main themes". Whether you want to call it "spirit of Tolkien" or "main themes", I still say that you can have a lot of changes and inventions that can occur. Once again, when do you say, enough? IMO, Mrs. Maggot has pointed out many instances where a main "theme" is altered. Her logical and sound reasoning has been met with scorn. What do you classify as a defilement of a main theme? To have Gandalf take the ring? To have Aragorn killed? Does it need to be extreme to not meet your standards of "too much"?

Originally posted by Talimon
That is a completely different arguement that you are presenting, and in my opinion irrellevant to the current discussion. I still stand by my opinion that they shouldn't be there, however, but I don't feel that this is the right thread to discuss this. In fact, I'd rather give PJ the advantage here and see the movie first before judging.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that it is. If you say that the "main themes" are kept the same, it is acceptable, you obviously have a problem with Elves at Helm's Deep. This must be one of the main themes you are talking about. Let's define it. I want to understand where you're coming from with this seemingly different shift from "changes are acceptable because they are PJ's vision of LoTR" and "PJ's goal is to make 3 good movies, not to be as accurate as possible" to "as long as the changes are within the main themes of Tolkien, they are okay". So these theme changes are not still part of PJ's vision? A fighting race of Elves being at Helm's Deep is not acceptable as a "director's interpretation"? Your only justification is to go back to LoTR and dig deep for the reason, because you won't find it in PJ's FoTR. That sounds definitely like a "purist" approach to me. No movie goer is going to know the difference, because PJ has never developed Tolkien's line of reasoning concerning this. Does that not fit the parameters of what PJ has been trying to do with these movies that you've so vehemently defended him for? Now it's a problem?

Tolkien's quote is mis-quoted

Talimon,

When you used Tolkien's quote about the books having no underlying meaning. It was JRRT's rebuttle to those who thought the books were an alagory for nuclear war.(i.e the ring being nuclear weapons that must be destroyed because the power of them will corrupt anyone in possession of them). This has been explored over and over. Tolkien flatly denied any analogy. So that quote for the purposes of your argument doesn't hold up.

I still would like to know what change would tick you off. (tick off I believe refers to a ticking time bomb that explodes for those who are wondering)

I just watched the trailer for TTT online. It was hard to make out everything but there is plenty of ammo for this thread. I wonder, and I am just WONDERING and hoping that it's not the case, that the elves are at Helms deep because the ents aren't. It wouldn't be the first time they were cut, the Bakshi film cut them out too. So pj would have precedent, and I'm sure wouldn't waste a second to point it out.

You know,"He did it too etc etc"

An Ent foot???

I may have spoke too soon,

On my blurry computer screen I may have seen what could be made out to be an ent's foot. I sure hope so.

Cheers!

Originally posted by Radagast
I still would like to know what change would tick you off. (tick off I believe refers to a ticking time bomb that explodes for those who are wondering)

Click to expand...

Suddenly this odd use of "tick off" makes sense! Thanks R; you can go back to looking after your birds and beasts again now!

I still would like to know what change would tick you off.

Click to expand...

A lot of things, as I stated before. I'm not quite so sure where the fine line would be, but certainly PJ is safe (thus far). It's kind of hard to judge, but I can certainly tell you this: I didn't like the way Bakshi portrayed charachters, particularly Gandalf. I didn't like the way he portrayed Sam. I didn't like the way he portrayed Galadriel.

It's hard for me to conjure up specific examples without going to extremes. To me it's not so much what is changed, it's more how and why it's done. For example: Had PJ had Glorfindel come instead of Arwen, but Glorfindel would oppose the Nazgul, to me that just wouldn't add anything to the movie. Or perhaps if PJ had added extra action scenes that served no purpose that would have bothered me. Another one would be changing any of the main charachters personalities radically. I'm talking about something along the lines of Frodo defeating a Nazgul, being rebellious, or having an ego. Boromir being completely anal, always annoying everyone, and having no subtlety. Aragorn being an Arnold-Swarzhenagger (spelling ) action hero. Gimili being a drunk buffoon. The charachters using modern language that is completely out of place (sorry, I don't feel "If you want him, come and claim him!" is modern). I'm talking here about changes that go against the grain of Tolkiens tale.

I'm not saying that anything less then such extremes would work for me. Obviously I want the film to have the same feel as the book. But to judge changes without seeing them on-screen I have to go with extremes. It's only for the extremes when it doesn't matter how it's done. Those are the only changes I can really tell you with complete sureness I wouldn't accept. Anything else is really up to how it's executed.

That's fair

Talimon,

I think that is where we can really see our differences. It's for each of us to judge for ourselves, but I think PJ did some extreme changes and changed some characters to the extreme. Elrond was a completely different personality. Really he was portraited as quite the anal sphincter to put it mildly, and looks to continue along that line in the TT. The added action scene in Moria with that stupid Indiana Jones like teetering rock that just wasted a lot of time for no reason. The pointlessness of having the orcs of Moria completely overwhelm the company and then do nothing, showed a lack of cinematic seriousness in that if the orcs don't wipe out the people we are rooting for here, then things will probably always work in the end, so why make the emotional investment in pulling for the team. Did pj not understand they way Tolkien laid it out in the book? Bakshi didn't get this right either.

As for extreme changes, I didn't have a problem with Arwen being their instead of Glorfindel (after all, Bakshi used Legolas for that scene and nothing was lost). But he blew it big time when he has Arwen steal Frodo's first shining moment when he stands alone against the king of the nazgul and says "you shall have neither the ring nor me!" and then collapses alone but for the ford between them. Pj destroyed the suspense by giving him a protector, and ruined a great moment for Frodo, so he gives him a lame attempt at redemption by letting him solve the riddle at the gate of Moria, making Gandalf look not so cunning.

He may have done a magnificent job at creating Middle-Earth and the look of most of the characters, but that doesn't mean he didn't butcher much of the feel of the book and the personalities portraited. The only way I can go along with an out that PJ didn't lie about what he did is what either Parrot of the Fool stated, that PJ just didn't realize what he did. My rebuttle to that is that when you are in charge of a budget as big as this project had, it's your business to know. He tried to cover his butt

Re: That's fair

Originally posted by Radagast
But he blew it big time when he has Arwen steal Frodo's first shining moment when he stands alone against the king of the nazgul and says "you shall have neither the ring nor me!" and then collapses alone but for the ford between them. Pj destroyed the suspense by giving him a protector, and ruined a great moment for Frodo [/B]

Click to expand...

This is what I meant when I said that Jackson changed the "vision" of the story. For instance, the first person you see in the film is Gandalf. In the book, the hobbits are the first characters introduced by the author because the entire story is going to be told from their perspective. That's why the War of the Ring ends with the Scouring of the Shire and not the Return of the King; it is also why Jackson had no problem deleting the former. Jackson edits out all of what might have been the development of the inter-relationship among the hobbits and depends upon Gandalf's interaction first with Bilbo and then with Frodo to be the sum and substance of hobbit character development.

When the Ring is revealed, the whole plot goes "haywire". Sam is dragged in through the window (and what, you may ask, was he doing under Frodo's window in the dark of night?) and sent on the quest. Frodo and Sam quite literally "run into" Merry and Pippin and they, too, get swept away in this headlong "rush" OUT of the Shire and into the Wild where the hobbits will be completely alone and unprotected because Gandalf, instead of going with Frodo to protect him - and the Ring - from the evil Riders has suddenly decided that he has to go ALL THE WAY TO ISENGARD to consult with Saruman. This part of the plot line is developed so hurridly that it is easy for those unfamiliar with the story to become somewhat lost and wonder where everyone is going in such a hurry - and why.

The stunted development of the hobbits at the beginning of the film quite literally changes the entire perspective of the rest of the story and makes of it an ordinary adventure flick with various characters of more or less interest. The story remains fundamentally the same, but the original "vision" that made it a classic is no more.

Do we know that there won't be the scouring?I don't know how

Can some one tell me how they know this? It would really be horrible to delete that part of the story. The only evidence I heard is that someone saw a scene showing Saruman dead spinning on a mill. Where did they see this? How can we all see it? As for a mill, that sounds like it could be in the Shire rather than Isengard, so it could have been a scene from ROTK. Is that possible? If he did cut the scouring than he is even more of a fool than I already think he is. What was then the point of showing so much of Sam's vision in the mirror of Galadriel if he is not going to follow though on it?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, We'll only have to wait til December to find out if Saruman dies or not in TTT.

PS. In the previous post I meant to write Parrot "or" The Fool

Originally posted by Radagast
Can some one tell me how they know this? It would really be horrible to delete that part of the story. The only evidence I heard is that someone saw a scene showing Saruman dead spinning on a mill. Where did they see this? How can we all see it? As for a mill, that sounds like it could be in the Shire rather than Isengard, so it could have been a scene from ROTK. Is that possible? If he did cut the scouring than he is even more of a fool than I already think he is. What was then the point of showing so much of Sam's vision in the mirror of Galadriel if he is not going to follow though on it?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, We'll only have to wait til December to find out if Saruman dies or not in TTT.

Click to expand...

I have seen quite a few knowledgeable people post that "Scouring" is out because it is "anti-climactic". This is to be expected since the story is no longer told from the point of view of the hobbits and therefore, the destruction of the Ring and Aragorn's ascension to the throne make more sense as an ending if not to the film, at least to the story.

I have also read some things from Mr. Lee which appear to indicate that he is in BOTH the remaining films. I can believe this because Jackson has developed Saruman into the real "villain of the piece" and to "kill him off" in TTT just might make the rest of the FILM "anti-climactic".

Since TTT is due out very shortly, I doubt if there will be any efforts to further edit and change the story as it presently stands, but, frankly, there is so much confusion - even among those PARTICIPATING in the film, that it's hard to know exactly WHAT will happen. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess!

PS. In the previous post I meant to write Parrot "or" The Fool

Click to expand...

Sure ya did!

My rebuttle to that is that when you are in charge of a budget as big as this project had, it's your business to know. He tried to cover his butt.

Click to expand...

Radagast, my rebuttal to that might be that when you are in charge of a budget as big as this project had, with not only your own reputation but also the future of an entire studio riding on its success, it’s your business to cover your butt.

I think that maybe you are also misunderstanding what I am saying here; not that, had he foreseen these kinds of reactions, he would have changed his movie, but that he might have held his tongue more in check. Maybe so, maybe not. I think it is a case of partly “spin” (i.e. “covering his butt”), partly misjudgment on his part, and partly being misquoted. Ask this question; what would be his rationale for bald-facing lying to people in this way? Easy question right? To sucker people into seeing your movie! C.Y.A.! Except that it’s not a movie, it’s three movies, and any gains made by suckering people into the first movie might be lost two-fold by alienating those same fans from the rest of the trilogy. This was not a case of “let’s see how the first one does and proceed from there”; by the time the first movie came out, substantial investment had been made in the other movies, so the success of all three movies was paramount. Despite what other misgivings we might have about him, I would hope that we all might concede that he is at least a reasonably intelligent guy who could foresee this possible backlash that might subsequently come from over-the top hype on the “faithfulness” of the first movie. Then again maybe he knew that his movie was going to be good and once he got them in they would be hooked, lies or no. Granted, I don’t have any special insight or know any of this for fact, but I do know that few issues are as simple as the most extreme voices on either side would have us believe, and I think we should go over the necessary hurdles before we throw rocks at the guy.

Originally posted by Talimon
Or perhaps if PJ had added extra action scenes that served no purpose that would have bothered me....
Another one would be changing any of the main characters personalities radically. I'm talking about something along the lines....
Boromir being completely anal, always annoying everyone, and having no subtlety. Gimli being a drunk buffoon.
The characters using modern language that is completely out of place (sorry, I don't feel "If you want him, come and claim him!" is modern).

Click to expand...

Radagast gives us one, the very impressive but pointless bridge/aqueduct/stairway in Moria; there's also the orc-birthing and wizard-swinging, and an awful lot of orcs clumping around to no great purpose.
Oh, so that's what "anal" means! Gimli gets a crude line about relishing beer, and others that take him perilously close to buffoonery. Poor P&M, of course, have to be buffoons from their first appearance.
The language- well we've been over this one thoroughly. Arwen's line there is only a bit of careless cheap rhetoric,
but "over-reacting" and the other quotations we've had are as out of place as a bull in a china shop.

I'd just like to piont out that this "backlash", as Parrot calls it, has not really occured. I have 3 good quotes showing that the reaction the film-makers have gotten from fans has not been a negative one. Here:

Fan Magazine Issue No. 4:

Have you been surprised by any of the reactions of the fans?

Peter Jackson: I am incredibly grateful to the fans. I guess one of the things that has surprised me and I appreciate is that the fans have been much more tolerant and forgiving when it comes to making changes. We sort of worried that anytime we had to deviate from the book, or develop things that weren't in the book for the sake of the film, that we would be opening ourselves up to a degree of attack from the fans. I have very much appreciated the way that the fans have been understanding, and that they have tolerated the fact that they see The Fellowship of the Ring, and it is not a carbon-copy of the book. There are a lot of things in the film that happen a different way, or charachters who are introduced in a different way. All the way through the film, there are continual changes. They have never really given us a hard time about that, which we appreciate.

It seems that most true Tolkien fans are happy with the film version of The Fellowship of the Ring.

John Rhys-Davies (Gimili): Yes, and what a tribute that is. You don't get idiots reading a 1,000-page novel set in mythical times. The average Tolkien reader is head-and-shoulders above most of his or her neighbors, intellectually. People who do read tend to be very passionate and very savage about protecting what they read and love. It is an enormous tribute to the Tolkien fans that they can accept with sorrow and with anger sometimes that parts of the book that they love are missing. I think this is just as good of a film that they are going to get for many, many years. It is a tribute to Jackson himself to pick the line and stick to it as faithfully as he can, and a tribute to the fans who just show such a maturity and tolerance in thier acceptance of it.

Script Magazine:

What Have you heard from the hardcore Tolkien fans?

Fran Walsh: It's been fantastic. We love them. They've been incredibly enthusiastic. Sometimes you go on the Net and someone has noticed something you've done, some tiny little detail that you thought no-one would pick up on. But they've understood, they've got it! It's ussually something that was put in there or left in there percisely for those people who share the same love we do for these books. It may be tempting fate, but I haven't had a bad experience even though I've come across some serious Tolkien scholars, who 'beg to differ', you know? They've still admired it, still taken thier hats off to the love that was put into that movie.


--------------------

By the way, you can read scans from the whole article from Script magazine here:

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1036728713

Has some good stuff regarding Shelob, and it further elaborates on why she was moved to RotK.


-------------------

I think that is where we can really see our differences. It's for each of us to judge for ourselves, but I think PJ did some extreme changes and changed some characters to the extreme.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess it depends on what you compare it to. I'm really trying to think back now, and I can't think of a single movie with subject matter as unconventional (by Hollywood standards), a budget as high, and a risk as great. I also can't think of another Fantasy film that has ever made a profit, let alone been good. While perhaps one can find truer adaptations, I dare you to find one of a tale as complex as LotR. Call me a pessimist, if you will. But when I walked into the theatre I was being realistic: I had never seen a movie with a subject this complex really stay true to the book. From that standpoint, FotR is very true. Yes, I could take your standpoint as well, which is, "I've had this transcending experience reading Tolkien, and for the movie to succeed it has to match this, or die trying." For me it's just different. In fact, considering everything the movie could have been, I can't think of anything different PJ really ought to have done, given the circumstances. Well, maybe make it half an hour longer (as everyone seems to be claiming the EE is far superior). But in the end, as a long and passionate fan of Tolkien, what really makes me happy is that PJ made a good movie. One that I can enjoy, yes, but much more importantly one that non-readers can enjoy. LotR for far too long has had a mainstream image of being for "dorks, geeks, nerds" and so on. PJ has single-handedly disproved this, and more-over has gotten folks who'd have never read LotR otherwise to pick it up. So, from a purely "Tolkien-fan" standpoint, that is in my opinion PJ's greatest accomplishment. But from a more personal stand-point I still feel that he has made a great adaptation, and more importantly (in my book) an excellent movie.