What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

Aethelwulf said:

Its not that I hate Arwen, I've just never cared or been in the slightest bit interested in her, so when the replaced Glorfindel who I like as a character, I was rather annoyed.

Click to expand...

They stole our win. It was the fin of our glore in the dell.

Aethelwulf said:

Its not that I hate Arwen, I've just never cared or been in the slightest bit interested in her, so when the replaced Glorfindel who I like as a character, I was rather annoyed.

Click to expand...

For me, it was not the replacement itself that annoys me so much, but Arwen portrayal.
Peter always have to do it in a cheesy pathetic way... here crying upon unconscious Frodo, where pretty much everyone knows that Frodo will be fine (even those who not read books, and watching the movie for the first time), it makes me wanna puke.

It did not become better, later, when she teaches crying Aragorn about his own past and blood, or when Aragorn had a vision of her in Rohan for many long, boring minutes.

d4rk3lf said:

For me, it was not the replacement itself that annoys me so much, but Arwen portrayal.
Peter always have to do it in a cheesy pathetic way... here crying upon unconscious Frodo, where pretty much everyone knows that Frodo will be fine (even those who not read books, and watching the movie for the first time), it makes me wanna puke.

Click to expand...

Good point; Arwen is awfully weepy in the films. But it's not really Arwen I have a problem with. It's the making of Frodo into a sack of doorknobs that has to be transported across the Ford (Glorfindel never does this in the book). Thus, Tolkien's effort at depicting Frodo's bravery goes totally by the boards, which is true for the entire film trilogy, not just this scene.

I've only just joined this forum and this is a looooong thread, so apologies if this has been brought up before.

When I first saw Fellowship in 2001 there were two main things I didn't like about it, and both are quite indistinct and hard to articulate.

One was the sense of quietness, stillness and time passing in the earlier scenes in the Shire. One thing I love about the book is how gently it starts off, leading you in quite a whimsical and small story which gradually widens out into an epic story. And as we know, the initial couple of chapters cover many years, with Frodo getting older and Gandalf reappearing every so often as a harbinger of a bigger threat which is building in the outside world. The film, for reasons of pacing (which I totally understand) totally trampled all over that, and it just seemed that right from the start it was all booming drums and big evil baddies rushing about everywhere. In a nutshell, it was much too fast-paced.

The other thing I didn't like was the "feel" of the Shire. It just didn't sit right with me. It might have been partly the music, but it felt very Celtic, very Irish, and just not what I felt was in Tolkien's mind at all. I'm a bit miffed that the view of the Shire in the world at large now is the film version, and I feel like the kind of rural English medieval feel of the book has been lost in translation somewhere. The film version kind of does a lot of things right in principle (the accents of the hobbits, the round doors, the drinking and smoking, etc etc) but just doesn't feel right to me.

What change in the movies ticks you off the most?​

The movies.

Deimos said:

What change in the movies ticks you off the most?​

The movies.

Click to expand...

I would (I'm sure I'm repeating myself) say they did a stellar job on visuals.
Plot and characters is where they just didn't "get it", or felt the perverse need to squash that into their generic fantasy cookie cutter.
Go ahead, ask me about "Dallas" and "Dynasty" (a different genre - on the surface).
Problem is, my honest comments on the outbreak of the plague that has poisoned everything since then are way outside TTF rules.
I'd rate them PG60 - say what is the usual converse in a retirement home for merchant seamen ...

Olorgando said:

I would (I'm sure I'm repeating myself) say they did a stellar job on visuals.
Plot and characters is where they just didn't "get it", or felt the perverse need to squash that into their generic fantasy cookie cutter.
Go ahead, ask me about "Dallas" and "Dynasty" (a different genre - on the surface).
Problem is, my honest comments on the outbreak of the plague that has poisoned everything since then are way outside TTF rules.
I'd rate them PG60 - say what is the usual converse in a retirement home for merchant seamen ...

Click to expand...

PJ got a quite a few things right... most impressive were the "Bigatures" and some of the special effects, and the costumes and weapons.
The biggest thing he got right (imo) really was big, and that was Treebeard; i.e. his appearance, mannerisms and voice.
Second big thing was the Balrog , first on the Bridge, and then the far shot of it and Gandalf falling toward the underground lake.

They didn't break into song often enough

A random thing that really bugs me in the movies is that Sam gets rope from Galadriel, and then they have him act like he'd prefer the belt that Merry and Pippin got.

Yes, I understand that in cutting the Scouring of the Shire his real gift would have been largely unexplainable (more's the pity) and the rope sets them for the cliff scene, but still...rope? Like it does seem kinda lame, and even more lame to make Sam look discontent.

In the books, I think his gift showcases his character; Sam keeps the hope even when all others despair, and is content with the simple life of the Shire. And of course we see his generosity and kindness in spreading the dirt all over the Shire. The opposite of greed/discontentment in the movie gift scene.

And while I'm at it, let me reiterate how much it sucks that PJ cut the Scouring. ☹️

I can kinda see why he's annoyed about getting some - seemingly - boring rope when Merry and Pippin get the cool stuff. That doesn't make it any better that this really isn't what happened in the book tho of course.

The Witch-king Of Angmar said:

I can kinda see why he's annoyed about getting some - seemingly - boring rope when Merry and Pippin get the cool stuff. That doesn't make it any better that this really isn't what happened in the book tho of course.

Click to expand...

The problem is that everyone (in the book anyway) gets rope in the book, just like they all get lembas and camo-cloaks.

The Witch-king Of Angmar said:

I can kinda see why he's annoyed about getting some - seemingly - boring rope when Merry and Pippin get the cool stuff. That doesn't make it any better that this really isn't what happened in the book tho of course.

Click to expand...

Galadriel had the foresight to give each member the gift that would be of most use to that person.
These were intimately personal gifts.

Deimos said:

Galadriel had the foresight to give each member the gift that would be of most use to that person.
These were intimately personal gifts.

Click to expand...

They were, but I can kinda understand how (in the movie) Sam feels a little weird at first about not being given the cool stuff and getting rope instead even though the rope is indeed super useful later and he realizes his mistake. I mean imagine what he's been through so far when they meet Galadriel and then they all get something to guide them and help them through the next part of the journey and Merry and Pippin get some cool stuff and he gets... rope. I'd have been like "eh wot? How's THAT gonna help?", too. At least at first. I mean IIRC he does make some kind of remark that states that Galadriel probably knows what she's doing or something.

Again, they all get rope in the book. It's a basic survival tool. Other than it being deftly made rope that unties itself, there's nothing special or magical about it. It's like giving someone a coil of rope for their birthday. And it makes no sense that G would just give rope to Sam. I don't remember if this rope ends up even being used (does it? I'm just asking).

Also, just because the movies didn't do the Scouring doesn't mean G couldn't give Sam the mallorn seed; Sam's love of gardening and growing things is hardly even touched up on the films, iirc.

This is just another point that just underlines how poorly the movies even convey the spirit of the book. They so, sooo don't.

Radaghast said:

Again, they all get rope in the book. It's a basic survival tool. Other than it being deftly made rope that unties itself, there's nothing special or magical about it. It's like giving someone a coil of rope for their birthday. And it makes no sense that G would just give rope to Sam. I don't remember if this rope ends up even being used (does it? I'm just asking).

Click to expand...

It does, when they go down a cliff. That at least is something they kept in the films.

Radaghast said:

Again, they all get rope in the book. It's a basic survival tool. Other than it being deftly made rope that unties itself, there's nothing special or magical about it. It's like giving someone a coil of rope for their birthday. And it makes no sense that G would just give rope to Sam. I don't remember if this rope ends up even being used (does it? I'm just asking).

Click to expand...

In addition to his using it for the descent of the cllifs of the Emyn Muil, Sam uses it on the last leg of the journey to Mount Doom.
When Sam and Frodo are crossing the Gorgoroth Plateau Sam suggests they lighten their burden by casting off all the Orc clothes and weapons.
He also makes the difficult decision to jettison his cooking gear.

"He came back to Frodo, and then of his elven-rope he cut a short piece to serve his master as a girdle and bind the grey cloak close about his waist. The rest he carefully coiled and put back in his pack."

Sam mentioned his cousin Andy, who had a rope-walk near Tighfield. Sam would have been grateful to receive any gift from Galadriel, and there's unspoken significance behind each gift. Rope is one of the three basic items a person needs to survive in the wilderness. Elven-rope - 'hithlain' - is worth a thread all its own.
Now, to tie it all together - most annoying thing about PJ's movies is how he made almost every human character, no matter how noble and wise, into a knave, a clown, or the butt of jokes. For example, having Elrond throw a snappy one-liner before fighting the Nazgul is just not in character for the son of Eärendil (the Nazgul would have fled from Elrond, in any case).
Two more things before I come to the end of my yarn. Theóden would never have doubted that Denethor would send aid once the beacons were lit, and Aragorn would never have beheaded the Mouth of Sauron.
finis

Rope is one of the three basic items a person n

Umarth Agarwaen said:

Rope is one of the three basic items a person needs to survive in the wilderness. Elven-rope - 'hithlain' - is worth a thread all its own.

Click to expand...

That was exactly my point. Why wouldn't she give them all rope?

Also, welcome to the Forum.

Radaghast said:

Why wouldn't she give them all rope?

Click to expand...

Galadriel: "The quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and it will fail to the ruin of all."
Galadriel: "Actually, on the second though, this quest is doomed. No chance in succeeding. Only one thing you can do"

.... hands them a rope...

That almost everything is so less effective then it should be. The only fire that was hot enough to burn the one ring seems to be barely hurting Gollum. The ring is supposed to increase the power of the Maia(Sauron) and jet when he blasts the elf's with his maze they don't even seem to die as they fly through the air(you can hear them scream as are tossed out of Sauron's way). The Uruk-hai helmets not being able to withstand tiny stones tossed on them by the hobbits etc. Say what you will about The Hobbit an Unexpected Journey but at least the easily defeated goblins were all in smaller proportions with no armor to cover them at all.