What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

he has cause the latest trailer said nothing of tolkien aside from the obvious title.

So it doesn't even say "Based on the .......... Lord of the Rings by J.R.R Tolkien"?

Hey guys.... this is going to be one kick butt movie. Even if it deviates from the true intent of the book... in the long run it will bring more and more readers to Tolkien. Every time I've seen a great Movie (aka The Godfather), I've immediately gone and read the book.

I'm not keen on pods and added characters but Hollywood will by Hollywood. If you don't like it... don't go to the movie. I for one am going to have my cake and eat it too. I will be first in line at the movie and will then come home and read the books again for the umpteenth time.

I don't think the fact that these are going to be good movies was ever in question. The problem is, the movies Peter Jackson is making are not the Lord of the Rings.

C'mon Grey..... To make the LOTR like it needs to be made would require a movie to be 20 hours long and be economically unfeasible. We Tolkien fans need to take what can be marketed with the caveat at the end being more Tolkien fans who will read the books and find out the real story. No movie has ever followed perfectly to the original story line of any book. I don't have to like it but again I say to you....bitch and go to the movie or bitch and don't go to the movie. But enjoy the movie.

Ahhhhh help!

Ok Im really really new here, and I suppose Im at risk of sounding stupid here: but how do you guys know so much about the movie????? I thought I had been to every movie site and seen every trailer available now. Anyways, just curious (and I kinda wanted to say hi ) so please respond!!!

Welcome Ravenskies,

A lot of what I'm talking about come from the Trailer, the myriad photos posted about and the list of rumored changes on www.theonering.net ...there are enough stills about of the "Wizard Duel" between Saruman and Gandalf, the Uruk-hai "hatching" from pods and the Sword Weilding Arwen on Horseback to make one worried about how this thing got hijacked by Peter Jackson in the first place.

Originally posted by Grond
I don't have to like it but again I say to you....bitch and go to the movie or bitch and don't go to the movie. But enjoy the movie.

Click to expand...

I'll take the first option. But I'm sure I will enjoy the movie, whatever it ends up being.

Hey Grond,
We are not asking this movie to be exactly like the book, like you said that is not really possible. The only thing is, is that Peter jackson is making UNNESSASSARY Changes which just show his lack of respect and knowledge of these books. This is what makes us angry. O yea, and i would apreciate it if we don't swear. It is in the rules you know. thanks a lot.

Sorry I used the B word instead of gripe. I'm just so excited to finally getting a quality production of the books. (Visually not necessarily from the writer's point of view).

I have lived through what I think was a poorly done cartoon version of the Hobbit with Orson Bean as Bilbo and then Ralph Bakshi's version of TFOTR and TT which stunk. We finally have the technology to put together an awesome interpretation of the movie and I'm looking forward to it.

On the other hand, as a purest, I am disgusted by many of the changes. Especially Zen-Arwen/Warrior Princess. Her contribution to the story was important but subtle and not a full screen character.

The other great disappointent is this Lurtz character. I guess the Balrog and Nazgul weren't strong enough evil characters in TFOTR. We have to introduce an evil SUPERORC for Aragorn to thrash. Having said all that..... I still can't wait to see it all.

Hello all,

I have been reading the previous postings on this topic with great interest and it is obvious (like myself) all here are great LOTR fans. However, I do not share the view of the majority and find criticism of a film, yet to be seen, quite facile. There seems to be much confusion surrounding the nature of the artistic works is question. LOTR is truly a magnificent literary work and to diminish it would be a crime, however, the forth-coming film is a separate work and it must be seen as such.

It has been mentioned above how it would impossible to fully create Tolkien's work on the screen without extending it to 20hrs in length. I would argue, further to this, that it is not possible to reproduce some areas of the book at all. The literary devices that Tolkien uses (such as the speeches given in the council of Elrond) would simply be absurd if reproduced to true the book. They would be far too long, and quite frankly tedious. It seems as if some members of this forum would only be satisfied if - on paying the entrance fee for the cinema - they had the novel recited to them in their seats! Scenes have to be different, Tolkien did not write LOTR as a screenplay. Different things may be said and done but provided the film stays as close to the book as reasonably possible I will be happy. I will not, however, as this stage proclaim my outrage about a film I haven't seen; there is no sense in it.

I loved the book for it's magnitude and depth, but when I watch the film I will be watching it as just that: a film. I acknowledge that some things appear to have been "created" and their effect in the film shall be interesting to see. But such speculation as to the effect of these on the film (as it can only be for the trailer and the odd pictures released are no way near enough to evaluate an entire film) is fruitless. The orc pods for example, if the creation of Saruman, could be entirely justified. Saruman didn't produce such creatures as a mockery of Elves but altered them so as to stand sunlight. The pods therefore could be part of this modification. This, WE HAVE YET TO SEE. Please, people, have an open mind. See the film and then judge.

Mac

P.s. I am cynical about the Arwen character, but we'll just have to see, wont we.

That is a very understanding point of view and I agree w/ a lot of it. Your probably right it would be wise to see the movie first and then, complain

I completely agree with maclock, in the sense that of course the movie will not be EXACTLY like the book. It is a different interpretation, by a different person and therefore a different work of art. From what I have seen so far, I think it looks like it will be a spectacular movie in terms of visual effect, (not all is exactly how I envisioned it of course...) but I for one am looking forward to seeing it.

p.s. I will admit however that the Arwen character does seem a little off...

Once again, my ire has not so much been raised by the changes...some of them I certainly agree with, including the showing of the Ent attack on Orthanc, and I am not in the least upset with anything that is being left out of the film, even "The Scouring of the Shire", as I realize both the time constraints and the unique needs of the cinematic medium...my complaint is with Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema and the major media outlets all making the claim that Peter Jackson is a genius and a true Tolkien purist who is working his hardest at bringing the definative telling of this story, and succeeding in creating Tolkien's intent and vision of the tale for the big screen. The ploy is quite obviously designed to convince the general public that this is going to be a direct screen adaptation of the original story and characters, and that Peter Jackson is some sort of mesianic wunderkind who read every chapter straight out of the book along with the cast before shooting the corresponding scene, then create a diatribe about how some Tolkien Scholar was wowed by the sets, and how the crew is painstakingly creating Swords and Props that have Elvish inscribed on them that actually MEANS something, yet not word one to address things like Peter Jackson INVENTING dialog, changing characters for no good reason and all the time bragging that he is being true to the Author's Characters and Story...

Interesting point Readwryt. I agree that the ego of many producers and directors could do with a sizeable reduction. However, I cannot see why he should be at fault for making such alterations (as I have mentioned I do not necessarily think they will matter, after all it is a separate work of art). If he is at fault for representing his film as a direct screen adaptation of LOTR then why did he specifically state in an interview how hard it would be to ADAPT the film. Furthermore if people are duped in to thinking it is entirely accurate, when they do read the novel (as many will) they will see for themselves the differences and make their own judgement. There is always hype surrounding films but LOTR is far too famous a series to be overshadowed, the book will always be with us and treated therefore as a separate (we shall see if better) work.

Mac

I agree with Maclock and RW. I know I will probably love these movies, Arwen and all, but I am mad at PJ and NLC for proclaiming it to be true to the books.

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Once again, my ire has not so much been raised by the changes...some of them I certainly agree with, including the showing of the Ent attack on Orthanc,

Click to expand...

Oh no... I haven't heard this one. Give it to me straight doctor, I think I can take it...

What about the Ents and Orthanc?????

I think I must officially agree w/ ReadWryt on this one. i am very upset that they would profess to be so accurate to the book. CAUSE IT IS A LIE But..... i also would like to know about the Ents and Orthanc since I as well have heard nothing about it

All of you have good points! I still want to watch the movie then complian I won't start a stupid boycott cause of some jacka$$ who wants a pay check

Thorin,

The Ent's siege on Orthanc will not merely be described after the fact, but instead shown. I actually think this is a good idea so long as Jackson isn't writing too much dialog. It worries me to hear that someone is ADDING to the story more then would removing material because this means that PJ is writing "Tolkienesque" dialog for the Ents, and for Saruman and Gandalf in their meeting in Orthanc and the ensuing "Wizard Duel".