What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

I think what most of us are mad about is PJ spouting off about how true he is staying to the book when in fact he makes these really quite unnessecary changes, like having Pippin knock a skeleton instead of a rock down the hole in Moria. He's being hypocritical.

Ok, ok...cool yer jets kids. Talierin is right, of COURSE a film maker has constraints and obsticles in bringing a book to the screen, and by simply saying "I'm doing my best to bring the book, which is far more then any camera can capture, to the big screen..." P.J. could have saved us ALL a LOT of typing, but he, his press crew or New Line apparently didn't feel the need to take the high ground on this one and forged ahead with Quotes and stories about what a visionary the man is.

Thorin,

Take a look at ANYTHING with the official movie title and you will realize that J.R.R.'s name is NOT on the title. The Tolkien estate put an end to that practice a long time ago after getting an idea of what the film was really going to be like.

I don't see how you would add 20 hours to the movie. I mean, I know that the Books on Tape version is over 13 hours long, but I would bet you that were you to cross out all the descriptions of the setting and the detail to which the author described the action, taking into account that most of this could merely be SHOWN on the screen, you would end up with somewhere between half and two thirds of the original story. Now applying my geeky math to the 13 hour number, and finding what 2/3s of 13 hours is I come up with 8.58, or an average of 2.86 hours per movie...this is not out of the question in this day and age. But none the less...my gripe is not merely with things added or subtracted so much as HOW they were handled and how the changes bring to light the doublespeak comming from the Film Makers as to the skill and care they have applied to create "The closest adaptation of the books possible".

Were it as someone said here "Principly because almost all seem to continuously disregard the fact that the film is a SEPERATE work within itself, and isn't (nor could it ever be) a direct recreation of the novel..." then it is unfortunate that, if you seek out the publicity and where it is published, the information aimed at the average person is claiming that this is going to be a the cinematic embodiment of Tolkien's work, yet the statements being made to the Tolkien Community are ranging from "Certain changes had to be made when transcribed to film", to "If you don't like the changes being made in the characters then don't see the movie", yet never the twain seem to meet. This leads one to believe that it is the desire of the Studio, Production team and Director to keep the general public from knowing what the Tolkien Community has learned about how accurate the films will be, and in what ways they deviate...Now if they were actually PROUD of what they are doing to the story and characters, why take this tactical procedure?

RW, my error on the Tolkien name thing. I could have sworn that the early trailers were portrayed as "JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings".

Everything you've said is what my concern has always been: that the newbies who have never read Tolkien will be falsely lead to believe PJ is doing JRR Tolkien justice and recreating the book as it is...The way he and NLC have been going about the whole promo thing is very misleading to those who don't know better, and to me that is doing a great disservice to Tolkien's fans who want nothing more then for Tolkien and his works to be promoted properly to a future fan base of ME.

Down with PJ!!

I think that we need to stop basing out opinions on the 5 minutes of trailers we have seen, and the rumors that we have been hearing. Take for example the crazed Gandalf: I agree that a panicky Gandalf is not at all like the Gandalf in the book. But we are basing all of our anger about that panicky Gandalf on 3 seconds of footage. It's possible that when seen in context Gandalf won't seem nearly as crazed as in the trailer. A line from the chapter "A Long Expected Party" is "Keep it secret, keep it safe," so by creating Gandalf's line from a line in the book, PJ probably feels that he trully is staying true to Tolkien's book.

Even though I disagree with the extreme purist standings of some of the members, I'm willing to make a truce until we see the movie.

Saw this on TORN:
"Ian McKellen, who plays the wizard Gandalf in the upcoming Lord of the Rings films, told SCI FI Wire that Rings author J.R.R. Tolkien was "looking down or up" on writer/producer/director Peter Jackson's film trilogy. "[Tolkien] was always there, just off the set, in every single scene," McKellen said in an interview. McKellen plays Gandalf the Grey and, later, Gandalf the White in three films: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King.
McKellen added, "There were last-minute checks. 'Have we got it right? Is that what he wanted? Is that what he intended?' The devotion to that man, I think, was equal to everyone's devotion to Peter Jackson. It was never, 'Ah good, we've got this storyline, let's see what we can do with it.' Of course, it's Peter Jackson's vision of the films. It's his imagination. It's his response to [the stories]." The three films are based on Tolkien's three Rings volumes of the same name.
The British actor, who's currently on Broadway opposite Helen Mirren in Dance of Death and will soon reprise his role as Magneto in X-Men 2, elaborated further on his strong and positive feelings for Jackson. "When this film comes out, it will just say 'New Line [Cinema] presents The Lord of the Rings,'" he said. "It's not going to be 'A Film by Peter Jackson.' Now, wouldn't you think you'd earned the right, having brought this project to life, to have your name up there? The man you meet is the man we saw every day. He's only got one pair of shoes. He's always in shorts. He's always in the same shirt. He generates such enthusiasm just simply by being himself. He's not a star, but his knowledge is formidable. You can go to him and absolutely get your answer." The Fellowship of the Ring will open on Dec. 19."
What a bunch of BS. How anyone can listen to this guy any longer is unfathomable to me.

Rosie, we are not just basing our opinions on fleeting glimpses of the trailers. Most of these "rumors" are coming from offical Tolkien web-sites which have confirmed a lot of the changes we are talking about.

I for one will not call a truce on the matter because new people are coming all the time who do not feel the way you do and would like to be aware of the plot/character changing that distorts what Tolkien intended. There is principle involved and if fans of Tolkien would rather poo-poo the changes in the movie and sacrifice principle and Tolkien's intentions just to justify their enjoyment of it...so be it. That is their perogative. I for one will not bend over and take it from PJ with a "That's Hollywood for you. What's the big deal?" attitude that many of the people here are taking. I will see it, and probably enjoy many parts. I will not, however, accept it as "Lord of The Rings" and will not promote the movie as "Tolkien". And I think that it is only fair that "newbies" understand the difference between Tolkien and PJ's bastardized version. That is why I shall keep bitching.

No hard feelings against you, though. I'm sure I'm one of the purists you strongly disagree with. Aren't opinions great?

Well, I know this will stir up more words, but, my mom knows a top tv programmer at NBC (basically when the peacock comes up with a message about technical difficulties, his head is in the guillotine). I figure, if I can convince him to run a commercial (RW can make it considering that he's a 3D Graphics Designer) about the movie, we may have something. The general public has absolutely no idea of the changes. So, if we simply make a commercial like this, imagine how many leaves we can turn over...

[A guy pulls his head out of his behind, and it turns out that it's PJ], "Hi everyone, I'm Peter Jackson. I'm currently making my rendition of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. I would like everyone who has access to the internet, visit www.thelordoftherings.com and check out the list of changes that I've made to bastardize [(hey, that's not a curse)] the book. Thanx"


Of course, this would be a good way to get attention, but it would require many clearances from NLC, Mr. D A-P, PJ, et al. Of course, I still need to convince my mom's friend at NBC...

Just speculation

Ok, I do agree with you that newbies to Tolkien deserve to know the changes being made. I am also terrified of millions of people becoming "LOTR fans" that don't even know who Tom Bombadil is. All I'm trying to say is that I think (or really want this to be) a very good movie, that portray's Tolkien's world as best a movie can. And I, having read many novels that have been turned into movies, think that PJ is doing as good, if not a better job, then I would have expected. I still say we should calm our debate down some until after we have seen the movie, but I know that I won't be able to keep my mouth shut if I disagree with something. Besides, this is kind of fun.

Well I've been thumbing through the Official "The Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring" desk calandar...a gift from our esteemed Web Master, and it is chock full of pictures and quotes and lots of Trivia Questions..."What was Gimli's father's name?", "What is the name of Frodo's sword?" and all that kind of stuff...Now, bearing in mind that this is totally based on the Movie and not the Book, as is evidenced by a quote from Saruman speaking to Lurtz, I thought that I would share a couple of the questions with you to see if anyone can answer them...

1) What do Uruk-Hai start life as?

2) WHat creature does Gandalf speak to while imprisoned at Orthanc, which ultimately leads to his escape?

3) What is the name of Arwen's horse?

I'll be posting the answers soon, no fair peeking...I want you all to research only from Tolkien's writings for the answers..*Snicker snicker GAFAW!*

Here are your answers to these disgraceful questions:

#1 I refuse to answer this question due to the fact that I know the answer will probably be PODS!!!!! STUPID PJ

#2 The creature was Gwaihir, and if this is not right than PJ is in Deep Deep trouble

#3 And as for the third question, I as well refuse to answer this abonimible question and scoff in PJ's Face

I hope this shows my true feelings

I must agree with Rosie's position on the forthcoming LOTR movie. It does seem a little premature to label a film as a bastardisation before any of us have actually seen it. After I have seen the film, I too may share the opinion that Thorin has now, but I cannot accept his position in its entirety before then.

Firstly, the central point that both Rosie and I have made (and Readwyte has alluded to) is that a film cannot, as a genre, cope with the magnitude of LOTR as it is in the novel. It is, prima facie, understandable for a producer to adapt a plot taken from a novel in order to make the production of a film work. I do however share some of Thorin's reservations that perhaps PJ may have gone too far. Many of the additions do seem to stretch the original plot and could endanger the magic of Middle Earth. However,(and this is a BIG however) the available evidence of all the plot changes is not sufficient for me to commit myself to them totally though. I will wait and see the film to gauge the whole effect.

The issue I think that unites this forum is the danger that many individuals will consider, having watched THE LORD OF THE RINGS THE MOTION PICTURE, that what they have seen is equivalent to reading the novel. I accept Readwyte's point that PJ appears to be exacerbating this risk by his numerous press releases. It is quite depressing that, whenever a film is based on a truly awesome novel, cretins will claim to know the plot (etc) without having ever read the book! However, that fact will not reduce the quality of the film - if it's good then it will be so irrespective of the ignorance of others or the ego of its producer.

This is a very interesting forum, MAC

I don't like any of the unnecessary changes made to the movie (Tom Bombadil being the only unecessary portion of the book) and I'll never understand PJ's thinking on those particular changes. Yes, I'm outraged! Yes, I hate the changes, and resolutely disagree with them! Yes, if I ever get my fingers around PJ's neck I'm going to ask him why he made those changes, and then strangle him! But...I am going to see the movie, so I can come back and tell you HOW bad it was (or if by some amazing chance *sarcastic voice* it is good).

Some of you may have implied that I had no problem with the changes, but I do. Might I imply that the only problem some of you have with the movie are the pointless changes?

...now that you mention it...

Frodo is too young, Saruman has no color in his hair, Galadriel isn't nearly beautifull enough, and I can't look at Elrond without hearing him say "How are you going to speak Mr. Anderson, when you have....no mouth?" *LOL*

Frodo is too young, Saruman has no color in his hair, Galadriel isn't nearly beautifull enough, and I can't look at Elrond without hearing him say "How are you going to speak Mr. Anderson, when you have....no mouth?" *LOL*

Click to expand...

Ah.. that's where I recogniced him from, the Matrix..

YES!! The Matrix!! I knew I saw him somewhere! And he's just as homely as he was on The Matrix!! Except he's supposed to be beautiful as Elrond!! What happened??

I have said right from the beginning that Galadriel was not what she should be..Cate Blanchett?? Don't ask me from what gene pool PJ picked his elves from...

I can deal with the actors' physical appearances not matching the characters, provided that they portray the character (personality) properly. I think the actors who play Sam and Gandalf have the most work cut out for them, and the most responsibility) We already know Ian McKellen's done a lousy job...not his fault, he's a great actor, but PJ's for turning Gandalf into a crazy old man who sputters and yells...pretty sad.

What a travesty!!! Putting out questions in a LOTR desk calendar that CANNOT be answered from the book. What a crock of orc Crud!

heehee Orc crud that is funny
Anywho, when are we gonna get the answers to those questions?

orcs

ORCS HATCH FROM PODS??????????? What are they thinking!!! I'm not sure I am going to like the movie very much if they add stupid stuff like that. I thought the book was perfect the way it was. Where do these guys get off thinking they can improve the Lord of the Rings!

aaahhh yes a new member. Let me just be the first to apologize for you having to find out about Peter Jackson's rancourous and horrible changes to the book. If you read this whole thread, you will see some pretty horrible stuff. I suggest you look @ everybody's views before you make a desicion of how you feel, we all have some pretty valid points. Sorry this had to be one of the first things that you found out

Ah! No! Just listen to me and Thorin! We are right and no one else!!!


j/k