• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

...uh, maybe...but then, what would be the harm in just comming right out and saying "Hey, I made a bunch of changes in this when I made a movie out of it, but I think it's still really good anyways!" instead of all the two faced, spin doctored bactracking and deception that so many in hollywood do. I mean, even Vanderhoven finally admitted that "Starship Troopers" had little or nothing to do with the original book nearly a year before it came out...
 
Yeah Rosie. We're are upset with the changes... but much more upset that PJ has made so many statements akin to "JRRT was on the set everyday. We did nothing that he wouldn't have smiled down upon." "We read the chapter each day before we started shooting to make sure we had it right." (These are not exact quotes, but are close enough.) and what I have to say about that is HOGWASH!!!!! (Yeah, I'm shouting.)

If you're going to change something... have the guts to say it is a loose adaptation and not the "real deal". At least... that's what I think and, in this, I don't think I'm wrong.
 
Yes Grond i would definetely say that you are right, and that you share the same view as many on this forum, PJ is the core of our hatred:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Here is something you don't see every day...it's a still from the scene where Arwen and Galadriel converse, JUST LIKE IN THE BOOK!!!

Arwen_galad.jpg


...I'll just be over here by the waste basket strugling to keep my dinner down now...
 
That is absolutely the....hhmmmppp:( :( I think I am gonna....RALLLLPPPPHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!(Throws up profusely)

o yea and DOWN W? PJ!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Not all the photos seen are from the movie itself. Some are just publicity shots, and my guess is that this photo is one of them. I hope it is anyway, I'm finding it harder and harder to defend PJ when I see things like this and learn of yet another change. :(
 
Unfortunatly, I think that is in the movie. I went to the LOTR day at Barnes and Noble, and they showed just a little bit of that scene. No dialogue, of course, but it looked like it was going to be in.

Oh yes, here's another scene, just like in the book! Elrond and Celeborn together in Rivendell! *puke*
 
Doesn't Celborn look like an a number one WUSS!! Why couldn't they have picked someone with a little more presence. He looks almost sweet enough to kiss, not the Lord of the Galadrim. Of course, he and Elrond together in Rivendell did occur. PJ was asleep one night not long ago and had a dream in which JRRT told him that this did actually occur. JRRT just forgot to right it down. As for Galadriel and Arwen showing up together in TFOTR, PJ was heard to say, "Well, Galadriel had actually seen Arwen when Arwen and Aragorn plighted their troth in Lothlorien in the year 2980. That's only a difference of 28 years. Twenty-eight years ain't much when considering artistic impression, right??"

(By the way, PJ never really said any of that. I'm just being cute to keep from being physically ill."
 
GOOOOOOOOOOD GRIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!

What is PJ thinking??? What are Celeborn and Elrond doing together?? What??? Comparing notes???

"I never really approved of Celebrian dating you, you know."
"Aw, but Cel, she was such a hot toddy."
"Of course she is, look at her mother! Helloooh?? Now she is pretty good when...
"Ah, no, don't scar me!"

That should raise some ire...:D

Seriously, though...WHY?? WHY??? WHY???? Why do this?? Why put them together and Arwen and Galadriel together? Its unnecessary and stupid and so anti-Tolkien. If JRR wanted some sort of Elven discourse in FoTR, he would have put it in there!!!

DOOOOOOOOWN WITH PJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I can't believe PJ is doing this it makes me sick. I have been looking forward to this forever and he has to go and mess it up for every one. I mean come on Arwen looks like a little girl pouting fit and have to have he grammy come and console her. I dont know what it looks like to you guys but thats what it looks like to me. Well I was hoping and praying that they would be a good movie. DOWN WITH PJ!!!!!!!
 
I, for one, am totally confused by Arwen's attitude. She is rendering an opinion about a book that she hasn't even read. Making a comment that she wishes Tolkien had more action roles for women while she doesn't have a clue other than a few innocent posts on this board.

All the while, ignoring that Eowyn's deeds in TLOTR are among the greatest of any warrior, male or female, in any of his writings. What a crock. Hey, let me form an opinion about Ms. Rowling, I haven't read the Harry Potter books but, gosh, I have seen the movie.
 
Grond, you lie. Why do you lie like that?? PJ never SLEEPS! He's working twenty four hours a day to make Fellowship the greatest and most entertaining packaging of J.R.R. Tolkien's masterwork that can possibly be made demmit...he actually has a hotline to John Edwards who CHANNELS Tolkien for him, silly!
 
OK . . . I know I'm going to catch heck for this but I think it needs to be said.

First let me say that I do not agree with many of the decisions PJ has made (at least as well as I understand them from trailers and discussions). I have come to the conclusion that he is probably not a good director (or at least that I don't like his style): he has chosen to add "Action" in lieu of stretching his director muscles and building suspense. Example: the ride to the Ferry is one of the most tense moments of the first book but of course PJ gives us a chase scene instead. Hitchcock, on the other hand, would have kept us on the edge of our seats.

Now with that out of the way let me 'splain something that seems to have escaped many people: Movies and Books are not the same thing.

Movies create meaning visually, Books create meaning with words.
Books take time to set a scene, create a mood, describe a character; Movies (well made movies anyway) can do this in an instant. Books, on the other hand, can use literary devices like metaphor to express deeper meanings and convey more information.

For these reasons and more, a movie can never be an exact replica of a literary work. I think people confuse this because both media "tell stories" but here's an analogy that might set this debate in a different context: Imagine a painting of people dancing. We understand the difference between dancing and painting so we don't rebel at the thought of the painter "misrepresenting" the dance.

We go to movies with a different set of expectations than we read books with and can tolerate long passages of description. When Aragorn tells Frodo of his courtship with Arwen, the reader simply sees this as a natural literary device. A film, on the other hand, can (and must) convey this story visually. If this means putting Arwen in Lorien, then I say so be it!

I hope I've made sense . . . just remember, we don't talk about reading movies and watching books.

PS: Yes, I know that there are gross and unnecessary additions and alterations made in the movie, I don't want to argue about each one since they've been covered in great detail in the earlier posts. But I do hear people confusing the convensions of stroytelling used in movies and books.

PPS: Almost forgot: Down with PJ!!!!!
 
Scooter... Sorry but I just flat out disagree with you. There are a number of movies that do all the things visually that a movie has to do and yet REMAINS TRUE TO THE SPIRIT OF THE BOOK!!! I'll give you two classic examples 1) The Godfather - written by Mario Puzo and the movie directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Interestingly, screenplay credit goes to Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola. 2)Interview with the Vampire. Much had to be cut out of the movie because the book was very long... but, the essence of the book was in the movie.

Contrast that to the new PJ LOTR and you'll find a movie that palely reflects the book with many things cut out as they might need to be but with many, many things added which are an unnecessary intrusion and distraction from the original work. PJ could easily have remained true to the book and still had a bang up movie with the same cast of characters. If he wanted Liv Tyler to be the action heroine.... cast her as Eowyn. I think that it is ironic that PJ cast her in the tame role of Arwen and casts a nobody as Eowyn. If you're paying Liv the big bucks... then cast her as Eowyn. Oh well!!! Makes no difference now... what is done is done... we can't unmake the movie and the opportunity to create a true LOTR movie is gone forever. At least we'll have the books.........forever.
 
Grond -- I don't think we're in too much disagreement -- I didn't say that LotR "The Movie" will be true to the spirit of the book and I plan on being disappointed :(. What I was editorializing on was comments like this one (and there are lots of other in this post):
Originally posted by ------
...All of these events do play an important part. The Scouring, Old Forest, Barrow down, Weathertop; all work together to support exactly what you say they don't: a hobbit faced with a seemingly impossible task that he ends up accomplishing. All these episodes build up to just that: it's called character development. Tolkien wasn't just some average Joe-story teller. Tolkien spent most of his adult life forming ME, you don't think every part of it interprets and complements itself? You don't think that he had reasons for every thing he wrote about? Of course altering the story like PJ has done will change much of the meaning of the plot and character. The little things in good literature make a big difference to the story, that's the difference between your average author and those like Dickens, and Tolkien. They wrote it that way.
It's a great analysis of the cohesiveness of Tolkien's writing but can't, in turn be applied to film-making since films are made differently than books.

I know that PJ is no Coppola (if only!) but I'm sure (mostly sure anyway since I haven't read the book) that if applied to the same scrutiny used on this forum, we'd find people dressed incorrectly, saying things not said in the book and acting in ways not originally written, etc. And yet "The Godfather" is still a great movie! and not in spite of the inconsistencies but in many cases because of them -- they enhance the translation to the screen.

I doubt that PJ will have the skill to carry out the same transformation that Coppola did. I think he has made unnecessary changes and I expect the movie to suffer for it.
 
Wooohooo! :D I finally have another person who sees things the same way I do! PJ stinks, but movies and books have to be different. I thank you Scooter! I've been trying to say what you've just said for the last month. I'm so glad I'm not the only one with a revisionist standing anymore, I was getting lonely! :D
 
Thanks Rosie! I thought you'd approve . . . though you've taken the brunt of the grief for the position.
 
Yet again I step in to clarify that which has been posted by most of the people distainfull of Jackson's interpretation of this Literary Work.

It's not WHAT he's done with the film that has most people upset, it's what he's done with the Media in the promotion of the concept that he is making what Coppola did with Puzo's work, as direct a representation of the original work as is possible.

Secondly, the other thing that is annoying beyond New Line and Peter Jackson trying to spin the accuracy and literalness (is that a word?) of the film in relation to the books is that too many of the changes are not abhorant simply because they are changes, or because we have some rediculously tenacious grasp on what Tolkien WANTED the movie to be, although he made his feelings on that subject quite clear in his writings to Forrest J. Ackerman when he was reading the Disney Treatment of their crack at it, it's that so many of the changes like Uruk-Hai being spawned from Maggots and Arwen being all over the movie...like Gandalf talking a Moth into helping him escape Orthanc and Boromir comming into possession of the Ring are not merely cinematic expediencies which were neccesitated by the constraints of taking a book full of deep descriptions and narative to the Film medium, nor do they make any sense in the framework of the STORY, and are not true to the CHARACTERS. They are flights of fancy that the director has seen fit to invent for his own amusement and in some cases actually detract from the logic and fundimental historical fabric of Middle-earth...

This is not merely a complaint by geeky people who have nothing better to do then count the braids in Gimli's beard and decry inconsistency in the wearing of boots by Elves in the Snow, for that would indeed be silly, and it's not some anal retentive gripe fest because someone never pictured Arwen's dress to be a particular color...it's rational dissapointment that when faced with the chance to merely exclude some element that was merely eluded to in the books, like the origin of Uruk-Hai, Jackson has chosen not to bother excluding their birth but instead has invented something ALIEN to the Mythical Universe NOT because it makes for better story telling, but because it sells more toys...Why is it so important for someone other then Frodo to have the Ring? How does it relate the story better to undermine Elrond's flood at the ford by having Arwen in horseback in a place she never was reciting an incantation to wash the Nazgul away? What would have been so wrong with explaining, as they did in the book, that Elrond was behind that event, and to have the marvelous character development of Frodo gaining the courage to face the Nazgul from across the water?

It's not so much the Changes, like giving one person a line that was originally spoken by another character, it's the INVENTION of things that have nothing to do with Middle-earth that are the most prepugnant...
 
My, why is that so easy to understand? Everybody must be on another wave length, because RW has nailed it right on the head. I can't fully understand why everybody seems to balk at such a rational argument and miss the whole point of it by counteracting it with something way off the mark like:

"Now with that out of the way let me 'splain something that seems to have escaped many people: Movies and Books are not the same thing."

and

"For these reasons and more, a movie can never be an exact replica of a literary work. "

Both statements, which seem to be the rallying cry of people who are missing the point, MISS THE POINT!

We are not expecting an exact replica of the dialogue, scenery, and costume wear to be what our imagine has conjured up and complain when we feel it misses the mark. Go back and read RW's post again...and again until you get the point...and also remember my previous posts about WHAT book is being taken to the screen and why there should be a bit more sacredness involved in the movie making process.
 

Today's events

Latest posts

Similar threads

Back
Top