What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Grond]

Welcome, Oh MuffinMan. I, too, had your same attitude a month ago but have dwelt since in this humble forum and am now ready to tar and feather director Peter Jackson. But, I, too, hope that the movie is good; however, I know it will never, ever, ever live up to my expectations and this was the only chance for this to happen. Never again will this movie be made. Drats.....

 

[Elendil]

[Hi folks, I'm new to the forum]

I admit that the changes often seem unnecessary to the plot and action, but perhaps the attempt is to make an exciting story more so. This can lose much of the subtilty in the book however.

Playing devil's advocate, I have to bring up this point. If you read the History of Middle Earth volumes (especially those on LOTR), you'll see that the characters were quite fluid and many of the concepts such as Orcs and Rangers developed during the writing over many years. In the Hobbit we had Goblins, etc. The whole orc thing developed during the writing of LOTR and concurrent development of the Silmarilion.
Characters developed, were tossed, changed names, and merged several times. Frodo was originally "Bingo". Pippin was Fredegar, and before that Folco, from a combination of an earlier "Frodo" character and Odo. Odo was a clown and gives Pippin his humorous character. Sam also got a bit of Odo. Strider was originally a hobbit known as "Trotter" and was for a time Peregrin Took (Pippin)! Frodo was Bilbo's cousin, his son, then a cousin again. Etc, etc.
So the idea of a Glorfindel-Arwen is not so preposterous with all this in mind (except that Tolkien isn't making the changes).

Orcs raised by Saruman? Where *do* they come from? Orcs are an abomination and mockery of the work of Eru Iluvatar. Maybe they do come from pods or something. They are certainly created and bred somehow by Melkor and Sauron for their dark purposes.

Still, artistic license can only be allowed so much slack. Let's hope they haven't gone over the edge.
.

 

[Grond]

Elendil, my main man..... Look back upon this thread in its entirety and you will see that Peter Jackson has, indeed, made a mockery of that which we hold so dear. Yes, we can say this without even having seen the movie.

Your argument of Tolkien's own fluidity lacks validity (I'm such a good poet) because the works were finally put in order and haven't been changed since. The works I know and love as The Lord of the Rings is exactly the same as the one you know and love. Tolkien's inconsistencies in originally putting it together, in no way give Peter Jackson an excuse to change basic principles and precepts in the plot.

I will again restate that all the purists on this forum will be going to the movie. Heck! We'll be first in line... but that will not temper our bitterness nor our resentment that an opportunity for a truly great re-creation of one of the finest works of fiction in our history... has been wasted!

 

[Talierin]

Welcome Elf-friend!

 

[Thorin]

Originally posted by MuffinMan
[BI am just going to clarify a couple things as well.....Arwen has not become ZenArwen. She says the come and claim him line for effect and then runs away. She is drawing them to the Ford so they can be cast down by the tides.

Anyway, although I say this, I am completely willing to take in this movie as an adaptation and as a movie. There is no way it will live up to the books and I have accepted that. The book and the movie are two different medians and I just hope the movie is good and does well. I'm most looking forward to the Two Towers. [/B]

Regardless of what Arwen's purpose is...she is not supposed to be there anyway. Who cares if she was there to give Glorfindel a hand, or offer the riders a lollipop. PJ's change of Arwen's character is ridiculous and unacceptable..

You know what, even if the movie was EXACTLY like the book, it would not measure up to the book. Nothing can replace the imagination and the satifaction of losing one's self in it...the point of the whole matter is that PJ, though claiming to try, is falling short in being true to LoTR...that too is unacceptable..

Let me loosely quote a movie magazine comment from Chris Columbus who directed Harry Potter, concerning making HP movie true to the book..

"If the book is so popular, why would I want to change anything about it?"

PJ could learn a thing or two from someone who has stayed true to the book and been praised for it...HP raked in over $53 million over the weekend.

 

[theGrenadier]

hi...I'll keep this short.
Please refer to my first post,"Has anyone else decided not to see it."

And I just want to mention that this is one of the most open forums I have ever taken part in. Everyone has been very friendly (and well-behaved!) Thanks alot everybody.

 

[Maclock]

Originally posted by Thorin


You know what, even if the movie was EXACTLY like the book, it would not measure up to the book. Nothing can replace the imagination and the satifaction of losing one's self in it...

Here Thorin, I totally agree with you. No matter what the Hollywood budget, a person's imagination will always be superior.

 

[Telchar]

Welcome to the Tolkien Forum Elendil!

 

[Scooter]

Originally posted by Maclock
Here Thorin, I totally agree with you. No matter what the Hollywood budget, a person's imagination will always be superior.

Even Peter Jackson's?

 

[Scooter]

Originally posted by Thorin
Sigh...I think the worst part is that LoTR will never again be the same, people. All the marketing, all the merchandise, all the misconceptions. PJ's movie has changed the dynamics of what LoTR was to society. Imagination will, to some extent, be replaced with different images and some of those images are horribly skewed and distorted. Newbies after PJ will not see the LoTR that we all grew up with.

This is probably the truest post of the thread. Tolkien will be lost for a generation but fear not -- I expect the books will out-live the movies by many lifetimes!

 

[Elendil]

Originally posted by Grond
Your argument of Tolkien's own fluidity lacks validity (I'm such a good poet) because the works were finally put in order and haven't been changed since. The works I know and love as The Lord of the Rings is exactly the same as the one you know and love.

Actually Grond, Tolkien did change the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit after they were published -- several times in fact. Sometimes they were corrections, like when the publisher replaced "elven" with "elfin", but there were also changes in the story. This is especially true of geography. The largest changes seem to have been made to the Hobbit to bring it in line with LOTR. This is interesting as Tolkien started LOTR with the intention of writing a Hobbit sequel. Later the Hobbit was viewed as a prequel to LOTR.

The paper editions also differed from the hardbound ones as they were published by different companies.

All of this is documented by Christopher Tolkien and can be found also in the forwards to the newer editions to LOTR.
My point is that the LOTR (and Hobbit) that some people grew up with actually is different from what people read today.

The only reason there is any stasis now, is because Professor Tolkien died in the '70s.

 

[Grond]

Elendil, O learned master of Tolkien Lore (I mean this sincerely), we do not disagree except maybe to degree. In my opinion, the major changes JRRT made effected The Hobbit, particularly the account of Bilbo's acquisition of the ring and as you say, editing the geography to maintain consistencies within the works. I originally read a 1965 copyright of TLOTR in 1973 and was so enthralled that I went to my local library and, behold, they had the original work published in 1955, which I also read. To this day, I can recall no changes whatsoever in the works. This isn't to say there weren't any, they just weren't significant enough for me to recall.

Having said all that, this thread is about The New Line Cinema trilogy of TLOTR. I just can't find anywhere in the book where Strider (Aragorn) roamed the wilderness packing extra blades of Westernesse to equip wayward Hobbits. I always thought that Gandalf was a wise and, more importantly, coordinated wizard who didn't stumble around places with panic in his voice and fear in his eyes. No where in the book did I read about a guy named Lurtz, no matter what race I looked into. Frodo displaying the ring at The Council of Elrond.... didn't happen; Frodo, passed out and draped over Arwen's steed at the Fords of Bruienen, just didn't happen.(Heck, if I was draped over Liv Tyler's steed and in her lap, I'd be awake, wounded or no.)

You get my drift....

 

[Gloer]

Chew this Fariseans!

I found this really interesting point of view from the Catholic.net.

http://www.catholic.net/beauty_and_truth/template_channel.phtml?channel_id=4

I am not a religious person but interested in how a religious person would view a book that has a semi-religious following:

Quote:
>> In order to understand Tolkien´s "philosophy of myth" it is useful to commence with a maxim of G.K. Chesterton: "not facts first, truth first." Tolkien and Chesterton were both intent on differentiating between facts, which are purely physical, and truth, which is metaphysical.

Thus a myth or a fairy story can convey love and hate, selfishness and self-sacrifice, loyalty and betrayal, good and evil -- all of which are metaphysical realities, that is, true, even if conveyed in a mythological or fairyland setting. >>

Doesn't this quite simply say that it's quite irrelevant how things were descibed happening by the books?

I my self believe that books are the coffins of myths. A book gives fariseans false sense of security and understanding since everything can be checked from the Book.

On the otherhand: God is in the detail. And so is the devil. If PJ has any understanding of Tolkien's stories, he will tell them very well. Not factually correct - but then who cares if the story is good!
And the message and the atmosphere is there...

 

[Greymantle]

I agree, but something I've noticed is when the facts are altered enough while trying to portray the same Truth (i.e. a movie trying to capture the spirit of LotR), the very truth itself is lost! Mr. Jackson's a bit too foolish to understand this.

 

[ReadWryt]

>> In order to understand Tolkien´s "philosophy of myth" it is useful to commence with a maxim of G.K. Chesterton: "not facts first, truth first." Tolkien and Chesterton were both intent on differentiating between facts, which are purely physical, and truth, which is metaphysical.

Thus a myth or a fairy story can convey love and hate, selfishness and self-sacrifice, loyalty and betrayal, good and evil -- all of which are metaphysical realities, that is, true, even if conveyed in a mythological or fairyland setting. >>


Doesn't this quite simply say that it's quite irrelevant how things were descibed happening by the books?

No, it says nothing of the sort. It says that Truths, which are metaphysical constants, can be told in any story...be it Historical, contemporary or Mythological. Facts can be told, a Biography can convey the Facts of events in a person's life, but the Truths, according to your quote, go beyond mere physical actions that can be recorded in a simple account of some person's life, and would include their Loves and Hates, selfishness and self-sacrifice, loyalty and betrayal, good and evil...

Confuse this not, For if Obi Wan had simply told Luke "Your father was my friend till was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force and he begame Darth Vader, an evil bastard lap dog to the Emperor" which would be the FACTS it would deny the story the chance to examine the TRUTH in what he DID say, that Luke's father was "killed" by Darth Vader.

 

[Elendil]

Grond,

You've done better than I in reading different editions. Bravo!

As I said, I was playing devil's advocate. I actually don't see why all the changes need to be made. Only cutting and smoothing can really be justified for the sake of time. [Still FOTR is 3 hours long!] I really don't see the need to cut Glorfindel except possibly to avoid the time needed to introduce another character. Major un-Tolkien dialog and events seem unnecessary. After all, the work is being pared, not expanded. There's plenty of dialog and action to fit a film.

I just saw Harry Potter last week and I have to say that they did a damn good job of sticking to the important events from the book. The scenes were much as I pictured them mentally... and that's a great job as far as I'm concerned.

I will still watch the New Line film and buy the DVD. I also have the Bakshi version, which was really monumental as far as animation is concerned, even if it wasn't 100% faithful to the story. I'm sure there will be other versions of LOTR just as there have been dozens of Robin Hood movies.

I also think some of the individual stories from the Sil, like Beren and Luthien, would make good films.

 

[Grond]

Originally posted by Gloer
On the otherhand: God is in the detail. And so is the devil. If PJ has any understanding of Tolkien's stories, he will tell them very well. Not factually correct - but then who cares if the story is good!

Who cares??? I, for one, care very much. I have been looking forward to seeing TLOTR, that is, the book I have read and reread over the years. I don't want to see someone elses interpretation of it. If you feel everyone's interpretatation is different, you only need to read a little in this forum to see how wrong you are. Some of us may view different themes, plots and sub-plots with a different perspective due to age, upbringing or other factors.... but, most of us here, view the story with a similarly surprising clarity... and most are agreed.... THIS IS AT VARIANCE WITH THE VISION OF PETER JACKSON. That doesn't make his story bad... just different and one that I wish had remained true to the work.

Originally posted by Elendil
Grond, You've done better than I in reading different editions. Bravo!

Not really, that was just happenstance, but I will say that you have piqued my interest again and I will immediately go to my public library and see if they have an older edition. If that doesn't pan out... maybe ebay.

 

[Gloer]

Very good point ReadWryt:

Quote:
>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't this quite simply say that it's quite irrelevant how things were descibed happening by the books?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it says nothing of the sort. It says that Truths, which are metaphysical constants, can be told in any story...be it Historical, contemporary or Mythological. Facts can be told, a Biography can convey the Facts of events in a person's life, but the Truths, according to your quote, go beyond mere physical actions that can be recorded in a simple account of some person's life, and would include their Loves and Hates, selfishness and self-sacrifice, loyalty and betrayal, good and evil...

Confuse this not, For if Obi Wan had simply told Luke "Your father was my friend till was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force and he begame Darth Vader, an evil bastard lap dog to the Emperor" which would be the FACTS it would deny the story the chance to examine the TRUTH in what he DID say, that Luke's father was "killed" by Darth Vader. >>

I place my words carefully. I feel that there are some readers that feel PJ:s (supposed) Arwen portrayal denies the myth.

1. The myth of Frodo facing and fighting fear alone? But he was rescued finally by Elrond who rose the river. They might well have Frodo correctly portrayed in the movie.

2. The myth of Arwen and Aragorn. Now I do not know how you feel it should or could be portrayed.

Many say Tolkien put her women on a pedestal. They were the source ofinspiration for him and for Aragorn. That's Arwens role? And is PJ spoiling it? Is he? Can you really say that honestly without seeing the movie. Unless of course one feels he has to stick with the text.

 

[ReadWryt]

I feel that you are half right, and at that only the half dealing with Facts as your previous quote described them. By changing the Events they have not indeed altered the rest of the events which bring about the greater ending, but you DO destroy what your quote refered to as TRUTHS.

The Truth of a young man (hobbit) who had never faced any real danger reaching deep inside and holding the gravity of the trust placed in him to protect the Ring above the mind numbing fear that the Nazgul inflict on those who see them, and in the end defying them with his own utterence.

The Truth of the great and powerfull lord of the region, Elrond, in his ability not only to bring about a flood but to do it with such good timing...

and Glofindel, who is a STRONG WARRIOR WOMAN that wields a SWORD and RIDES A HORSE and happens to set Frodo upon it and send him riding away from danger...making a sacrifice in the face of danger and letting the Ring Bearer flee while she and the others stayed at Weathertop awaiting goodness knows WHAT perils...

So in the end if you are asking is it worth trading the revelation of strengths and powers of three characters for the expedience of letting Arwen have more screen time, then I for one say no...but that's just me.

*****
I'm still laughing over this. I, in my "Trading Sleep time for Rendering Time" idiocy mixed up Glorfindel, the brave and stalwart MALE ELF, with Eyowen, the Female who had nothing to do with Weathertop. It kinda takes all the wind out of my argument in the end, no? Hehehe That's why I left it here and made an addendum, I wanted to share my overblown selfinflated hubris with all of you.
*****

 

[Gloer]

You are right!

Now I see.
I thought Arwen's new moves intefered somehow with his role in A&A-love story. But if she is the brave one who takes the hapless Frodo across. Then she should take the ring to Mordor too! Very bad. I like Ringwrights and now I have to close my eyes at that part where they chase the ring all out. The Weathertop is a lame attempt.

And I open my eyes ones the flood starts and that poor Liv Tyler stops chanting (elves don't cast spells). Then I hope the rest of the story is ok. Lurtz (?) fits it anyone agree?

DOOOWN WITH PJ!

PS. Liv Tyler is propably behind it. They needed a good looking Arwen. Called her. She said yes and immidiately in New Zealand started to complain that her actors skills are not respected because she has no lines or action seens. Finally PJ put her there. This is speculation of course. MOre likely Tyler read the book only after the filming and realised to her utter shame that while everyone else is acting correctly she is doing all kinds of things that she shouldn't. And nobody told her! Everybody laughs:In the end she can't do a good job acting since the scenes should not be there in the first place!