What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Mrs. Maggott]

My Dear Thorin:

Wait till you see TTT - especially the "duel scene" between Aragorn and, guess who? Eowyn! And who wins does we wonder?? Yesss, yesss, my precioussss, why the LADY winsssss - naturally!

In Mr. Jackson's world, Aragorn hasn't got a prayer even if he DOES end up King and married to "the fastest rider". The only good thing for him was that the ORCS weren't female because he certainly doesn't have any luck with the ladies!

Mr. Mortensen read the book on the plane after he said he'd take the role. Maybe he should have read the script - and stayed home!

 

[TheFool]

er, no-one has seen TTT yet...

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
The fact that the movie takes itself seriously is, in my opinion, what really separates it from other fantasy-film efforts.
[Quote from B Sibley]
"So in a way I see Peter Jackson as part of the mythic process that was begun by Tolkien when he first wrote the first line of the book."

That's just the problem: it doesn't consistently take itself seriously. All the way through the seriousness is peppered with silliness, as if PJ were laughing at the people who wanted to take him seriously.
And I just saw that quotation again also: I thought maybe it was where you got the "myth" idea from!
I listened carefully, but didn't find anything in the passage to justify the character and language changes.

 

[Anamatar IV]

well was Aragorn REALLY supposed to stick a knife to Eowyns throat? If he were really fighting like he was against Lurtz there was no way eowyn would win. But thats besides the point. Anyways what ticked me off was Sams ending line. Its supposed to be We may yet Mr. Frodo. We may. and in the movie its Yet we may Mr. Frodo. We may.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Anamatar IV
....Sams ending line. Its supposed to be We may yet Mr. Frodo. We may. and in the movie its Yet we may Mr. Frodo. We may.

Tolkien knew what he was writing; we know what he meant; why did PJ (or his wife?!) want S to say something different?- anyone know the reason?

 

[Anamatar IV]

It couldve just been that S said the lines a bit differently. Maybe in the original script it called for We may yet. No big deal really. Not like im going to go on a purist rampage over two words being switched

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Anamatar IV
Not like im going to go on a purist rampage over two words being switched

Not a rampage; just interested- it must have been intentional, unless PJ is incompetent.
Not just the words being switched- the switch changes the meaning of the words.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

well was Aragorn REALLY supposed to stick a knife to Eowyns throat? <quote>

No! He shouldn't have drawn AT ALL! And the man that Aragorn (not Jackson-Aragorn) was, would NOT have drawn on a woman no matter how much of a hissy-fit she threw!

Obviously Mr. Jackson is enamored with these "new" men who spend all their time agonizing over being "sensitive" and "responsive" to the ladies - when the ladies would really much rather have a MAN who puts them in their place when they deserve it by pushing the envelope WAY too far! Nobody expects Aragorn to be Fred Flintstone, but they don't want Alan Alda either. It would have been really FINE if Mr. Jackson had presented Professor Tolkien's Aragorn, son of Arathorn of the line of Elendil instead of whatever it was he DID present.

 

[Thorin]

The whole "Aragorn vs Eowyn" thing was hashed out a long time ago. Here is the thread that this occured between the purists and the FADs. WIth the purists staunchly standing by Tolkien's work and wishing it could be more true, and the FADs condemning the purists for not recognizing and accepting more of PJ's needless changes in the name of"director's interpretation" and "spirit of Tolkien". It is entitled "Tell Me I'm Not Seeing This"...

thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?threadid=3827&highlight=Please+tell+me+Im+not+seeing+this

Can anyone tell me how to post a thread link with the title, rather than the whole URL?

 

[Grond]

Thorin,

you type the following code.

It is entitled [ url=http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?threadid=3827]tell me I'm not seeing this[/url ].

Of course, you move the opening bracket on [ url in a space and do the same on the closed bracket on [/url ]

That makes it read like this

It is entitled tell me I'm not seeing this.

 

[Grond]

Originally posted by TheFool
er, no-one has seen TTT yet...

TheFool, we have seen the trailer and it is filled with enough changes to already make the purist ego in our brain start on a rampage.

 

[Radagast]

FUN FUN FUN

Well Aragil,

I don't mind being turned into a moth, but I can see that you too may turn if PJ goes too far in changing what you fancy. Your dear Ugluk. But I went to the theater expecting to see something spectacular, as I have written before, and I thoroughly enjoyed the beginning of the film until it fell apart with Arwen and in Rivendell, where the whole Middle-earth of Tolkien became the middle earth of PJ and Hollywood. So those of us who were expecting something fair to good were probably more angry at the piliging for profit and political correctness that pj took his liberties with. Lying all along. See, that's what bothers some people. When people reassure and lie about what they are doing. That's why Tolkiens name was pulled from the title, It wasn't an accident, as well as the line "inspired by" instead of "based on" that wasn't an accident either.



So I didn't know the milk would be sour. I do remember that skit though, and still like it. but not this movie.

 

[Talimon]

So those of us who were expecting something fair to good were probably more angry at the piliging for profit and political correctness that pj took his liberties with. Lying all along.

With all due respect, who's been preaching to you? "Lying"? Give me a break. It's almost as if PJ signed some contract or something. PJ never promised anything he didn't follow through with. He may have given the impression that he was following Tolkiens book, but on what scale are you going to judge him? Yours? On my scale, for a film-adaptation PJ followed Tolkien as closely as any film need follow a 450-page fantasy book. In fact, much closer then I'd expected. It's two different attitudes, I suppose. I came in with no baggage and with an empty cup. I came out much better off then I was when I had come in. I don't see how any Tolkien fan who seriously respects LotR can put so much emphasis and expectation on an adaptation. Give Tolkiens book more credit. PJ does, by not following it to the word. He knows it's legacy will exist regardless. He has always stated that this is not the Lord of the Rings. Just his adaptation.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
He has always stated that this is not the Lord of the Rings. Just his adaptation.

Well, he has quite a lot to say on the DVD about being accurate to the books; maybe "lying" is a bit strong, but "inaccurate" is a fair enough word to apply to what he says there.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

All I would really like to know - now having seen how much further along the road of "completely different story" Mr. Jackson has gone in TTT - is just what Jackson would have to do to discomfort his supporters? So far, everything he has done has been excused. The smaller things at first (like not developing the relationship among the hobbits) were excused by time constraints. Fine. Then when we had the whole "Arwen at Weathertop to the Fords" scenarios, well that was excused on a combination of time and budget constraints and artistic license. Okay. And thus it went through all of FOTR wherever the Director decided that Tolkien's story needed a little "assistance". There was always a "very good reason" for all that was done.

But in TTT, we have "changes" that have gone WAY beyond anything that the above rataional can excuse and STILL, Mr. Jackson's defenders contend that he's doing just fine, thank you. In fact, they turn the focus around and blame those who are questioning and criticizing by calling us "purists" - as if that were a fault. Therefore, all of you Jackson supporters, I will ask only ONE question: please tell us unenlightened "purists" WHAT DOES JACKSON HAVE TO DO BEFORE YOU WOULD SAY THAT HE HAS GONE "TOO FAR"???

Thank you for your anticipated courtesy.

 

[TheFool]

I think I may be disappointed if Gollum 'has a moment of clarity' and voluntarily jumps into the fire. But I don't really care. I was so looking forward to FOTR for: the cinematography, art, battle scenes, special effects, CG, makeup, costumes and all the other absolutely stunning visuals and action. AND IT DELIVERED. I knew there would be significant 'story' changes; the excellent BBC radio play is 13 hours long and still has large parts missing. If I want the complete accurate story I'll read the book, which I read before the films and so I know what really happens.

Mrs M I would ask you one question: have you seen TTT yet?

 

[Weathergirl2006]

I hadn't realized all the differences...but it has been a long time since i read it. i might read it again before i watch ttt.We have yet to buy the dvd .we gunna rent it before we watch the ttt movie!!so i'll read both!!

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by TheFool [/i

Mrs M I would ask you one question: have you seen TTT yet? [/B]

And I would ask you one in turn since your's can hardly be considered serious - not to mention polite: do you put any stock in sponsored sites that present material from the films including the comments of those involved and "those in the know"? If you don't then why are they constantly being quoted and referenced (and we're NOT talking about trailers). If you do, why is it that MY comments - based as they are on the information contained in such a site - are considered "pre-judgment" or "irrelevant" simply because I have not seen the film?

Indeed, how can you even HAVE threads about TTT and ROTK if before anyone may comment upon them, one must SEE them? That kinda' deep-sixes quite a few threads, posts etc. made on BOTH sides of these issues since NONE OF US have seen these films!

Furthermore, if the infamous "trailer" - which again I must point out I have NOT seen - is actually IN the film and Aragorn has a weapon in his hand, then MY POINT IS MADE. Aragorn - TOLKIEN'S Aragorn - would NEVER have drawn on a woman! End of discussion unless you can prove otherwise - and, frankly I don't think that you can.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by TheFool
If I want the complete accurate story I'll read the book, which I read before the films and so I know what really happens.

Of course, and everyone accepts there have to be omissions, but what's wrong with what IS in the film being reasonably accurate? Most of it IS accurate, but there's no consistent explanation of why almost all of it can't be accurate.
And btw what part of NE UK are you in? I'm there too.

 

[TheFool]

Mrs. M, I apologize for the sarcasm in my previous post.

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Indeed, how can you even HAVE threads about TTT and ROTK if before anyone may comment upon them, one must SEE them? That kinda' deep-sixes quite a few threads, posts etc. made on BOTH sides of these issues since NONE OF US have seen these films!

This was not my point at all and I know I should have made it better. Of course you can have threads about them, for anticipation, mild speculation (good/bad) etc etc etc etc but please, the line has to be drawn at critically bashing them, as in:

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
All I would really like to know - now having seen how much further along the road of "completely different story" Mr. Jackson has gone in TTT

But in TTT, we have "changes" that have gone WAY beyond anything that the above rational can excuse

IMO this type of comment should be reserved until after it is released...


---------------------------

joxy: Peterlee