What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Ariana Undomiel]

I must say that the only scene in the movie that ticks me off is that disgusting scene where Saruman is hatching the Urukai. That was just unnecessarily disgusting. Nothing else really annoyed me.

~Ariana

 

[Radagast]

Lying

Small lies or big lies

When people say one thing then do another, that's a lie. When Pj was doing all his PR for the film before the release, he was constantly stating how he was keeping true to the books and how all us "purists" will be happy with the way he treats the works because he knows how many people held them in such high regard blah blah blah, and then he throws in "Dwarf tossing" and changing characters like Aragorn and Arwen and Saruman and Elrond and more to come be sure of it. Let's pray he doesn't ruin Gollum.

As for me, When some one is dishonost I hold them accountable. But that's just me, you do what you like, no one is telling you otherwise. But the man lied.

If you like the film, great. I'm not telling you not to like it, but man it's truly amazing at the venom that is spewed towards those of us who truely disliked many parts of it and stick to our guns. PJ the emperor has no clothes!

 

[Radagast]

Previous post

My previous post was a rebuttal to Talimon. I can live with the term inaccurate that Joxy used, but if you are inaccurate on purpose, to me that's a lie, and even Talimon said "gave the impression", and again if someone gives an impression of one thing on purpose, and then knowingly does something different, that's a lie too in my book.

Personally I believe Jacky did all of the above.

 

[joxy]

Re: Previous post

Originally posted by Radagast
....if someone gives an impression of one thing on purpose, and then knowingly does something different, that's a lie too in my book.

Some of what he says on the DVD is certainly more than an impression, and what he does in the film is regularly different from what he says, so the boundary between inaccuracy and lying is a very fine one.
The differences range from trivial to what I have called crass- the orc-birthing that rightly annoyed Ariana has to be crass- and T tells us, also rightly, that whatever we see was specifically intended by PJ to be that way, but they ARE there, and HAVE to be weighed against what he said.

 

[Grond]

I posted this on another thread trying to get Talimon to address it and he failed to do so.... so I'll post it again here as these are the words directly from the director's mouth.

from The Lord of the Rings - The Official Movie Guide by Brian Sibley, excerpts from chapter From Book to Script
...As the process of turning Tolkien's book into screenplays developed, the filmmakers increasingly drew on the original text. "When we first started writing these scripts," says Peter Jackson, 'we assumed that we would have to simplify and modernize the languages, because that was what a modern film would require. On the contrary, however, with each subsequent draft of the screenplays, we have gone further and further into Tolkien's language, because it is beautiful and evocative and , when spoken by good actors, comes alive in a way that is really fresh and exciting."

Nevertheless, cuts had to be made and scenes amalgamated or moved to create necessary dramatic tensions. Dialogue was sometimes borrowed from one part of the book to provide lines for a character in a scene somewhere else, and occasionally new dialogue had to be written, "in the style of Tolkien." One or two new characters in the original book have not, finally, found their way onto the screen, while others, notably the few female characters, have been given stronger roles in the film than they have in the original text.

Throughout the entire process of bringing this world famous book to the cinema, Peter Jackson has kept one overriding principle in mind: "My primary job has been to make three good movies, as opposed to making three movies that are totally faithful to the books. Nevertheless, I fully accept that I have a responsiblity not to disappoint those many people who love the books. Which is why we have really tried not to lose anything that we feel is key or important to the books and why, almost without exception, all those things that are memorable and vivid from reading the books are there in the movies.

Is it a lie, a failure to live up to a promise or simply blowing smoke??? You decide.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Grond
<Nevertheless, cuts had to be made and scenes amalgamated or moved to create necessary dramatic tensions. Dialogue was sometimes borrowed from one part of the book to provide lines for a character in a scene somewhere else, and occasionally new dialogue had to be written, "in the style of Tolkien.">

That's the punch-line, "in T's style".
The cuts, the amalgamations, the movings, all fine.
For example B's death is parts of two original scenes plus a few added lines, completely OUT of T's style.
Either PJ didn't mean what he said, or he is so tone deaf that he should never have made the claim, and the attempt at T's style.

 

[Talimon]

I hate to offend folks here, but what if (DEAR GOD!!!) I told you that infact it is you that don't understand Tolkiens style and PJ does? Has that ever crossed your mind? People seem to feel that they are the greatest judges of Tolkien. PJ is interpreting it, PJ can make his own decisions as to what's Tolkien, for him. It is foolish and in fact snobbish to assume that you have the greatest understanding of what's important in Tolkiens tale. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can't respect. I, for one, feel that PJ captured what to me is important about FotR. I know many folks who are regarded in much higher standing when it comes to "interpreting Tolkien" that have said the same. I just think you need to make clear that you are making a very subjective statement, that applys to your opinions. Considering how many folk who have gained a high reputation and devoted thier life to Tolkien have praised PJ's movie, I find it hard to accept that one fan can make such a wide statement, and have the wit to say that PJ is "tone deaf".

 

[Longshanks]

Grond & Talimon, thanks for the welcome to the Forum! Although I'm a longtime Tolkien fan, I only recently found this forum. This exchange of opinions and ideas is fantastic. I was suprised to find such an intense dislike of Jackson & his movie. The group of posters that are known as "The Purists" seem to desire a scene for scene recreation of the books,or at most a slighty edited version, trimmed for length only. A gargantuan undertaking of this nature would require a director with vision to bring it to the screen. Such a slavish recreation of the book would most likely not interest an director worth his salt to make the movie. One must remember that a director is an artist and would feel the need to put his own touch to the production.No true artist is satisfied doing a 'Paint by numbers" picture. That being said, the changes made in the adaption seem relatively minor to me. Consolidating Glorfindel and Arwen into one character seems to me to strenghten the character in the film. This Arwen is more fleshed out than the beautiful but bland Elven princess that is seen at Rivendel and then appears at the end of the tale as Aragorn's bride. I'm curious as how women as opposed to men feel about the expanded Arwen. Do they seem to approve or disapprove?
Another point that seems to bother people in the purist camp is the inclusion of comic relief in the film. I'll admit that there is very little "humor" in the original book, but its use in the film is a nessasary one. As its name implies, there needs to be a relief to the drama of the situations our heroes find themselves in. Without the occasinal bit of levity, this would become a very heavy movie. At the risk of offending Prof Tolkien's more devoted fans, it is a book of fantasy, not a sacred text. A chuckle now and again is surely allowed.

 

[Grond]

I, for one, haven't claimed that PJ doesn't understand Tolkien. What I claim is that he isn't putting Tolkien on the screen in the manner that I, a long term Tolkien fan (who understands the author very fine, thank you Talimon) want to see.

You still haven't commented on the quote I have now twice provided. In it, P. J. acknowledged a duty owed to Tolkien fans not to stray too far from the path. I think there is a concensus among Tolkien students that he strayed too far... (he has made a fine movie, mind you) but he has strayed too far.

And finally, you can say what you want about making the book work in cinema... but the added female roles and characterizations are all about modernizing the movie to appeal to the female movie goer... nothing more. Don't call that creative license and don't say that is PJ's interpretation of the works. That is PJ modernizing Tolkien's work which isn't addressed in any of his comments.

 

[Talimon]

What I claim is that he isn't putting Tolkien on the screen in the manner that I, a long term Tolkien fan (who understands the author very fine, thank you Talimon) want to see.

I have no problem with that statement. The important thing is that you are stressing "I". It's when people start making these open, supposedly objective statements that I get edgy. I just don't think this is a discussion where one side can end being "right" and the other "wrong". That can never truly happen with artistic opinion.

You still haven't commented on the quote I have now twice provided. In it, P. J. acknowledged a duty owed to Tolkien fans not to stray too far from the path. I think there is a concensus among Tolkien students that he strayed too far... (he has made a fine movie, mind you) but he has strayed too far.

"Too far" is where I need clarification. "Too far" for what? For the tale to still be called LotR? For the tale to be Tolkiens tale word for word? That is an ambiguous statement that I see different people defining differently. For all the opinions of the Tolkien "students" out there, I haven't see one clear consensus on this "too far" business. That's probably because there isn't one. Which, when you think about it, makes perfect sense. The trueness of PJ's movie to Tolkiens book simply depends on which scale you are judging it on. And, as is the case with movies, each viewer is bound to judge the movie differently. That's one of my main points against arguing that PJ's movie "isn't" LotR. Because I have talked to many folks who are highly considered in the "scholarly" circles (most prominently head members from the Mythopoeic Society, made up of some of the oldest Tolkien scholars around) who have loved PJ's movie. I attribute this to the fact that these folks aren't judging it on the same scale many "purists" are. Innitially I thought it was a lower scale. After talking to the the owner of The Other Change of Hobbit, one of the most well-respected fantasy book-stores in the USA, I was surprised to find otherwise.

This doesn't prove anything per se, except the fact that a "good adaptation" has multiple meanings in different crowds. Even I, one who with time is only loving PJ's movie more and more, could shun it, were I to judge it on a different scale (literal trueness to the book, say). I don't choose to do so, however, simply because that is not what the movie is attempting to do, and not what I'd want it to do (thank god, I say ). In the underground, backalley world of fantasy culture, there is one word that is unspoken as Mordor: "literal". In fact, when expressing distaste with certain fantasy book reviews, I always hear folks saying "God-damn literalists!". I guess I am coming from a slightly different background when it comes to fantasy, who knows . But my view on Tolkiens book has never been a literal one. That was partially why I was slightly dissapointed with Harry Potter: it felt so accurate, so percise, so dry, so "literal"... The film-makers didn't seem to see any of the "magic", the "fantasy". To me what is important about Tolkiens book is the feelings it evokes. And I believe PJ's movie, when you take off all the creative decorations and masks (by the way, the very masks that make escapist fantasy so good), is made up of the same ingredients that Tolkiens tale is.

And finally, you can say what you want about making the book work in cinema... but the added female roles and characterizations are all about modernizing the movie to appeal to the female movie goer... nothing more. Don't call that creative license and don't say that is PJ's interpretation of the works. That is PJ modernizing Tolkien's work which isn't addressed in any of his comments.

From the newest fan magazine:

...When it came to doing the film, we felt that one of the things we wanted to do was establish a relationship between Aragorn and Arwen, and that becomes quite important for Aragorn's charachter because a lot of things he does in the three movies are based around a sense that he is in love with Arwen. His dream is that they will be able to be together one day. At the same time, you have dynamics working on Arwen...the elves are leaving Middle-earth, and her father wants her to leave as well. She wants to stay with Aragorn, and, if she stays, she is aware that Aragorn will grow old and she won't...but she is prepared to go through with that because she loves him. We really liked that dynamic...the elf and the human love story and the possibilities of that...It wasn't really a case of thinking J.R.R. Tolkien was wrong here, or "We need to make Arwen more of a 21'st century charachter." It wasn't really that motivation. We were simply thinking, "This could be a great love story. This could really be tragic and sad and bitter and sweet."

-Peter Jackson

Now I reckon, Grond, that some people will say this is just BS and that PJ is "talking out of both sides of his mouth." That is thier right, but I beg you to read the above quote and explain to me how that has no creative merit. In fact, I'd argue that it helps stress one of Tolkiens stronger themes, which is the elves leaving Middle-earth, and how truly tragic and bitter that is (perfectly exeplified in Arwens case).

 

[Radagast]

fair argument

Longshanks makes a fair point about his views of color by numbers, but if that was the actual case it would have suited pj better to come right out and say so instead of being such a politician about the whole process and lying about what he was attempting to do.

As for Talimon, I can't help but read his criticisms of our criticisms and somehow see Grima stricken by Saruman's voice groveling at his (PJ's) feet and stroking his beard. But their is still hope, there are two more films to be released, and Grima does kill Saruman in the end so.....Talimon we will be waiting.

Cheers!

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Talimon quotes from the "newest" magazine while those of us who are concerned about the Director's changes in character, plot and meaning, quote from earlier print and video sources. Of course the NEWEST source would no longer have Mr. Jackson saying how he will strive mightily to be TRUE to his source. It would be just a tad late for him to make that particular promise!

It is useless to go on and on about Jackson's "adaptation" which indeed "modernizes" the characters to the point of being unrecognizeable except in name and general plot position. But Mr. Jackson's defenders have yet to answer the question I posited some time ago: what would the Director have to DO for them to admit that he had "gone too far"? If there is a threshold past which they believe he should not go (or HAVE gone), then I would like to know what it is. If anything that is done in these films is perfectly fine in the name of "adaptation" or "artistic license", I would like to know that as well. In this way, I certainly would know if there were any egregious commission/omission that was worth bringing up for general comment because if EVERYTHING and/or ANYTHING goes, then there can be neither dialogue nor debate on the issue of book vs. film.

 

[Aragorn21]

Whats wrong with u people? I loved the movies and I dont think I can live untill the next one comes out! What does that one sceen with the orcs birthing from pods ruin the whole movie 4 u? And whats that about lurtz being purple like ur friend barnie? Did u ever look at the lighting in orthanc (its blueish-purple)! (But i sorta agree with u and the Arwen part, but thats about it).

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

My dear, LIKING or DISLIKING the film(s) is NOT THE POINT! I think you will find many who have posted criticisms - and even complaints - about Mr. Jackson's version of LOTR, have not said that they HATE the film(s) or don't wish to see them, but merely that they have problems with Mr. Jackson's "adaptation". They may have BIG problems or the problems may be relatively minor, but threads have been started and posts made addressing these things; that is the nature of the site!

Indeed, despite what many of the Director's champions are willing to admit, most of his detractors have defended and/or praised the Director from time to time on various issues. I know that I have and I know of others as well. The sad thing is that some of his champions will accept NO criticism. They defend Mr. Jackson using one argument and when that is refuted, the bring forth several more. In the end, the REAL defense of the films is that they were "good" - and therefore, nothing else matters. As for those who think that other things DO matter, we are dismissed as "purists" incapable of satisfaction if it isn't the book "line for line". Of course, this is not true either, but it seems to be where the debate has resolved itself.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
....what if I told you that in fact it is you that don't understand Tolkiens style and PJ does? Has that ever crossed your mind?
I find it hard to accept that one fan can make such a wide statement, and have the wit to say that PJ is "tone deaf".

It hasn't crossed my mind that I don't understand T's style. It's no big deal, it's easy to do after reading the books a couple of times, and even easier after twenty or so times like me. T was essentially a linguist, a lover of language, words, their meaning, the way they are strung together to form phrases and sentences, and that makes his style very distinct, unmistakable, and one of the most important characteristics of all his works.
What I am saying about PJ is that when he writes (or approves) the broken carrot and orc-hunting lines, and just a few others, he is showing that he has, at those points, gone, temporarily one hopes, tone-deaf. They produce exactly the same effect as a wrong note in a piece of music; with only a little experience of music anyone can tell at once that there is a wrong note, though they might not be able to specify what makes it wrong. It's not wit, it's a fact.
And to take up Mrs M's recent point, it IS becoming absurd that PJ's defenders will accept not a shred of criticism. Even the best musicians occasionally hit a wrong note, and their biggest fans allow for it. The problem here is that such a vast amount of money was spent on this film, and PJ has made such a big thing about wanting to be accurate and in style, that the occasional wrong notes become all the more noticeable, more objectionable, harder to forgive.

 

[Talimon]

As for Talimon, I can't help but read his criticisms of our criticisms and somehow see Grima stricken by Saruman's voice groveling at his (PJ's) feet and stroking his beard. But their is still hope, there are two more films to be released, and Grima does kill Saruman in the end so.....Talimon we will be waiting.

What dynamic and worthy response! I don't think I can find any fault here! If you want to actually discuss PJ's movie, let's do so. If you want to hold onto your points without backing them up, then that just shows me how much you really believe in your own opinions. I may not agree with everyones opinion but I at least respect the ones that are well thought out. By not even presenting a retort in the first place (let alone backing one up), I can't take you seriously. As for the analogy to Grima, I might say this: You are Theoden, blinded by webs of deiciet, so much that you can't even see PJ's movie for what it is and isn't. Moreover, you have forgotten what it is that is so good about Tolkiens tale in the first place. I am Gandalf, attempting to wake you up and remind you why it is that Tolkiens book is so good, and how PJ has captured that. But, as in the book, Theoden is ultimately cured...I will be waiting.

ROFL... . Sorry, I would never say this. In my opinion that is just too low. As far as I'm concerned, I respect people depending on HOW they present thier arguements, not WHAT thier arguements actually are. You didn't present an arguement, and so normally I wouldn't even respond.

Talimon quotes from the "newest" magazine while those of us who are concerned about the Director's changes in character, plot and meaning, quote from earlier print and video sources. Of course the NEWEST source would no longer have Mr. Jackson saying how he will strive mightily to be TRUE to his source. It would be just a tad late for him to make that particular promise!

Did you even read what I quoted? It has nothing to do with PJ being true to the book. I was responding to Grond's claim that there is no artistic merit behind Arwens expansion.

But Mr. Jackson's defenders have yet to answer the question I posited some time ago: what would the Director have to DO for them to admit that he had "gone too far"?

Of course, what do you really think? Do you want examples? Arwen fighting and defeating the Nazgul. Arwen leading a battle at Helm's Deep. Arwen being part of the Fellowship. Any of the main charachters being killed when they weren't in the book.... There are infinite changes that PJ could have made, indeed many adaptors have made. Have you ever watched a Disney movie? Enough said. When a film follows the book as closely as PJ has, and actually evokes the same emotions the book does, I can't complain about authenticity. It has nothing to do with my love of the book. It's just the nature of adaptations, in this particular case one of the most difficult ever.

In the end, the REAL defense of the films is that they were "good" - and therefore, nothing else matters.

First of all, please don't say the "films". We have only seen one, and there is absolutely nothing garaunteeing that I (or anyone else) will enjoy the next two. Yes, sequels can actually suck. In fact, they ussually do. I will have no problem critiquing TTT and RotK, indeed even despising them, if need be. Remember, I walked into the theatre on December 19 just like everyone else. After my first viewing I thought the movie was "ok", so high were my expectations. It was only in the following viewings that I really fell in love with it. I never fell in love with Star Wars Episode I/II, and I have given them both second chaces.

I have always claimed that, if nothing more, PJ's movie is just that: a good, dare I say incredible, movie. However, at the same time I believe that many, many elements from the book were captured. I can and will agree with the statement that "this is not exactly Tolkiens tale". I hate to use the term, but I'll even allow that it is a "liberal" telling of it. But I can't buy the claim that PJ "doesn't understand the meaning of Tolkiens tale." Maybe we ought to be discussing the meaning to begin with, but for me the movie captures the main important themes from the book. Yes, there are sub-themes that aren't there. But what is important, what sticks out, what is memorable, as far I am concerned PJ has captured that.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

To say that you would bridle at Arwen defeating the Nazgul is to use such hyperbole that the answer to my question becomes both rhetorical and foolish in the bargai. Believe me when I tell you Aragorn engaging in a sword/knife encounter with Eowyn is to me just as ridiculous and as unacceptable as Arwen's horse sprouting wings and FLYING Frodo to Rivendell.

When I asked my question, I was speaking, hopefully, to someone who would give serious consideration to something that the Director MIGHT do before it's all over that he or she would find unacceptable. The fact that the answer is limited to such ridiculous scenarios which would NEVER come to pass simply because their inclusion would ruin the film(s), leads one to seriously wonder if even THESE would daunt Mr. Jackson's defenders.

 

[Talimon]

Do you seriously want me to go dig up all the old threads that had folks absolutely convinced that Arwen would fight the Nazgul? Fight at Minas Tirith? Fight at Helm's Deep? These weren't posted sarcastically. People had absolutely bought the story that Arwen was fighting the Nazgul and defeating them. For a while people were saying Sam would be a girl. Arwen would join the Fellowship. Pippin would be killed. I admit I never took these seriously, but up to very close to release people were still spouting these rumours.

Now, regarding Arwen/Eowyn. I have no idea how this plays out, but since you have already assumed the worst, lets assume the following: Aragorn is absolutely reluctant to fight Eowyn. He doesn't even consider it. However, in her bitterness she draws a sword on him and thrusts. Out of pure instinct he pulls out his own sword to parry her. End of fight. End of story. He hasn't attacked her. He has parried her attack (a defensive move). Would Aragorn drawing a sword and actually attacking Eowyn change the meaning? The meaning of Aragorns charachter, certainly. But there is absolutely nothing to prove that he does this, and indeed common sense and conformity with his charachter as shown in FotR would dictate that he doesn't do it. Indeed, the body language of the scene described above would suggest that Aragorn doesn't care much for the young shields-maiden, at least on the surface. Indeed, what if following that scene Aragorn turns strict and gets mad at Eowyn for drawing her sword on him? I think you are using your imagination to fill in too many holes. I can't see how this shows PJ doesn't understand the whole meaning of LotR. At the absolute worst (and I believe this is pushing it), you could say he doesn't understand that one scene and the motivations of it's two charachters.

But, not having actually seen that scene, and knowing that a "sponsored web-site" has no obligation to reporting accurate information, personally I'll hold my judgement.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

As for people posting foolishly, since I did not - all of my critiques, pro AND con have been carefully considered - I feel no obligation to comment upon the matter.

But let us return to the Eowyn/Aragorn "duel" which I have been assured by others in my family who look into these things, DOES take place: please look upon the scene from HER side, rather than his. Do you suppose that a well-bred and raised "lady" - for so she was shieldmaiden or no - would be so entirely lacking in the most common courtesy (or common sense, for that matter) as to DRAW A WEAPON upon a GUEST??? What civilization are the Director and you commenting upon? I can assure you, it MUST be "modern"! No decent ancient civilization would DO such a thing. Hospitality was SACROSANCT! No one would draw a weapon upon a guest - ESPECIALLY if the guest had not drawn his first.

Therefore, even if you are not willing to concede the point of the absurdity of the Director's scenario from Aragorn's side, then you MUST do so from Eowyn's. If she in fact draws on a guest for WHATEVER reason, she is either utterly ill bred or so immature as to be in more need of a switch to her backside than a sword in her hand!

 

[TheFool]

Lisa, go and cut me a switch

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
Do you suppose that a well-bred and raised "lady" - for so she was shieldmaiden or no - would be so entirely lacking in the most common courtesy (or common sense, for that matter) as to DRAW A WEAPON upon a GUEST??? What civilization are the Director and you commenting upon? I can assure you, it MUST be "modern"! No decent ancient civilization would DO such a thing. Hospitality was SACROSANCT! No one would draw a weapon upon a guest - ESPECIALLY if the guest had not drawn his first.

What about Faramir, who would qualify as a well bred and well raised prince (more so than Eowyn) letting Frodo, Sam and GOLLUM walk through Ithilien, disregarding the express orders of Denethor? What if Peter Jackson had 'rewritten' this scene so that Faramir was indeed totally loyal to his king/steward?

Eowyn is desperate to prove herself as a warrior. Maybe she is left no alternative (because of 'cold shoulder' treatment by Aragorn perhaps?) than to prove it physically. I can't believe that she would try to kill him because of unrequited love or something.