What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[blondito]

Settle Petals

What the hell is wrong with you blokes ??

you are all full of such anger and hate. If you really dont want to experience any changes in the movie dont go watch it and further more all pool your monies and go make your own movie with all the facts and all the story line in tact , with a running time of 12 hours per book and about as much popularity with the masses (and alot of tolkien fans) as an STD in a whore house.

I love LOTR as a book, but gods help us if they had made the movie exactly like it. You cant directly translate a book like that into film with out handing out toothpicks at the cinemas to prop everyones eyes open. The only important thing for me is that the central themes are kept in tact and from all accounts of the people who have seen the movie PJ does a very bloody good job at it.

so calm down, because stressing ones self about this sort of stuff will give you ulcers. (not to mention makes you look pretty bloody sad in everyone elses eyes

 

[Grond]

The influx has begun. Thank God I didn't win the moderator election. Welcome aboard Blondito. Your name about says it all.

 

[Ancalagon]

Welcome Blondido,

Well, what a refreshing view you have. Personally the STD went down like a 'fart in a spacesuit', but what can you do. All these Tolkien fans just have some difficulties with be treated like the sheep who only care for a blockbuster. Yes, we can gripe, but we will all see the movie, probably enjoy it and still find time to grumble. It's the way of the world.

Did I remember to say, welcome?

 

[Greymantle]

Er....what is it I'm supposed to say here? Welcome?
Such inconsiderate rudeness, ignorance and misunderstanding in a first post. I'll have to agree with Grond here-- it's a good thing we lost the moderator election.

 

[fantasydude]

arwen sucks

my biggest issue at this time is arwen. in the book as others have stated already, she simply sits there looking pretty. I understand that in the interest of taking a 1000 page novel and translating that to 6 hours of film requires simplification so what i dont get is adding all of the time and footage needed to show us arwen doing all of these deeds she never did.
i beleive there are two reasons, one the screenwriter is a woman, and as we all know middle earth is a very sexist planet, so in the interest of pleasing half of the audience of the movie a woman would need to be shown more often and as someone more important, hopefully with galadriel and eowyn coming up in the next two books arwens completely ridiculous character will be reduced.
why feature liv tyler as a star in this movie? there must be some hollywood favoritism going on or something.

 

[DGoeij]

Welcome Blondito,

if anybody knows what's wrong with too much anger and hate it is a Tolkien-reader. Read around in the forum, find out that al this people around here (ncluding me) are concerned, simply that.
I'm going to see the movie, surely enjoy myself and afterwards I'll be coming here to discuss the value of the changes made.
If you wish to join, no problemo, but cool down a little.

 

[fantasydude]

remember 1979?

hey gang as an older person do you all remember the wonderful ralph bakshi animated feature in 1979 for the LOTR? it was well done i think even though he compressed it down to just 2 hours, but was very careful to follow the book to a tee. i recommend it for everyone to check out if you havent, it uses rotoscope so it is very life like.
tell me what you think

 

[DGoeij]

welcome fantasydude

Since I was still inside my mother in 1979 I do not remember that year all to well. I've never seen the animated movie, but I'd like to. However I've heard a lot of serious critique about it as well.
There are numerous threads discussing the female roles in LOTR, so maybe you should join one of those. I'm not going to respond to it here, I wander off topic to often already.

 

[Moriarty]

Well I can't agree with that Fantasydude.
I mean the animated film (I don't believe there was more than one made - please correct me if i'm wrong - as I'm sure the people here will !) didn't get far past the fellowship of the ring........ they didn't get rid of the ring as I recall. However I remember the images vividly and I suppose that thye have alot do do with how I imagine the characters looking .... in the same way as the BBC radio version is how I expect the characters to act and speak....not to mention how the songs go etc.

Surprise, surprise the animated film has been re-released on VDC .... I saw it in Borders just the other day! So anyone who didn't see it can get to watch it now.

 

[Dr. Planarian]

Nits or Ungoliant Herself?

I don't know whether this is small or large. I won't be seeing the movie until it opens in Orlando tomorrow and I hope for the best. All I know about it so far is that Arwen has a totally overblown role (in the real story she appears only briefly while the company is at Rivendell), but I can't complain too much about that because I can look at Liv Tyler all day long if somebody forces me to (kicking and screaming, sort of the way I have to be forced to eat chocolate almond ice cream). In fact, she looks very much like how I pictured Arwen in my mind's eye.

I have also heard that they just skipped over Tom Bombadil, which is a DARN shame, particularly in light of recent international events. Bombadil was a wonderful character who was put there to illustrate that, no matter how grave events and dangers may seem, some things will forever remain untouched by them.

Now, I can understand taking some license even with works as exquisite and subtle as those of Tolkein in order to bring them to the screen within the limited boundaries and crass commercialism of that media. But on one of those preview shows that have popped up on various TV stations (this one on SciFi) I saw something disturbing, a pointless departure from the original that seemed not to serve any cinematic purpose.

It is where Pippin gets off his guard at The Prancing Pony, and Frodo gets up and makes a fool of himself to stop him. In the books, of course, Pippin is only beginning to tell the tale of Bilbo's disappearance at the Long Expected Party, and this triggers Strider's concern and Frodo's overreaction.

But in the short clip from movie, it appears as if Pippin is introducing the local worthies to "my friend, Frodo Baggins," which makes Frodo's intervention hardly an overreaction at all. Frodo is also playing openly with the ring instead of fingering it in his pocket -- something Frodo would never have done -- and when he tumbles it flies into the air in slo-mo before settling on his finger and causing all the ensuing commotion.

The change to Pippin's behavior made Frodo's intervention no longer an overreaction, and his cavalier treatment of the ring made Frodo seem utterly careless -- and the subtle lesson of the foolishness of overreaction was lost.

This bodes ill, my friends.

 

[Aredhel]

When I first found out that Arwen rode with Frodo to the ford, I was kind of mad. I mean, in the book he's supposed to be by himself. And is Glorfinel seen at all in the Fellowship?

 

[Greymantle]

Hi fantasydude...
Well, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. That movie didn't go beyond Helm's Deep. I don't remember it very well, it's been several years since I've seen it, but I do know they cut the entire Old Forest section out and replaced Glorfindel with Legolas. Even if these were the only changes (and they're not), that's very far from perfection.

 

[Dain Ironfoot]

I like all the people that are trying to make The movie better and all, BUT COMMON!!!

F****** PODS? they really screwed this movie up if you ask me. But as always I have my ways of getting back. *I have P.J.'s face on my tp.*

 

[Daerandir]

We're doing it all over again!

Okay, my original reply, which was two pages long and stated a comprehensive list of things that the movie got wrong was lost when my computer crashed, so I will have to go with a much shorter post sans list, because of time constraints.
Can't anyone see what we're doing? Every time there is a movie that we have deep forebodings about, we still go to it to "see what it's like". It happened with Aliens III, Alien Resurrection, Episode I, and a dozen others. After we see the movie, we find we hated it after all, yet we still gave them our money! In the end, it doesn't matter to Peter Jackson or New Line Cinemas (curse them both!) if we're happy or smouldering when we come out of the theatre, so long as the movies still draw us in to "see what it's like". We must take a stand now and *all* vow *not* to see *any* of the movies! To quote Captain Picard in First Contact (a movie that could have been a whole lot better) "The line must be drawn *here*. No *further*!". I for one vow not to see any of the trilogy or Episode II, or buy any of the merchandise thereof, and I urge you all to do the same.
Later on I will post the horror I have seen (in the halls of stone). And all that I know comes from actual trailers, previews, teasers, and clips in "making of"s.

P.S. What would you all think of a T-Shirt that shows a movie exec on the front saying,"This Tolkien book is great, but let's broaden the appeal" and Peter Jackson (may all you sons mary camels!) on the back saying,"S'okay". If the man can't even pronounce the names properly, how can he make a good movie. Oh, didn't you know the book was written by Tolkeen, including a guy named Sarun?

 

[Moonbeams]

Daerandir, I agree with you. Unfortunately, there s even a part of me that wants to go see the movie, just to "see what it's like", although I know that I'm going to hate it, and wish I've never gone to see it...
Why do we need the movie? Is our imagination not strong enough? Can't we all see ME in our mind's eye, don't we all know paths through every part of it by heart? Haven't you seen the leaves of lothlorien in autumn, and the green green grass of Rohan? Didn't you smell the swamp, heard the hordes, looked in the face of Balrog and trembled with fear? Do we realy need the movie to show us what we already know so well?

 

[fantasydude]

as we all have been saying

but hey its just entertainment we all know nothing can match a great book anyway
boycotting this movie will matter little i fear
but i feel sorry for all of the nonreaders out there who will never be able to understand what we know.
but as ive said the whole arwen thing bugs me the most
but this is a business you know not pure artistic expression
i say do not expect too much and you will then be pleasantly surprised

 

[Greymantle]

Um.... Daer... "Tolkeen" is the correct pronunciation. And as for Sauron, there are a whole lot of different ways people pronounce it. "Sah-run," if that's what you were saying, makes perfect sense to me. Don't think I'm defending PJ in any capacity; it's just that I don't think we can criticise him simply for the way he says things, especially when it's correct.

 

[Grond]

Oh........my..........God!!! Greymantle is defending PJ. I think I shall go back to my puddle of Balrog piss.

 

[Daerandir]

First of all, I agree with Moonbeam totally. In my mind, the novel is the best form of storytelling anyway, so why translate it to a far inferior form?
Next topic. I have always pronounced words in the english way, and I can tell you that I and everyone I have ever talked to pronounce it Tolkien (Tolken). In the english language, the "I" does not modify the "E" in this case. Furthermore, even if it did, it would be Tolkan, not Tolkeen.

 

[Moriarty]

Oh please !!What rubbish some people are talking about boycotting the movie !!! Of course you're all going to see the movie ..... and overall I'm sure it will be great but of course all those discrepancies and changes are going to annoy also.

On an earlier post - Frodo fingering the highly visible ring a lot ( excuse the phase people ) is understandable ....the ring has to be more visible in the movie .... I mean it going to look very odd if frodo wanders round all the time with his hand in his pocket or 'Napoleon-like' in his shirt and worse if they had to make references to it (or narrate) all the time because it is hidden.... movies are a visual art (sometimes that last bit is debatable though).
See it then decide if you like or don't like the movie.
I can't say I miss Tom Bombadil much mind myself.

Don't worry everyone, In a few years you'll be able to make it yourself at home. the way you like ( and you can probably still use Liv Tyler in it - hey wouldn't her dad make a great Orc). And you can get you're own back and star PJ as a troll as he is.
Or wait a bit for the 3d Holo remake! Ha !