What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Foe-Hammer]

ancalagon

Though I suppose the problem really eminates from the fact that Saruman is Saurons sidekick, which you and I both know, Saruman is not.

I don't agree with that. But, I am open to a change of mind if someone can show me text that shows that Saruman was in no way in cahoots with Sauron and can show me text that refutes the text that suggests he is. So, far I haven't seen that.

 

[mickyplums]

Do you mean "cariacature", "foreground" and "Gandalf the GrEy"

Nonetheless I like your point ReadWryt. What we would have there is not a drawing of me but an impression of me, your interpretation. "Precisely" I hear the film-fans cry, the film is an impression, an interpretation and should be enjoyed as such.

Not in this case. We, longtime Tolkien fans, are safe to watch this "interpretation" once or twice, it shan't cloud our knowledge of JRRT's works. We can pick at it and criticise it because we know the books so well. The crucial degradation caused by this film is that people who have never read the book will watch it think its a "good" film and all the wonder in the language and the subtleties of the plot which I found when I first read the book will be totally lost. For example, the quotation about the comparison between Isengard and Barad-dur which Ancalagon used on this page. Absolutely out of the top drawer of language. It creates better understanding and a deeper sense of reality than any interpretation could ever hope to achieve.

LOTR is a life-changing experience, the film is not. In my humble opinion it is a dumbed-down, sexed up, badly humoured, devastatingly imbalanced, uneducational, perversion of the greatest piece of literature that I have ever read. And I have read a damn lot of books.

I will not accept the "its just a film" argument. Everything in our society today has to be quick-fix, instantly ready, open 24hours a day and 365 days a year. The film represents everything that Tolkien hated and everything his interpretation of the Shire contradicted. Some things take time and patience, but that investment yields a deeper love and truer understanding.

 

[Thorin]

I think mickeyplums has stated quite clearly how we (or at least me) as purists feel about the movie.

There have already been a few "newbies" to Tolkien who have come on here and are judging the book by the movies standards instead of the other way around. Our main focus should always be: "Yeah it was an excellent movie, but the book is much better and cannot compare in the least. Read the book!" or "The movie was okay, but the book is much better and cannot compare in the least. Read the book!", or "The movie was lousy, I couldn't stand it,! the book is much better and cannot compare in the least. Read the book!" Unfortunately, a lot of members here are giving the impression that Tolkien could have taken a few points from PJ in the way he showed his characters and scenes. Not the message Tolkien fans should be potraying to those who are Tolkien illiterate at this point.

I hope and pray that all who have seen the movie before reading the books will take up the books and try to envision everything by their imagination rather than seeing Elijah Wood or Cate Blanchett. I hope they will read FoTR and say, "Man, why didn't PJ do THIS instead of what he did!" Unfortunately, Hollywood and the boob-tube are replacing reading a good tale in our day and age.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Well, the book stores can't keep enough copies in stock. So the movie has brought readers to the books.

I hope people say "it's just a movie, not as good as the books, but I still have my view of ME intact because I am not mindless zealot, and can actually make a difference in this world doing something other than mindlessly defending a work of fiction".

 

[Radagast]

Readwryt,

Could you post that phrase from Tolkien's letter again, in larger text so all the film defenders can see that the bookist's are trying to defend the will of the very writer of the works.

I loved the Bakshi films, even with all it's flaws, the most important thing about it was that it tried to keep the spirit of the language intact. It had some pretty bad changes, mostly minor though. Legolas was at the ford, Saurman was pronounced Aruman, so people I guess would not be confused with Sauron, and Glamring breaks in the clash with the Balrog. But the spirit of the books seemed to be much stronger, probably because of the language. The characters all seemed much truer.

I think that is PJ problem he lost touch with the characters in my opinion, and slapped on some cheesy dialog that will not endure or endear anyone to those changes. At least not me.

To whoever replyed to Goroshimamura, the Bakshi film covered the issues he brought up and was far shorter a film and even got to the Battle of Helms Deep. This just proves that PJ wasted a lot of time.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Could you post that phrase from Tolkien's letter again, in larger text so all the film defenders can see that the bookist's are trying to defend the will of the very writer of the works.

Why would that be important? Should what Tolkien wrote sway our opinion one way or the other? I really don't see what that has to do with the discussion, other than to make the over-zealous defenders of the book look like brain-washed deciples of some off-the-wall cult.

 

[Ancalagon]

I venture to say that not one person new to Tolkien will be dissuaded from reading the books, quite the contrary

My wife, (in her second year of an English Literature degree) who has never read Tolkien watched the film and afterwards I asked her would she read the books; empahtically she replied 'no'.

Trust me; this disappointed me more than any of the changes.

 

[mickyplums]

do you mean "disciples"?

 

[Thorin]

Yeah, but Foe, there is nothing wrong with going back to the source. This whole thing is ultimately about Tolkien. You call it fanaticism, I call it keeping perspective.

If I want to reiterate the words of Jesus, I'm going to go to the Bible, not the Koran or Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ".

The fact is, is that quote is there. Blatantly ignoring and pooh-poohing such a quote and trying to justify the opposite, yet claim to be a fan of Tolkien seems like someone claiming to be a Christian yet deny the words of Christ when he said "I am the way, the Truth and Life."

No, surely he didn't mean THAT!

(And for all of you waiting to rip me apart for comparing Christ to Tolkien, get a grip...It's just for analogy sake, not some theological statement)

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Thorin,

True but Tolkien himself allowed others their opinions of his work, pretty harsh ones at that. None of us here are being that criticle, except some fundies towards the movie.
I think we all know that there is no "winner" in this except those that refuse to play.

 

[razorink]

Howdy all - this is my first post, having just seen the movie today. Let me say that I enjoyed the film, but wasn't as moved as I thought I would be. Whether that's due to the differences between book and cinema is hard to say. I found the scenery breathtaking, and the casting excellent. I haven't read the books in a VERY long time, so I will apologize in advance if my facts aren't straight. One of my favorite passages in the book involves the valiant death of Boromir (I love them tragic hero sacrifices). Let's start there. Doesn't dear Boromir die in the opening chapters of the Two Towers, NOT the end of Fellowship? It was one of my favorite scenes from the Bakshi rendition as well, and for all the talk about "Legolas' expresion of grief" being moving, I find that Tolkien's description and the Bakshi version of the skirmish more so. Too much about that whole episode in the current film is altered, to the point that it had the less than moving effect on me. This is how I remeber it - The fellowship hears the Horn of Gondor, alerting them to the danger that B. has already stumbled into. By the time the gang gets there, B. has already kicked MUCH Orc butt, but fallen in combat, the Horn is CLOVEN, B. is slumped against a tree with no fewer than 3 black shafts sticking out of him, but the sheer number of Orc carcassas surrounding him is testament to his valor and makes his sacrifice all the more poignant (like I said this sort of stuff usually moves me to tears) - the Bakshi actually has a group of Orcs torturing him with every arrow, while he just grits his teeth and tries to get at them but is too severely wounded to kick more butt until help arrives (chills thinking about THAT scene). And I think they should have burned him like Tolkien had written. Boy did I go on about that. There were other discrepancies, but I'll save it for another post.

Thanks for letting me ramble.

 

[Moriarty]

I can't imagine anyone here would ever say the movie is better than the book. Or even judge the book by the movie. People who haven't read the book

Is anyone saying that?

Has anyone said that?

Generally I believe people who are perhaps percieved by some here to defend the movie are saying they like bits of it, possibly parts that show a character the way they imagined them, or even scene of the movie.

I think it is near impossible for a movie to be compared to the written word as the written word allows a very personal veiwpoint which is unlikely to be shared completely by anyone else. This is very obvious from the posts on this forum. Even things as simple as pronounciation of names between us differ.

Yes the movie is a rudimentry drawing or tracing of the book but that doesn't stop the movie from being a classic great movie in it's own right. Afterall there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the old masters like Leonardo and Van Eyck actually traced the image of their subjects using mirrors and lenses. Their paintings are still great works of art and they are not the original !

 

[razorink]

"Yes the movie is a rudimentry drawing or tracing of the book but that doesn't stop the movie from being a classic great movie in it's own right."

Maybe, but only TIME can make something a "classic". Was it the greatest movie I have ever seen? No. Did it transport me to another place, and for 3 hours, give me something else to think about besides a world wracked with terror and political instability? Yes. Will I see it again, or recomend it to others? Again, an emphatic yes.

 

[Moriarty]

Well of course it isn't a classic yet but I think it will be .... what with the other 2 to come.
No not the best movie I'v ever seen either..... plenty better ..... but it was good. I will also see it again and I don't often do that!

 

[Grond]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
ancalagonI don't agree with that. But, I am open to a change of mind if someone can show me text that shows that Saruman was in no way in cahoots with Sauron and can show me text that refutes the text that suggests he is. So, far I haven't seen that.

I've seen the movie two times now and diagree with the assertion that Saruman asked Gandalf to join with him to rule ME. He requested that Gandalf join with the Power (aka Sauron) as elves and men no longer had the strength to withstand Sauron and that Saruman and Gandalf would be able to help Sauron shape the new ME so that it would be better and more ordered. His insinuation was strictly to join with Sauron. (I guess I need to go see it a third time to be sure).

As far as quotes in the book, the author is clear that Sauron is influencing Saruman. But he is just as clear that Saruman is playing both ends against the middle. Saruman hoping that he will come into possession of the one Ring and set him self up as the Righteous Dark Lord or be the faithful servant should Sauron prevail. The most telling quote that shows Saruman was indeed lustful for the Ring for his own sake is paraphrased by Gandalf in the Council of Elrond when he states, "Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us. That is in truth why I brought you here. For I have many eyes in my service, and I believe that you know where this precious thing now lies. Is it not so? Or why do the Nine as for the Shire, and what is you business there?"

 

[Grond]

Harad, I have already acknowledged that I enjoyed the movie. I will go to see it again. I will buy the DVD when it comes out. I will see the other two and buy their DVDs. I will then buy the Director's cut of all three boxed in one. That doesn't make me any less of a purist. The movie is great.... it could have been better.

And I totally disagreee with you on Saruman. Saruman wasn't a schitzoid. He was deviously cunning. I stated that he was playing both sides against the middle. If he could convinice Gandalf to deliver the Ring to him or if he could find it himself, we'd have Dark Lord Saruman. If not, he would be the loyal servant and get his due reward. (Lordship of the west of Middle-earth). PJ playing him as a crazed yet loyal follower of Sauron is just out of character. Sorry you don't see it that way, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion, because this particular argument is truly just a matter of opinion.

 

[Radagast]

Tolkien's quote

Foe-Hammer,
I don't get where all your anger comes from, about crazed zealots and all.

Actually I think it may have been Greymantle who posted the quote, Either way, the point being that the worst part of the film is where PJ deviated from the character of the peoples portraited.

Tolkien's letter specifically stated that he would resent such changes. Is it too much to ask from those who loved the work because of the style in which it was written and the character of the the agents in the story, that we cannot be displeased with the way PJ makes references to dwarf bar games and other not very clever deviances. "If you want him, come and claim (get) him"etc...

The scenery was awesome, and the effects were in some parts wild, but there is more to the story than that. Isn't there?

 

[Greymantle]

While it was ReadWryt who posted it, it's Greymantle's sig. For your reading pleasure.... here.

 

[xgothgrrl]

Character Representation

Hey mates, me again.

Okay so let me ask, other than the changes in actual dialouge from the book to the movie, which has been done I will not deny that. What are the probs. with creating dialouge in places where for example you know it exists but the book does not give details. For example in the Prancy Poney, prior to meeting with Strider and prior to the resistation of "the Cow Jumped over the Moon" (Come on can you blame PJ for leaving THAT part out) No doubt the char's shared conversation as freinds...Why is it so surprising to people that Merry and Pippin would be delighted to find out Beer is served in Pints...it is after all something I'm quite grateful for. As for the Dwarf Tossing Line...I meant that as a joke I seriously doubt it was meant as a social commentary, just a means of displaying Gimel's Pride and self assuredness.

How excatly do you feel that the char's are being mis-interpreted
pls. leave out the Sauraman being Sauron's sidekick as that has been discussed already.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

 

[aragil]

Howdy Goth,
I think that this would be an excellent topic for its own thread. So much so, in fact, that I will start it now.