What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Grond]

Now, now Harad. It was your group that stated if we thought it could be done better that we should do it. Now that we're trying, you're still throwing stones. We are showing that it could be done and no, I don't have an extra $270 mil. But I do admit when I'm wrong and I do concede that other people might be right some of the time. Even you.... on occasion.

 

[Jamesy]

To me! To me! Tolkiengas!

Hey there Grond, it is good to see that there are some people left that understand that this is a Tolkien forum and not a Peter Jackson fan site.

Will you join with me in my most righteous crusade against The Heathen Chump?

This man has changed the story and the characters of The Lord of the Rings, not for clarity, not through time constraints, not for budget restrictions, simply because he has a deep hatred for the great JRRT.

I cannot explain Lurtz - an unnecessary character.
I cannot explain Galadriel - what the f*ck happened to her?? (If I dont know how will someone who hasnt read the books understand??)
I cannot explain the new spirit of openness and frankness that has infected the people of middle-earth.
I cannot explain why Sam nearly drowns in the River.
Nor can I explain why he has taken the wise, noble, haughty yet approachable figures of Gandalf and Aragorn and made a mockery of them.
- Dont even mention the Arwen episode to me

I can only think that the man is sick. Sick and twisted.

Join with me my brothers!! Let us end this scourge upon mankind!! If we unite, we can overcome this evil!!

 

[Chuncky Choopie]

Gollum / Bombadil...

Alas Poor Tom Bombadil...
When Shall We Ever See You...

The absence of Gollum floating behind Frodo and Sam on his log at the end of the film is my most disappointing moment...

 

[Earnil]

I myself had no problems with any of the changes.
I see every single change as something necessary to convert these books into film. I think that trying to make 3 films out of the books without changing a thing would cost close to twice as much as what this trilogy has already cost and they would each probably be about 6 hours long each, thus being total flops, and become the biggest bombs in movie history. 3 bombs that no failing movie could ever do as bad as.

 

[Moriarty]

Jamesy ,

Just go back 10 pages or so ......this has all been thrashed out.

 

[Grond]

Re: Gollum / Bombadil...

Originally posted by Chuncky Choopie
Alas Poor Tom Bombadil...
When Shall We Ever See You...

The absence of Gollum floating behind Frodo and Sam on his log at the end of the film is my most disappointing moment...

Gad, Aragil. I find it much easier to defend leaving Gollum floating like a log out of the film than having Xenarwen challenging the Ringwraiths at the Fords. It amazes me that something as trivial as leaving Gollum out of the movie leaves you in a quandary while changing actual occurrences in the book seems okay for the sake of artistic interpretation.

How is that so easily explained away??

 

[aragil]

Err, Grond?

How come nobody ever mistakes one of Greymantle's quotes as having come from me? I dunno Grond, did you really think I made that quote or where just trying to invoke "The Great Defender of Peter Jackson and his adaptation of The Lord of the Rings"? I also dunno why we aren't reminded of Gollum at the end of the movie. As I'm sure Harad is dying to point out, Bakshi dropped a little scene of Gollum in on the river and it worked nicely.
As for Arwen, I don't at all mind her coming to rescue Frodo, Aragorn and the other hobbits. As I've said elsewhere, I don't think she needs to weigh down poor Asfolath all the way to the ford, but if the spirit of Luthien truly walked the earth again in the form of Arwen then I think that facing down Ringwraiths would not be out of the question.

 

[ReadWryt]

I fail to see how disposing of Glorfindel and re-inventing Arwen was "Necessary to making the book into a film".

 

[xgothgrrl]

Readwrit,

Maybe I can answer the question? By asking a question. Does Glorfindel in anyway have anything else to do with the rest of the Trilogy?? Pls think of this from the movie viewer's prespective for a minute. Frodo is racing towards the ford and suddenly the ringwraiths are toppled by a shining elf uttering a spell or working magic of some kind. Said elf then takes Frodo to Rivendell and presto said elf is never seen again. The movie viewer is sitting there going...who the hell was that and why take the time to show him if he's not going to be important in the rest of the flim. Also another point to be considered. Aragon is going to marry Arwen but in the book's she does not show up till the very last...and only as the woman who he is going to marry. So we have three flimed over the course of three years the movie fan learning more and more about Aragon...he's character..his strength etc. and then after he takes his place as king along comes this woman who he suddenly marries...the movie viewer is again going to say...who the hell is that and why so special about her that Aragon would want her to be his queen...why is she worthy of our hero's hand. Well PJ by including her the way he is showing just why she is worhty of the Hero's hand in marriage.

As usual this in all my own thinking in the matter, so open to debate.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

 

[xgothgrrl]

Also and I can't belive I forgot this.

In the next book ergo in the next flim Aragon is going to reject the advances of the Princess of the Riders of Rohan as I recall. Now she was a real looker from what I remember, so much so that poems are written about their meeting. So people are going to wonder when Arwen makes her appearance at the very end of the movie with no pior work up "He gave up that Princess for Her??? is he insane" esp when more pages are dedicated to Aragon turning the princess down that getting married to Arwen...again on that last bit I could be wrong (God I miss my books damn bastard roomie)

Love always
xgothgrrl

 

[xgothgrrl]

Lurtz

okay now that I've seen this mentioned a few times let me try to answer that one. Lurtz I fiquring was the "Captain" of the Ogres that attacked the fellowship at the end of the movie..okay I did'nt stay to read the credits. But If I'm correct well he only served one purpose and this goes back to a questioned posed by me eariler on. Sauraman sent an army of Ogres to capture the Hobbits and bring him the ring. Well all armies need a captain...in this case that happened to be Lurtz. He part consists only of leading the ogres to the Fellowship, Killing Boromir, and getting killed by Aragon. Which since the book does not mention which Ogre killed Boromir why not?? It's one of those it's not directly mentioned in the flim therefore it is implied kinda things.

Love always
xogthgrrl
p.s. Orge?? that's not right is it???

 

[aragil]

I hope that I've never said anything about PJ's decisions as being necessary to make the film- I don't have the first clue about film making. I do know that I liked most of the stuff in Lord of the Rings- enough to make it one of my favorite films of all time, and definitely my favorite adaption of Tolkien's work. As for my defense of Arwen- I don't think she was reinvented, else I probably would complain more. My stance has always been that Tolkien had consistently compared her to Luthien, and that by having her accomplish 'Luthien-like' feats PJ is making the same comparison. This wasn't necessary in the strict sense of the word, but I liked it.

ps for XG (or is it XGG); Orc, or Uruk-hai, but not ogres

 

[xgothgrrl]

I cannot explain Lurtz - an unnecessary character (covered that one)

I cannot explain why Sam nearly drowns in the River(Easy...he can't swim, but he does not care he IS going with Frodo...he made a promise and he is going to keep it. It shows his dedication and come one if you did'nt get misty eyed when Frodo pulled him in the boat and Sam said just that and they hug...then youre stone man))

Nor can I explain why he has taken the wise, noble, haughty yet approachable figures of Gandalf and Aragorn and made a mockery of them (He did'nt Gandalf is not in anyway made less noble in the flim...but more human. In the books he is well Stuffy and at time unlikeable...I like Gandalf setting off fireworks and showing true concern about his friends. Just because he bumbs his head in a Hobbit hole and let's be honest would'nt you if you only visited once every 4 or 5 years does not make him any less noble...just more sympathic so far as the audience is concerned so that when he falls to the Bal-rog you truly feel the loss. Otherwise it's just a case of "ohh great who is going to hold the fellowships hand now and Know everything for them." )

((Okay that's it for now...long day at work.))

Love Always
xgothgrrl

 

[xgothgrrl]

What did I say Orge ?? Orc I knew that *slaps forehead* sorry another sold out night at the hotel...150 check in's does it to me.


A)XG is fine or B)XGG that works or C)Xg2 is acceptable.

Love Always
A...B...C

 

[xgothgrrl]

Okay so I lied I do have one more little thing. To everyone who's said that the whole Xenawren thing was put in to make the flim PC. Bull! There is nothing PC about the flim...no minorities in the movie (Which was mentioned by more than a people in the theatre I was in) and well, everyone put the Elf smokes. I've just been waiting for some Anti Smoking group to Rip into the movie for encourging teens and pre-teens to take up pipe smoking

 

[Greymantle]

No minorities in the movie...phaw!
Now, I'm about as PC as people get these days, and I have no problem with it when used appropriately. But, puh-leeze! An adaptation of a book meant as an alternate mythology for Northern Europe! Of course there were no minorities!

 

[aragil]

Well, any history of Northern Europe needs to deal with the borderlands, in this case the Middle-East and North Africa. This would mean that Tolkien would have to address the huns invasion of Europe (Wainriders), the further latter-day struggles of Europe to resist the Ottoman-Turks (Easterlings), and the users of Scimitars to the South (Muslim North Africa=Harad). While none of these elements were in Fellowship, I kind of expect them in Return of the King (of course, the movie won't become all that PC as these are the races dominated by the embodiment of Evil).

 

[fantasydude]

arwen was stoopid

you guys, the arwen thing though thankfully only lasted 10 minutes or so was just plain strange. when adapting a long book into a movie and having to do so many cuts and eliminations, why oh why whoud you then add something to the film that never happened at all? why was she featured in the ads and trailers as a star when she was only a bit player? just to attract horny young men to check out the elf babe? (by the way the david bowie femme boys at lorien were even prettier)
oh well it didnt bother me too much since she was cut short thank god but what really bugged me was the depiction of pippin and merry. first of all they didnt just run into frodo by accident, and secondly, they are supposed to be about 20 or 30 years younger than sam or frodo, yet those actors are obviously quite old. also they were not complete nincompoops and only served as comedy relief in the film, but were inquisitive, vital, and intelligent. how can they go on to be great heroes when they act like imbeciles?
also saruman was featured probably a bit too much as the villain, since in the first book he doesnt become too much of a player til later. but overall the movie was excellent and galadriel was right on the mark.
but the matrix agent as elrond just didnt cut it. he doesnt look elvish enough.

 

[Wide Boy]

Drowning Samwise

Why are people getting stirred up about Sam drowning?

In the book he was going to do exactly that. He saw the boat with invisible Frodo in it gliding away from the bank. He takes a flying leap after it and then realises he can't swim. Frodo drags him into the boat by the hair before he becomes a permanent feature of the river bottom.

I'll admit it was a bit draaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggeeeedddd oooouuuuuuuuuut for dramatic effect but it was essentially what happened. If we are going to get rabid about changes then at least get rabid about things that actually did change.

And can we stop calling Arwen 'XenArwen"? Where does she do anything remotely warrior princess? Forget the dagger bit with Aragorn, that was just her having a bit of impish byplay with her boyfriend and Tolkien says that elves can move more silently than just about any other race so sneaking up on him is no surprise. Where's the two-handed, six-foot-bladed, Conan-esque death machine? Where's the over-enhanced breastplate? Riding a horse real fast is something that lots of people do without being called a warrior princess. Bravery and courage are not the sole preserve of the martially inclined. If they wanted a warrior princess they would have cast Lucy Lawless in the role because she is a Kiwi herself and would have got a walk up start, not to mention being of ummm... more "robust" stature. And as has been pointed out ad nauseum by Aragil, xgg, me, who knows how many others, she didn't display any powers that her race and ancestry wouldn't have made more than probable.

Have a go at the plot changes and mourn the loss of dear old pointless go-back-to-Gondolin Glorfindel but deriding Arwen as a "warrior princess" is a bit rich.

 

[fantasydude]

yes you are harad, most likely one of those keanu haters out there. but nonetheless, mr. matrix did not come close to fitting elronds description, and he doesnt seem elvish at all.
he is a good actor though.
widebody, are you saying that the arwen thing was good or just that xena has nothing to do with it?
i agree that xena has no relation whatsoever to arwen or anything else for that matter.