What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Wide Boy]

f-dude,

I am a late convert to the Arwen change. I didn't like it at first but I've decided it works. But that is a side issue. What I was specifically talking about was the Xena thing. I just can't see a Xena in the Arwen we saw on the screen. If PJ embarrasses me by turning her into a sword wielding maniac in TTT or RotK then I'm taking him off my Christmas card list.

 

[Elven Maiden]

Arwen news

in TTT (the movie), Arwen will bring the forged sword to Rohan and give it to Aragorn.

Oops. Spoilt it a little. Sorry.

 

[daisy]

Biggest problems for me have been lack of music in the film - i.e. characters singing songs and telling tales - Legolas practically doesn't shut up - I think even Aragorn sings something in the book - but Legolas bearely speaks in the movie - he just spends a lot of time looking around meaningfully - that bothered me. Also too many pretty Frodo face close-ups - my God, Elijah Wood's face was twenty feet tall far too often.

I also hated the Let's Go hunt some orc line. Totally cheesy. And no elfstone - just some cheesy looking fairy necklace. These little things really bothered me beCause they seemed to be doable without major problems - I guess Glorfindel was sacrificed at the altar of a larger Liv Tyler presence - by the ay I think someone mentioned Arwen not appearing until Return of the King - she is most definitely in Rivendell when they first go there.

 

[ReadWryt]

Aragorn Fudd: "Sshhhhhhh, be wewy quiet...we'w hunting owcs...hehehehhehehe"

 

[Bill the Pony]

what ticked you off

Forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but I have only read the last twenty pages or so of this thread...Is this a record in thread-length or what?
So what ticked me off the most were not all the changes such as Arwen, or a Wizard's duel, since thanks to this forum I was prepared for those. What I was not prepared for was the 'hollywoodization' or the blowing up of all the events. What comes to mind most was the narrow escape at the Ferry and the scene with the watcher in the water, but there were many more places where this happened. One of the great things in the book is the slow increase of danger and fear, keeping me constantly on the edge of my seat. During the film the narrow escapes each time were so narrow that they became inbelievable (which was indeed the comment from some of the non-readers I went to see the movie with). I guess this is another attempt to make the story more attractive to the general audience, but in my case it worked the opposite way.

PS (right now I'm listening to the BBC dramatization. Very nice so far!)

 

[Foe-Hammer]

I think you got a bad bag of oats there, bill the pony.

Every single escape in the book was a narrow one. As much as Tolkien wanted to avoid that by creating charaters just to kill off, the entire fellowship, got through it OK. Excluding Boromir.

It's a fantasy, and in fantasy's, the hero lives. The reason they call it a fantasy is because it has zero chance of happening. Ever.

 

[Bill the Pony]

Ok, let me try to make myself a bit more clear. Yes, in the book they have many narrow escapes. Take the watcher in the water: He grabs Frodo, and just before he can be dragged off, Sam cuts the arm, and everybody manages to get into Moria. Now the film version as far as I remember it:
Frodo is grabbed by some arm. Several other arms appear, and Frodo is dangledby his ankle, coming closer and closer to some huge gaping mouth in the middle of the water. The whole fellowship works hard to free Frodo, until Legolas, I believe, finally manages to shoot the creature. Then, somehow Frodo is dropped right into the arms of Aragorn. Forgive me if I got the details wrong, I only saw the film once, but I think it's a shame to blow this scene up so much.
Same is true for the Ferry scene. In the book the hobbits see a black shadow on the other shore when they look back on last time. This scene gave me the creeps, and for me it worked very well to give a sense of danger. Now the film version: everybody is running towards the ferry, somehow Frodo is last and has to outrun a horse, jump a few meters of water, and the horse skids to a halt. (Cannot a horse jump a lot further than a hobbit??) Once again this scene did not work for me at all.
Sorry for not being clear in my previous post, hope this helps.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

I always thought that part in the book was weak. This tentecled monster can barely pull Frodo inch by inch into the water, yet has the strength to slam the gates of moria closed? This is just one example of where the movie improves on the book. IMO.

At the ferry, the fact that the wraiths are fearful of water is what keeps them from making the jump.

 

[pixieamalthea]

It's definitely got to be the orc-pods that bothered me alot.

I also didn't like how Arwen did Gandalf's spell against the ringwraiths, meanwhile Frodo was totally zonked out when it should have been one of his courageous scenes~

 

[Mithiril]

You've all covered most of the complaints I had (major and minor) about the film...which I loved anyway and will see again soon. I'm not sure how much you've all gone into the whole wizard battle scenes, but I have to say that to me they were the most irritating, not just because they were out of "character" for the 2 wizards, but out of character for wizards in general IMO. To me, wizards are cerebral, above such violence to each other. Not that Gandalf wasn't known to pick up a sword and help out once in a while, but there was just something about seeing two supremely wise beings throwing each other around that seemed demeaning.

That, and Galadriel freaking out. That was something a little decent acting could have accomplished without all the weirdness.

 

[Elfarmari]

What I really didn't like about the movie was the unnecessary changes. How would having orcs be born, gandalf simply being imprisoned without a fight, the hobbits being more scared at first, gandalf not being a stuttering, shouting old man, arwen actually having no part except to marry aragorn etc. etc. etc. change the movie for the worse? PRobably the thing with Arwen is that there aren't many major girl parts (I'm a girl, I couldn't care less). I was really looking forward to seeing an elf-lord (Glorfindel) being revealed in his wrath and glory. Aragorn and Gandalf were depicted as much less wise and powerful than they are in the book. Aragorn doesn't even get the chance to treat Frodo after Weathertop. Why did they have to change the elf-stone to a necklace? Aragorn's name as king is Elessar, the elfstone, so unless they change that too, the giving of that must be post-poned. Same thing with Anduril, the sword reforged. Aragorn is supposed to tell Boromir about the Sword that was Broken, after Boromir tells about his dream. None of this happens in the movie.
One of my major complaints is the lack of poetry and songs. Also, the elves are way too stern and serious. Elves are supposed to love music, poetry, and laughter. THis is definitely not shown. Couldn't they even have songs from the book as background?? I am really hoping that not all verses are left out, such as Galadriel's advice to ARagorn (my signature), Theoden's battlecry and the message of the Eagle to Minus Tirith at the very end. During the battle of the Pelanor fields (I'm sure I spelled that wrong, but oh well) the Eorlingas are supposed to sing as they fight, but unfortunately I don't think that'll happen, they'll probably claim it wouldn't fit their brave image. right.
Also, isnt the horn of Gondor supposed to be very loud and powerful? It sounded like a foghorn!! and a whimpy one at that. The horns of Rohan, especially the one merry is given, had better be more impressive.
When the Fellowship was in their boats, LEgolas didn't shoot down one of the winged Nazgul, and Gollum wasn't shown at all. At the Argonath, noone was afraid, which is totally against the book. Aragorn is supposed to be the only one not intimidated, and is supposed to act like a king returning from exile, not a tour guide.
Besides all this, I like how most of the scenery was done, and I really liked Gandalf's encounter with that balrog, except for one thing. If he held on so long, why did noone try to help him?? Isn't that the logical thing to do for someone about to fall??

I think they cut out way too much character development, Gimli and Legolas are supposed to really dislike eachother at first, and then start to become friends. Legolas sings and talks a lot in the book, but is virtually silent in the movie. Gimli doesn't react to Galadriel at all, and that really cuts out a lot his later interactionwith Eomer, unless the story is changed so he meets her again.
In TTT and RoTK, I hope that the movies are edited to follow the book more than FotR. Why would they possibly have elves in samurai armor at the Hornburg? Where do they come from??

 

[Grond]

Another purist for our side. What do ya think about that Foe-hammer, Harad, Aragil, Greenwood???

Welcome to the forum Nienor and the four above will tell you that all that wouldn't work on the big screen.

 

[aragil]

All right boys, have at her!

Nienor,
Where is the drama in orc birth? Without having pods to hatch from, orc-birth would have played as so many home videos of parenthood. You don't get $300 million from New Line cinema and then put out a home video of parenthood. No, you use pods. As for the wizard duel, this was thrown in to bring in people who liked the idea of Lord of the Rings, but thought it should be less swords and sorcery, and more 'Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo'. Remember, in making a successful film you must appeal to as large an audience as possible. If Aragorn and Gandalf had not been given more modest intellects, too many members of the audience would have been left puzzling over the intracacies of the duo's monologues, and would have missed important elements of the story, like how many tentacles the watcher at the water had. Finally, making the horn of Gondor sound like a fog horn was a stroke of brilliance. Remember, Faramir must hear the horn and talk about it later in the movie. If you were to have a horn blow near a river, and wanted the sound to carry as far as possible, what sort of horn would you use? Answer- a fog horn. Brilliant foreshadowing on the part of PJ.

ps. Welcome to the boards

 

[ReadWryt]

I just want to point out that I didn't start a new account under the name Nienor, for all of you who might be wondering. Bahahahah! Man, they even have a nasty "Run On Sentence" problem like me!

Aragil,

I keep seeing you make this insistent plea that the Audiences are too stupid, too short attention spanned and too hard to please with well written characters. In response to these claims of yours that you have to dumb down characters to draw a broader audience (And please to not try to claim that giving "more modest intellects" because "too many members of the audience would have been left puzzling over the intracacies of the duo's monologues" as anything LESS then "Dumbing Down".), I ask you how in the world "Shakespeare in Love", and the remake of "Romeo and Juliet" ever made so much money and got nominated for so many awards. If the viewing audience is so simple minded then how is it that a movie like "MULHOLLAND DRIVE" gets so much critical and Fiscal praise as more and more people go to see it?

Why is there even a scene showing Orcs being born? Where are the Elven, Dwarven, Human and Halfling births? Isn't that what the REAL question here is, not how the Births were represented on the screen?? The real question is, how is it that the ignorant and simple minded audience that can't begin to understand that Orcs might actually come from somewhere are left to assume that all these OTHER sentient races are actually born as well? Goodness, what a great oportunity for high drama, why you could have had 5 more birth scenes...Elves swimming upstream to spawn...Hobbits sitting on their eggs waiting for them to hatch! What a horrible missed opportunity for the Film Maker.

 

[aragil]

Eep again

My last post was tongue-in-cheek, and is in no way indicative of actual defences I would use for the movie. I was aiming for humor, apparently missed. Please do not take it seriously.
(maybe I should have used one of those silly smily faces)

 

[Foe-Hammer]

RW,

The problem is that your new NPW, hasn't been educated in the facts. I for one am not going to bother because every complaint she has have been explained time and time again.

She'll either figure it out or remain a NPW for life.
Besides, I was starting to feel sorry for you guys, being out numbered and all.

 

[Grond]

Foe, I've reviewed the thread yet again and can't find any real defense from your side for all the changes other than "it wouldn't have worked on film", "apparently you just don't understand the intricacies of film making", "the director did what he, as a professional film maker thought was the best way to get the message across". There is nothing concrete one way or the other.... because there can't be any definitive answer either way, regardless of what you think; because, it is your opinion. Just as the post by Nienor is her opinion. Don't confuse opinion with fact. It bores me.

My point being that there is nothing concrete that says we're right and you're wrong or vice-versa. It is all opinion. The only facts we have are that the movie is successful and that the book is successful!!

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Grond,

We have a film from 1978 that followed the book closer and was a total flop. We now have a film that took liberties and made the movie a success. That 1978 film is preferred by some npw's because it does follow the book more closely. .

Those are facts. Not opinions.
Apparently the experts in film making know more than we do. What a suprise

 

[Grond]

Foe, comparing the two mediums (LOTR Bakshi cartoon vs PJ's extravanganza) is like comparing Tron to Final Fantasy. So many significant changes have been made in AI and Special Effects that you can't attribute one's success and one's failure to the script. I am amazed that you would even put forth that argument. It is about as valid as the argument that Arwen's expanded role in the film is the reason the movie has been so successful.

BTW, the reason the movie has been so successful is that it was extremely well made... and, yes, well directed. It also had a humongous base of fans that would see it no matter the quality. The difference is that this film is not only getting Tolkien fans and their family... but a whole new group of fans, the sci-fi crowd that wasn't as developed in 1978-79 as it is now. This is taking nothing away from the movie... only times have changed.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Grond,
You're making my point. The npw's don't care about the effects, just the story and insist that the truer book version would be better. The Bakshi version is closer and a lot of npw's hold it as a better movie.

If I remember right, a movie came out in 1977 called "Star Wars", or something like that, and it seemed to me that it was a giant success and created the SciFi crowd overnight.
There were many cartoon movies that have done very very well so you can't blame the medium for success or failure.
So, neither of those arguments hold water.

The truth is proven out in the opinions and facts stated on this board.

The closer the LOTR movie is to the book and follows the logic of the npw's, the worse it does.
The more the story is allowed to change for the medium of film, the better it does.