What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by lilhobo
so by making arwen non-existent and Saruman non-existent, then that would have made PJ a tolkien fan????

Just coz Tolkien did write Arwen to be waving sowrds around that he wouldnt have modified it later , noting the numerous appendices he kept adding to the book???

Thats absurd

lilhobo, not only does your post not make any sense grammatically, but you are arguing a non-existent point...Just because Tolkien COULD have gone back and changed Arwen's character justifies the movie's version...????....

So in a movie, Macbeth could have been a crossdresser, and Hamlet could have had sexual feelings for his step-mother because Shakespeare could have gone back and changed them?

You honestly can't be serious. And I don't think Tolkien kept "adding numerous appendices to the book." Where do you get your facts from? The fact that after last edition to his death was 7 years (I could be wrong). And you are telling me that no mention of Arwen or any character that is different from what he wrote was merely coincidence? I guess he must have been on his death bed muttering, "Why, oh why didn't I change Arwen to be a sword-wielding, Ringwraith defying, sneaking-up on a Ranger character? Oh why?"

Talk about absurdity.

 

[lilhobo]

the absurdity isnt that Macbeth could have been a crossdresser, and Hamlet could have had sexual feelings for his step-mother, the absurdity is that you CANT see the possiblity of Shakespeare writing so........... I CAN lol IT WOULDNT HAVE BEEN OUT of character for Shakespeare or the storyline

You are telling me that Arwen as an elf has lesser "ranger" skills that Aragon, or that she isnt "human" enough to weild a sword or defy the wraith with "human fault"

Now careful what you say here, this "precious" elven princess just volunteered to be mortal

 

[chrome_rocknave]

LOL Thorin!

Originally posted by Thorin
"Why, oh why didn't I change Arwen to be a sword-wielding, Ringwraith defying, sneaking-up on a Ranger character? Oh why?" Talk about absurdity.

Yes, absurdity it is....

lilhobo, why would Tolkien want to change Arwen's character later on? He wrote Arwen's character into the novels not as a sword wielding elf warrior, but as a serene and good natured elf-queen (well, she was a queen later on). Now why on earth would he want to completely change her character? I'm sure that when Tolkien wrote LOTR, he wasn't thinking about how it would look on screen....and I'm certain that he wasn't making sure he would have enough fearless hero-women for his production...

 

[Courtney]

Tell me if I am wrong, which I know someone will, but I don't remember any female elf wielding a sword, perhaps in the Sil, but I don't remember it. I think that females in Tolkien's world had just as important roles as males. Just because it wasn't on the battlefield, doesn't mean it was worth any less. I personally think that Galadriel's achievments in Lorien were the most outstanding by any elf, male or female.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Thorin,

Are you telling me that distorting Arwen's character, making orcs come from slimy pods and such are the big contributers to FoTR success and that keeping it closer to the book would be a "bomb"? You honestly can't be serious?

Yes.

Keeping some of the main characters and events truer to the book would not have altered it's success anymore.

Easy to say, but the only example we have of that was a box office bomb.

The movie AS A WHOLE is what made it successful.

Yes. A series of excellent scenes put together that exclude the idea's that NPW's would have included.

You obviously don't give Tolkien any credit as to making a "makeable movie" true to his script.

He never wrote the book as a movie and couldn't write a screenplay to save his life.

The whole point we have been making (and long before you came along, I might add), is that it IS possible to have made the movie closer to the book, and some scenes would have improved the movie had they left it the same, and it still could have maintained it's "blockbuster" status.

This is unprovable wishful thinking. And the more $ this movie makes, the less likely it becomes.

As a matter of fact, despite the little changes, if they would have only remained true to Arwen's character and not botched Saruman so bad, this purist, here, would have gone numerous times to help contribute to this "blockbuster". And I think many other purist fans would have as well.

Looking at the numbers, I doubt your $ would have made a difference. If your changes were made, the movie would have flopped.

Which brings me to another point...As much as PJ says that this movie was for the fans, half the stuff we argue and some of you justify are changes dumbed down and edited so non-Tolkienites could understand....for the fans...yeah. Fans may enjoy it, but it wasn't MADE for the fans.

It was made to make money, which it is doing very well. And because it is and you aren't, you'll excuse me for not buying into your wishful thinking. Facts are facts and you can woulda, shoulda, coulda, all day long. That and $3.00 will get you a happy meal.

 

[markrob]

COMPLETE AGREEMENT FOE

Foe dodges, turns, upthrusts, blocks, parries, one last spin and cleaves Thorins head in two. Wait that is not in the book, sorry.

 

[Foe-Hammer]

Glamdring does a bunch of cleaving in the book. I think it even split's stuff asunder.

 

[TheJospeh]

You know who I love?

People who support the dumbing down of art so that the masses can appreciate it. That was sarcasm boys. The masses are the masses for a reason: because they are stupid and can't appreciate subtlety. The responsibility of all intellectuals--a group in which I am graciously including Peter Jackson--is to educate the masses. The great hope--which is steadily failing--is that one day we might have a general population who is educated and capable of INDEPENDENT THOUGHT. A book, a movie, a painting, any and all art should challenge not only the author but also the audience. To an intellectual the term "just a movie" doesn't make sense. The stupidity of the general public these days almost turns me into a fascist!

Sincerely,
The Joseph

 

[TheJospeh]

Harad

The only factor to judge a movie's sucess is the money it makes at the box office?

 

[markrob]

Paging Grond

Never thought I would be looking for Grond intentionally, but if you are around, this guy (JOE) is not helping your argument against me when you were courageously defending him. (HELP thread) I am not sure but it looks to me like he is calling anyone who enjoyed even a piece of this movie "stupid" and not an "independent thinker". I believe you Grond actually liked a large majority of the flick? Pehaps I am not such an a**hole afterall.

 

[TheJospeh]

Word twister!!!

Wrong! I enjoyed certain scenes about this movie, myself. The battle in Moria, though it would have been better with the original Orc Captain instead of a Troll. Aragorn grabbing Frodo and leading him into the room, then putting out the candles with his fingers was another good scene, even though I strenuously object to the change in character. Aragorn of the books is cooler. I was merely stating that dumbing down a movie or a book is a bad idea in most cases. I personally think the average person can understand it!

Sincerely,
The Joseph

 

[TheJospeh]

No it isn't.

Just to make one point that counteracts your example. If a movie didn't make a lot of money but won the Oscar for best picture it would be a huge sucess. It has happened before. However, the idea that money is and should be the greatest measure of a movies sucess is depressing. I'm not trying to be mean but perhaps we should just agree to disagree. I don't think you have been very educated--again not saying you are stupid just saying you don't seem to be able to appreciate things that don't translate easily into material value--and that is the perspecitve I am coming from.

The movie could have made a lot of money whether Peter Jackson adapted it well or not. Just consider the greatest grossing movie of all time...or think about what movies are normally blockbusters. The masses don't expect much. Harry Potter being a great example.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

 

[Bombadillodillo]

I'm sorry but the movie is not the book, not that it could be. It may be a good flick. It will never be a classic. PJ made a valiant effort. I just don't think he understood the subtlety of the book.

Regarding the masses and fascism, Joseph. Isn't it the masses who create fascism? It is a populist movement. Hitler was elected. And what great artistic and intellectual heights do you hope to reach in such a regime? I can't think of any great thinkers or writers that were the product of fascism.

 

[Todd1700]

Some good movies flop and some bad movies do make money ("Home Alone" for example) but I have never seen a film that did poorly at the box office win an oscar for best picture. At least not in my 36 years of life. PJ faced a real task with this project. To the purists or NPW's he only had to make a film that was exactly like the book. Well thats tough enough but in reality he faced far more than that. Movie studios don't just hand you 300 million dollars along with a note that says "take this and do as you please" He was under huge pressure to make a movie that a wide range of people would turn out to see yet at the same time stay relatively true to the book. I think he did pretty well. The movie isn't perfect but it is good. In my opinion it is true to the central themes, spirit and characters of the book. There are things that I would like to have seen done differently to be sure but nothing that ruined the film. It was streamlined for times sake and some plot elements were simplified (Saruman for one) but I would not call it dumbed down. I am a college graduate and consider myself average to above average in intellectual ability and I certainly didn't feel this movie was watered down to the level of your typical action flick.
Oh ,and a note to Jospeh, it is unwise to assume that you are more intelligent or better educated than someone else based simply on a difference of opinion over a movie. I did not get the impression in reading your exchanges with Harad and others that you were more educated but perhaps they are simply more of a realist than you. It would be fine and good to live in a world where art was created simply for arts sake but the reality is that, at least where film is involved, it must be profitable as well. Thank god PJ understood this and created a film that will assure that we see a TT and ROTK.

 

[TheJospeh]

WHAT!?!?

Why do you thank god Peter Jackson understood and allowed us to see the next movies? Your life would be somehow incomplete if you couldn't see them? Has anyone considered that if you can't do justice to a movie you don't make it. No one forced anyone to make this movie. In fact, it was made over the objections of Christopher Tolkien, apparently.

Harad: Your oscar winners that weren't huge money makers:

"How Green Was My Valley"
"Mrs. Miniver"

Bombadillodillo: I agree with your post almost entirely. That's why I said it ALMOST makes me convert to fascism.


Anyway, my extremely hardcore ways have probably lost me any support from the other purists and there is no way I can convince the defenders of the masses that if you can't make a movie properly you shouldn't make it at all! But of course, the only point to existence is to be titillated! All Hail Materialism!!!!! The Sun Never Sets On Corporate America!!!!!!!!! Death to the Spirit!!!!!!! Good show gentlemen. I hate the masses...if only there was a way to get rid of them.

Sincerely and probably finally,
The Joseph

 

[chrome_rocknave]

The Joseph:

I agree that the movie was "dumbed down" as you so crudely call it. However it was only "dumbed down" to an extent. If the movie was left exactly like the book (with lots of ME historical references, and lots of names, and lots of places) then the average person would be sitting in the theater thinking "what?"
Hey, I wanted the movie to remain true to the book but I don't want lots of viewers to be completely lost!

 

[chrome_rocknave]

Sorry there Harad---I was just quoting TheJoseph

 

[chrome_rocknave]

Well most of the book is descriptions of places, people, emotions, etc. which can be conveyed on film pretty fast. I'm not sure if you're referring to FOTR or the coming films in your question....?
I am certain that if I had been editing, then I could have made the film to suit me....but then that wouldn't suit everyone else...correct? And I suppose the truth is that this film suits Mr. Jackson along with various others on this forum... I, however, am sadly not one of those people...

 

[Grond]

Okay, okay, okay, okay. I give in. I would hate to think that the movie would never have been made. Let me just say, as a purist, "I am glad that PJ made the attempt and he was pretty darn close." Someone who says that it is soooo far off base not to warrant consideration or recognition needs to take a does of reality. I am as big a fan of these works as anybody and wish he had done a thing or two differently (as you all know from our discussions), but I have never argued that it shouldn't have been made.

TheJoseph. You're not being rational. The movie should be supported , if for no other reason than the increased exposure the works are getting and the increased readership that will result from the movie productions. Hell, the membership here alone has gone up by hundreds in just three weeks. And Joe, you may be well educated and an intellectual, but please don't feel you're the only person who has those qualities on this forum. BTW, I'm sure you would probably be happier surfing through the Tolkien Book side of our forum. There are much fewer controversies there and you could use your knowledge of the subject to enlighten people who really are interested in the book and not the movie.

As for me, I'm still trying to peck away at these guys to have some flexibility and I think all of us have gotten a little looser in the last few days.

 

[Grond]

Originally posted by Foe-hammer


1) He never wrote the book as a movie and couldn't write a screenplay to save his life.

2) Looking at the numbers, I doubt your $ would have made a difference. If your changes were made, the movie would have flopped.

Foe, Foe, Foe.....
1) Do you know something I don't? I have never read that JRRT ever tried to write a screenplay. Please quote your sources.
2) Again you are speculating and making it sound as if it's fact. Are you the Movie God? You actually have some way of proving that if the movie were made with Thorin's changes, it would have flopped? You carry this too far. You can't possible mean that and even more, there is no way in Thangoridrim that you can prove it.
(And whatever you do don't you dare bring the Bakshi film into this...we've already been through that.