What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Foe-Hammer]

So joe is gone? I hope not! I so wanted to watch him self destruct.

If tolkien admitted that the book was based on his experiences in wwI and the events of wwII etc, the charm of the book would be gone. And I'd bet that the history buffs among us could confirm that his story would parrallel most events in history where the conquest of the world was the goal.

Look at the crucifixtion of christ and his return, kinda mirrors gandalf. I'd also bet it would follow other religions too.

I believe tolkien was inspired by a higher power and this story was written with no events of history in mind.

 

[daisy]

joe is fine thankyou

No, Foe-Hammer, Joe has not been removed from the thread. I guess it is his call as to whether he will return to the forum for more discussions.

As far as I know, Joe was never slated for removal, although perhaps he came close a few times. Anyway, I don't remember whether we ever decided on the Arwen - Readwryt Helm's Deep photos - was that even in this thread?? I still say the hair doesn't work for me....

daisy

Had to add also that I agree with you Foe about Tolkein maybe taking themes from general, archetypal struggles of good against evil and not basing the trilogy on one specific historial world event. That is what is often so uncanny about world religions; their creation stories, archetypal figures, allegories, tenets, are often very similar.

d*

 

[Grond]

I think someone may have misunderstood my post. I simply stated that I added Joe to my ignore button. When I pull up a thread, his comments are not there. It is a feature available to everyone and should be used if you have an aversion to a particular poster. I don't have an aversion to what Joe says as much as I do to the way he says it. So..... I added him to my ignore list. A very civilized way to handle someone that you are ready to go to war with.

 

[daisy]

this is probably on page seven...

but I just remember that I was really ticked off by the total decimation of the relationship between Aragorn and Galadriel. In the book, they have this very nice conversation and she gives him the green elfstone thingy and this makes a nice seguey with Arwen but in the film there are some meaningful glances but that's it. ANd the necklace looked like something I could buy in the wicca shoppe on Queen. Nice shop but you get my point - hey by the way did you guys know we can buy actual replicas of the rings in certain stores??

And of course the hamburger joint ice goblets, and the little action figure wedges that, if you get them all and build them into a ring they light up or something....

 

[Bryheinnen]

I guess I'm just amazed...

after having immersed myself so deeply in the books, having read them more than two dozen times, that some people simply cannot---or perhaps refuse to---see it as the deeply spiritual, clearly proto-Christian work that it so obviously is. I want to emphasize, by the way, that at one time I was an atheist/agnostic and even then I saw it as so. And to tell the truth, I was annoyed by that, as perhaps some on this board of my former atheistic convictions want to perceive it.

Indeed, reading these books was the epiphany that began my conversion to Christianity. I remain a very bad Christian, sometimes (many times!) even an unwilling one. But these books were the seminal event in leading me inexorably, resisting all the way, to my uncomfortable encounter with God. I DON'T THINK I AM BY ANY MEANS ALONE IN THIS RESPECT. I think many have read Tolkien and have been snared through beauty into the same inexorable journey that I have trod from unbelief to faith. I would be interested in those on this board who HAVE been thus changed would speak up and confirm the truth of my conclusion.

I'll conclude my part of this discussion/flame by saying simply this; I believe that people who read LOTR and who deny its deeply spiritual (and as I have said, proto-Christian) lack insight, much like the person who reads GULLIVER'S TRAVELS and sees it only as a clever and amusing fantasy, not as the savage satire that Swift composed it to be. Either that or they want to appropriate Tolkien's story while willfully resisting where it inevitably leads them. In either instance (and I mean no insult, sincerely) I feel sorry for them, because they have been blind to the real beauty of this towering work.

Another book well worth reading, as I have mentioned here before, is Richard Adam's dark and murky SHARDIK. It morphs the power of God into a shape at one and the same time alien and yet familiar to us. It often drags, but interspersed, like lighting in a fog, are scenes of great iconic power thaqt are (at least to this reader) never to be forgotten.

May the stars shine on the end of your journey....

 

[Grond]

Bry, the main difference was that Swift was writing a satire picking on the establishment at the time of its writing. Tolkien has repeatedly denied any such parallel. I won't argue with you that the structural setup is one of a single God world but I fail to see where there is a tell-tale Christian setting. Eru is all powerful and you could even go so far as to compare the Vala and Maia to arch-angels and angels. Do you see Frodo as Jesus and Gandalf as John the Baptist? Or is Gandalf the resurrected Christ and Frodo but a humble disciple? Is it Melkor or Sauron who is the evil Satan.

Undeniably, Tolkien own religious beliefs filtered into his works, whether he willed it or no. I just don't see them as keenly and sharply as do you. And I will have you know that I have tried. I, too, am a not so good Christian. This world is a place that I wish was and hope that somewhere it can be, by the Grace of God.

 

[Elbereth]

I hated how they brought Merry and Pippen into the story....The movie made them look like ignorant tag alongs...when in actuality, they knew about the ring well before Frodo, and recruited Sam to spy on Bilbo and Frodo, until the mystery was told.

Their whole conspiracy was completely ignore....and I thought that was one of the great points of the story...The very fact that Frodo's dear friends, would knowingly and willingly follow him into uncertain doom. The movie just made them look like unfortunate idiots who roped themselves into something they had no understanding of.

Well, I just hope the two movies to come will show them in a much better light.

I also didn't like the fact that the friendship between Gimli and Legolas was never established in this first movie. They are suppose to grow closer in Lothlorien...but that was never shown...I wonder how the future movies will deal with that lack.

 

[tresh]

I saw movie about a week ago and entered this forum about 20 minutes ago.

There were many changes, but the one thing that sent me flying to the boxoffice to ask my money back was the end.

OK so Boromir show his intention to take the ring, Frodo puts the ring, dissapears, sees the Eye. Then Frodo slips the finger of his hand and falls "right into" Aragon's arms. During their dialogue Aragon swears again to protect Frodo with his life, but send him a minute later into Mordor alone. During Frodo's escape stumbles into all his friends and they all let him GO!!!!!

If I remember corectly in the book Boromir was last of Fellowship to see Frodo before Mount Doom (exept for Sam). Merry and Pipin were caught becouse they were trying to find him, not becouse they were drawing Orcs away.

I do think this is THE MOST important part of the book (along with the council of Elrond, which was also messed up). So that was the only change I couldn't get over easily.

 

[Inwe]

Change that ticked me off

Just one thing I've got to know. Where was Tom Bombadil?

 

[markrob]

Re: Change that ticked me off

Originally posted by Inwe
Just one thing I've got to know. Where was Tom Bombadil?

He and Glorfindel are at the Prancing Pony drowning their sorrow over a pint of brew and cheap pipeweed. Overheard in the conversation: "I cant believe that bastard Peter Jackson left us out of the movie, damn him, damn him to hell". Burppppp!

 

[Grond]

Re: Re: Change that ticked me off

Originally posted by markrob
He and Glorfindel are at the Prancing Pony drowning their sorrow over a pint of brew and cheap pipeweed. Overheard in the conversation: "I cant believe that bastard Peter Jackson left us out of the movie, damn him, damn him to hell". Burppppp!

roflmao

 

[Samwise]

in answer to why arwen saves frodo

The reason PJ had Arwen save Frodo is because he wanted to show the love between Aragorn and Arwen. Tolkien doesn't really show how much Arwen loved Aragorn, that she was willing to give up her immortality to be with him.

 

[Grond]

Re: in answer to why arwen saves frodo

Originally posted by Samwise
The reason PJ had Arwen save Frodo is because he wanted to show the love between Aragorn and Arwen. Tolkien doesn't really show how much Arwen loved Aragorn, that she was willing to give up her immortality to be with him.

I thought Arwen showed Aragorn her true love in their love scene in Rivendell where she forsook her immortality and bound herself over to him. I don't quite see where she is showing love of Aragorn in carting a Hobbit around on her horse. But, of course, I could be mistaken!!

 

[daisy]

nothing like a blade at the jugular!!

okay but can you please explain to me what the whole knife at the neck thing was about? I haven't done that to any of my beloveds' - usually it was a fork!!!

daisy the sharp edged bad-ass flower

 

[lilhobo]

that was one for the women lib movement and you are moaning about it???? wazzzzzzzaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[telperion]

say what you want , but when she spoke Sindarin she was damn sexy...

 

[Mithiril]

Liv's voice was so low in that scene, at first I didn't even think it was her, I could have sworn that her voice was dubbed in. Strange...

Anyway, after seeing the movie several more times since this thread started, I have to say that the things that bothered me most consistently remain scenes that seem to alter the very essence of a character from Tolkien's description of them. The Arwen thing, of course, but the whole wizard duel still really gets to me. I've said it before: to me, wizards are so cerebral, they don't need to bash each other all over the place to establish dominance. I don't know how else to visually bring that to a movie, but I think PJ could have put a little more thought into how to show a struggle for power between 2 wizards and not have it look like a brawl. Less special effects, allow these 2 great actors to ACT.

The same with the Galadriel freak out thing...Cate Blanchett is entirely capable of displaying some fine acting, no need to rely on FX there either. Those things really stick out in my mind that I wish had been done differently.

 

[Samwise]

Sure everyone has things in the movie that could have been done better, but as a MOVIE not a comparison to the book, I think PJ did very good. I thought the movie was great, inspite of the changes.

 

[daisy]

lilhobo -

what exactly is a "women lib movement"?

Too much Arwen face in the commercials for the film on television.

daisy the white (petal)

 

[telperion]

women' libido movement perhaps?