What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Gary Gamgee]

Boromir should never have picked up the Ring if he had done in the book then he surely would not have given it back to Frodo. And although Frodo is at times that scared in the book it is not constant like the Film. The Hobbit's character's in general really annoyed me, you had no sense of their stout heart's, their courage, thier humour nothing but helpless saps who fall into a dangerous quest. He still has two film's to do so let's hope that their character's improve, one bit of good news was they way Sam at the end of the film started to show us his huge loyality to Frodo.

 

[Thorin]

Yeah, the Boromir thing really bothered me. Sure they needed to set Boromir up for betrayal in the audience's eyes, but the power of the ring was quite diminished (add in the council of Elrond as well).

Despite poor editing and a lot of important stuff cut out, my biggest beefs are with what was done with what was left in:

1) Arwen
2) Wizard's duel (I'm with Mithril on that one)
3) Saruman
4) Boromir on Caradhras (As far as the rest of the scenes of Boromir and Sean Bean is concerned, he did a phenomenal job on Amon Hen...Kudos for the betrayal/redemption scenes
5) Galadriel and Lorien (though many of those scenes were edited out and will probably be put in the DVD version)
6) Poor character development (specifically of Aragorn at Bree and Merry and Pippen's meeting up and joining the fellowship)
7) Elrond (as an actor and as a character)
8) Council of Elrond poorly done

I felt that most, if not all of those things could have been improved even for time/budget/audience purposes...

Good things this purist liked:

1) Scenery
2) Costumes
3) Intro of overthrow of Sauron
4) Boromir's acting
5) Moria (except cave troll)
6) Gandalf (for the most part)
7) Legolas (for the most part)
8) Shire (for the most part)

Not having seen the movie since it came out has mellowed me a bit. I 'm sure if I went again, Arwen would put me on to another tirade of what I hate about the movie...

 

[Harad]

Arwen was a composite character taking in characteristics of the Books Glorfindel, Arwen, and perhaps Elronds sons. Composite characters are a standard technique when movies, all movies, need to compress the story because of severe time considerations. Arwen in the movie was true to the spirit of ME and LOTR as has been succesfully argued in many threads herein. And as an aside, Glorfindel in the book was a "weak" character as has been successfully argued in the "Searching for Glorfindel" thread.

Geez, I hope this reply is no more "repetitive" than the post that it replies to.

 

[Thorin]

Yes, it is repetitive...and just like all the other repetitive replies to repetitive posts like mine, it misses the point...

Nobody is whining (at least not me) about the loss of Glorfindel, a minor character...The problem is that PJ has taken another minor character and is beginning to make her into a major character and make her do not only some of the things the "other" minor character was doing, but stolen the thunder of other major characters. Even if PJ made up a completely different character (like Lurtz) to do the work of numerous other characters (to avoid having to deal with three or more different characters doing three or more different things) that might have been somewhat acceptable...It might as well be another character because Arwen will soon be unrecognizable for the many un-Tolkienish things PJ will have her do.

 

[Snaga]

Thorin

You say you don't like Saruman. Is it:
- the implication that he is a straightforward servant of Sauron, rather than playing a game and in it for himself that irks you
- the portrayal of him as responsible for the snow on Caradhras
- or Christopher Lee's portrayal of him that you don't like.
(Or all of the above / something else I've missed).

Apologies if I'm inviting repetition - I've not seen anyone post before that they thought Christopher Lee was weak as Saruman. In fact I thought he was really excellent, but the other criticisms I could relate to.

 

[Thorin]

The first two..

With what Christopher Lee had to work with, he did do a great job..Physically I think he looked the part quite well.,

 

[Harad]

"the implication that he was a straightforward servant of Sauron"

Where were the Orcs taking M&P anyway? Does the implication of things later proven to be wrong REALLY matter? Geez!

 

[baraka]

Changes

Originally posted by Samwise
I agree. All the changes were good ones. Let's face it, it's imposible to put all the FOTR in to one three hour movie. I think PJ did a very good job.

Why did PJ change the name of Bilbo´s book. Do you like that change also. It was totally innecessary and stupid.

 

[Snaga]

Chill out Harad, you're getting yourself all upset again, for no good reason.

Its possible to think that the subleties of the book could have been included by more thoughtful dialogue without concluding the film is crap. I think its an excellent film. I think adaptation is perfectly legitimate. But its just its not perfect. OK?

 

[Harad]

I'm icy VofK.
There are some like you (ithink) and me who can criticize issues in the movie, because it wasnt perfect. There are others who use those issues to slam the movie. I, for example, dont like the Wizard wrassling match. The hidden motivation of Saruman I believe is a bad rap for the movie.

 

[Thorin]

If the movie leads many of us fans to be confused to Saruman's motives, how will non-Tolkienites not be confused?

It seems pretty hard to reconcile M&P being carried off by Saruman's orcs and Saruman telling Gandalf "We must join Sauron!" And then threatening death to Gandalf because he refuses.

You can't reconcile the two because the former actually did happen in the book and the latter did not. That is where the script goes wrong and where Saruman's character is not only contradictory (whether it is explained later is not the point) but also his personal motives seem ambiguous and swallowed up by the spectre of Sauron....

The movie played this part out badly. So much of the justification by movie supporters of the things Saruman does in the movie is because PJ wanted to show a tangible villian early....He would have done that much more by emphasising that Saruman was in it only for himself rather than portray him as Sauron's crony.

 

[markrob]

Pretending to be a crony?

Is it not possible that "movie" Saruman was just pretending to be a Sauron crony? I mean, hes got to work both sides to get into position to make his on play for the ring doesnt he? He is rather wise, so he cant show his hand too prodominatly or Sauron would suspect something. Everybody is so quick to jump on PJ about Sarumans character but I think we will see in future films that ole Saruman is using his wisdom to make his true move. Just something to think about.

Upon further research I have also found this bit of information:
" In 2953 Saruman took Isengard for his own and fortified it. There he gathered Orcs and Dunlendings, who at his orders began harrassing Rohan and Fangorn; he also began spying on Gandalf and keeping agents in Bree and the Shire. About 3000 he used his palantir and was TRAPPED by Sauron; after this time, although he thought himself free, he was ACTUALLY CONTROLLED BY SAURON. His pride grew even more rapidly than his power at this time, and by the time of WR he called himself Saruman the Many-Colored."

And then blah blah blah the rest is history. This is from The Complete Guide to Middle Earth by Robert Foster (1971). So it is possible that he WAS under the influence of Sauron but retained enough power to act for himself as well when the time came. Words for thought.

 

[Luthien]

And what about the medal that Arwen gives to Aragorn ¡?¡?¡

a bit cursi isn't it ?

 

[Grond]

Re: Pretending to be a crony?

Originally posted by markrob
Is it not possible that "movie" Saruman was just pretending to be a Sauron crony? I mean, hes got to work both sides to get into position to make his on play for the ring doesnt he? He is rather wise, so he cant show his hand too prodominatly or Sauron would suspect something. Everybody is so quick to jump on PJ about Sarumans character but I think we will see in future films that ole Saruman is using his wisdom to make his true move. Just something to think about.

Upon further research I have also found this bit of information:
" In 2953 Saruman took Isengard for his own and fortified it. There he gathered Orcs and Dunlendings, who at his orders began harrassing Rohan and Fangorn; he also began spying on Gandalf and keeping agents in Bree and the Shire. About 3000 he used his palantir and was TRAPPED by Sauron; after this time, although he thought himself free, he was ACTUALLY CONTROLLED BY SAURON. His pride grew even more rapidly than his power at this time, and by the time of WR he called himself Saruman the Many-Colored."

And then blah blah blah the rest is history. This is from The Complete Guide to Middle Earth by Robert Foster (1971). So it is possible that he WAS under the influence of Sauron but retained enough power to act for himself as well when the time came. Words for thought.

From FotR, The Council of Elrond, Gandalf speaking to the Council, ..."He (Saruman) came and laid his long hand on my arm. 'And Why not, Gandalf?' he whispered, 'Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us. This 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 ask for the Shire, and what is your business there?' As he said this a lust which he could not conceal shone suddenly in his eyes."

That doesn't sound like he was totally under the control of Sauron, but he could have been fakin' it. And that's from the book markrob, I'm not sure what message PJ was trying to convey. I'll wait and see the other movies before I pass final judgement.

 

[daisy]

Coles Notes

I don't know if you have these in other countries but you probably have something similar - Coles Notes, where classic literature is summarized and analysed so that slacker high school and university students don't have to actually read the book....

That's sort-of how I view the Saruman thing from the movie - PJ just had to make it clear in about seven minutes 20 seconds, or whatever amount of editing time he had, that Saruman had turned dark. He didn't have the ability to put in any real background or years unfolding etc. for this - he just had to make the point fast. Ergo - " We must join with Sauron". Short and simple for audiences to get - I've also read interviews where PJ discusses the fact the FOTR was missing a real visible villain - I mean, there were the yucky orcs and the Nazgul but they were brief...Gollum was nothing more than a shadow...and Sauron was a big burning cat eye or something. Perhaps he saw the Coles Notes Saruman as a way to give the audience a recognisable, clear 'villain' figure.

Just a thought. I have to get back to my Coles N...I mean, Tale of Two Cities....

daisy the reading reed

 

[Kuduk]

Daisy, in the States, the most venerable version we have is Cliff Notes. I always found it amusing that when classmates would complain that they couldn't find a book at the library, I would go and see that all the Cliff Notes versions would be checked out and impossible to find while there would be a zillion copies of the original novel lying around.

Returning to the current topic, I think someone brought this point up already, but the movie (FotR) does indicate that Saruman is in it for himself and not necessarily serving Sauron. When Saruman asks the Lurtz orc whom he serves, Lurtz lets out a full-throated "Saruman!" The fact that Lurtz does not hesitate, does not appear the least bit confused ("Sauron? I mean...Saruman!") and says it with all the gutso that Saruman has given him makes it clear enough (at least to me) that Saruman's previous actions and statements were a bit of a ruse. True, one never actually hears Saruman say "Go jump in a lake of molten lava, Sauron! I'm taking the Ring myself!" But I think most moviegoers don't need things spelled out for them (at least not all the time).

I agree that Saruman's statement to Gandalf that they must join Sauron because he is too powerful comes across as a bit crass. Being the skilled and polished speaker he is, Saruman should have known better that Gandalf wouldn't fall for a line like that and certainly wouldn't respond to that kind of logic. I would have expected something much more suave (or at least oily) from him.

But I don't find PJ's decision to mislead folks that Saruman is serving Sauron to be wrong. Misdirection is an important part of entertainment from horror thrillers to magic tricks, and even Tolkien engaged in a bit of that during his books.

So what's the big deal?

 

[Thorin]

I don't think Lurtz saying he serves Saruman shows that Saruman is in it for himself at all.. It shows Lurtz acknowledging who HIS master is...If during WWII you took an American soldier and said, "Who do you serve in all this?" He would have said President Roosevelt and America, sir." But that doesn't negate the fact that these soldiers were part of the allied forces with Britain, fighting the war with them.

I don't really feel the movie does show Saruman deciding after all that he wants it for himself. It shows contradiction at best. It doesn't seem like a very smart move to all of a sudden switch sides with no explanation to the movie going public when the book makes it quite plain that Saruman was in it for himself all the time. Gandalf knew it and Saruman knew it...Tolkien showed how wily he is. He tried to get Gandalf to his side to give their order, the wizards more power. The movie ignores this part of Saruman's character by turning Gandalf off immediately with no hope of Gandalf even contemplating giving up the ring to benefit himself (or Saruman would have Gandalf think) by saying, "We must join Sauron!"

That's like telling a kid, "Here, stick your hand in this running blender that looks like a cookie jar." Instead of having the blender hidden and saying, "Hey kid, you want a cooookieee???"

 

[Isildur's Bane]

pods!!!!!

is that all thats getting to you. what about the fact that Stider's sword is broken. he has to use just flaming brands sticks and other stuff (you know grass, moss and gravel. his wallet, mobile fone etc) to fight off the Nazgul. thats what really got to me.

 

[Harad]

That's another complaint in the category of "Blame JRRT." Strider's sword was broken in the Book up until the time he reached Rivendell.

 

[Isildur's Bane]

Did they not make a big song and dance out of reforging it though?