What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Gothmog]

There are so many stupidities in the movies. I watched them each in the cinema once FotR almost caused me to walk out half-way through. Only the fact that I was there with my wife stopped me. The rest I had a low enough expectation that I could at least sit through them. I watched them once more in the Extended DVDs and found that while FotR was improved the TT was if anything worse and RotK about the same.

However, probably 75% of the issues are caused by one completely moronic decision. Changing the viewpoint of the story from the Hobbit centered one of the book to a Human(ish) one. This caused the end of the story to be ignored and meant that the Secondary Character Aragorn was move to the primary position needing a stupid Growth Arc and turning the real primary characters, the Hobbits into almost unwanted extras.

 

[Annatar]

I find it kind of funny that people still seem to discuss these ancient films. 😉
Back in the day, I saw them 1-3 times each in theaters to do my duty so I could properly criticize them on internet forums afterwards. (Those were fun times back then). From part 1 and 2 I had then still seen the Extended Editions. Since then, however, I've been trying to block out the movies so that I can finally read the books again unencumbered. So you can see that I detest these movies in principle, but at the same time I have to admit that they were the best Tolkien adaptations so far. I also liked quite a few things, but that's not the topic here.
What annoyed me the most? Very many things, but I don't want to name them. Only one thing:
The soundtrack. It was partly very good, but partly extremely annoying: This cheesy flute playing got on my nerves so much... It already started in the first part with the Shire, but it was worst in the last, seemingly endless scenes of part 3, where obviously the audience should be made to cry with all means. Since then I actually hate flutes.
I might even have become a huge fan of the movies if Howard Shore hadn't used those awful flutes, who knows...

😫😖😣🤮☠️☠️☠️

The guy is also from Ireland, Tolkien must be rotating twice in his grave. 😉

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I play the flute. I like the flute.

Sorry for your trauma.

 

[Annatar]

I play the flute. I like the flute.

I have to admit that I had to learn that once as a kid, too. But that was before Shore's cheesy soundtrack, so I didn't find it traumatic at the time.
So you still play the flute today? On what occasions? 😁
I still make music today, but more with software like Fruity Loops, etc. There you could also include flutes, but I have not done so far for good reason.

Well, maybe I should add that in fact I basically have nothing against flutes. Just as I have nothing against knives, if they are used for eating and not for murder.
What just bothers me extremely here is this enormous cheesy kitsch factor.

There is also very good flute playing, as composed by Mozart, for example:

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

flutes

knives

Flute knife.

 

[Ealdwyn]

I have to disagree with Annatar's view of the soundtrack: imho it's one of the consistently good aspects of the films.

 

[Halasían]

Aragorn's stupid fake death and fever dream of weepy-faced Arwen. Yargh. I didn't count the minutes but it was at least five, I'm guessing.

I have to admit that Liv looked and acted the most arwenesque in that silky gown in the dream.

 

[Thorin]

There are so many stupidities in the movies. I watched them each in the cinema once FotR almost caused me to walk out half-way through. Only the fact that I was there with my wife stopped me. The rest I had a low enough expectation that I could at least sit through them. I watched them once more in the Extended DVDs and found that while FotR was improved the TT was if anything worse and RotK about the same.

However, probably 75% of the issues are caused by one completely moronic decision. Changing the viewpoint of the story from the Hobbit centered one of the book to a Human(ish) one. This caused the end of the story to be ignored and meant that the Secondary Character Aragorn was move to the primary position needing a stupid Growth Arc and turning the real primary characters, the Hobbits into almost unwanted extras.

GOTHMOG!! One of the 1st Agers!! Good to see you!

As this thread was resurrected and I read back on my opinions and those of others, I do believe we were a bit rash to engage in the criticism we did BEFORE the movies even came out and I sound sort of unhinged (especially the post Well Aged Enting put here. Ha ha ha!) However, I won't deny that most of those fears were completely validated after. Ha ha. As I've said before, the FoTR EE did much to redeem the cesspool that was the theater version as far as an adaptation goes. The more I watch the movies the more my criticisms shift.

For example, there was a time when I couldn't stop railing against Xen-Arwen and Jackson decimating the role of 5 characters in his portrayal of Arwen at the Fords. However, IMO, I believe Denethor was the most distorted character (next to Saruman and Aragorn) in the entire series. It's like Jackson did a cursory reading of the parts with Denethor in it and came away saying, 'Okay. Grumpy leader who loves one son and hates the other. Got it...ACTION!'

 

[Aldarion]

As this thread was resurrected and I read back on my opinions and those of others, I do believe we were a bit rash to engage in such criticism we did BEFORE the movies even came out and I sound sort of unhinged. However, I won't deny that most of those fears were completely validated after. Ha ha. As I've said before, the FoTR EE did much to redeem the cesspool that was the theater version as far as an adaptation goes. The more I watch the movies the more my criticisms shift.

For example, there was a time when I couldn't stop railing against Xen-Arwen and Jackson decimating the role of 5 characters in his portrayal of Arwen at the Fords. However, IMO, I believe Denethor was the most distorted character (next to Saruman and Aragorn) in the entire series. It's like Jackson did a cursory reading of the parts with Denethor in it and came away saying, 'Okay. Grumpy leader who loves one son and hates another. Got it...ACTION!'

I believe the main mistake is that Jackson seems to have completely ignored the Appendices. And the Unfinished Tales, but that one is at least somewhat understandable.

It is like, they read the story but didn't bother understanding it. I mean, Denethor is probably one of most complex and deepest written characters I had seen in all of fantasy, but he is so nuanced that you cannot understand it after only one reading. And so Jackson butchered his character instead. Hell, I think that out of all Jackson versions of characters, I like Smaug the most - and even he is but a pale shadow of what he was in the book.

 

[Thorin]

There are so many stupidities in the movies. I watched them each in the cinema once FotR almost caused me to walk out half-way through. Only the fact that I was there with my wife stopped me. The rest I had a low enough expectation that I could at least sit through them. I watched them once more in the Extended DVDs and found that while FotR was improved the TT was if anything worse and RotK about the same.

However, probably 75% of the issues are caused by one completely moronic decision. Changing the viewpoint of the story from the Hobbit centered one of the book to a Human(ish) one. This caused the end of the story to be ignored and meant that the Secondary Character Aragorn was move to the primary position needing a stupid Growth Arc and turning the real primary characters, the Hobbits into almost unwanted extras.

Yes, TT EE made it even worse. RoTK was actually the best of them all for the theater version. FoTR EE is still the best one for sure despite Xen-Arwen, Saruman the Dark Lord's lackey, and many other egregious changes. And yes, the focus to Aragorn over the hobbits was bad enough but that it focused on a cowardly, doubting Aragorn was worse. A character who seemed forced into his destiny, denying the love of Arwen and banishing her away from him when in the book, his motivations were completely different.

 

[Radaghast]

I believe the main mistake is that Jackson seems to have completely ignored the Appendices. And the Unfinished Tales, but that one is at least somewhat understandable.

It is like, they read the story but didn't bother understanding it. I mean, Denethor is probably one of most complex and deepest written characters I had seen in all of fantasy, but he is so nuanced that you cannot understand it after only one reading. And so Jackson butchered his character instead. Hell, I think that out of all Jackson versions of characters, I like Smaug the most - and even he is but a pale shadow of what he was in the book.

Agreed. He obviously read the tale of Arwen and Aragorn but failed to grasp the meaning behind it. This story essentially explains why Aragorn is not tempted by the Ring but Peej wanted to make it a thing that Aragorn would be tempted by it, thereby mucking up Aragorn's character. Tolkien felt this story was important but didn't want to include it in the book proper for what I think are fairly obvious reasons.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

I believe Denethor was the most distorted character (next to Saruman and Aragorn) in the entire series.

I get that, but for me, it's Faramir; blatant character assassination. It's interesting that PJ changed Faramir because he claimed he was "too one-dimensional", but then made Denethor "one-dimensional".

Whatever "one-dimensional" is supposed to mean.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Maybe I should have said "ironic". It certainly wasn't interesting. 😄

 

[Aldarion]

I get that, but for me, it's Faramir; blatant character assassination. It's interesting that PJ changed Faramir because he claimed he was "too one-dimensional", but then made Denethor "one-dimensional".

Whatever "one-dimensional" is supposed to mean.

What I wrote: Jackson's obsession with conflict. To him, one-dimensional is a character that does not have inner conflict. Boromir is thus multidimensional because he was conflicted over the Ring and attempted to take it from Frodo before redeeming himself. Faramir is one-dimensional because he promised Frodo he will not attempt to take the Ring and kept to that promise. So in turn, Jackson turned Faramir into Boromir-lite, and thus completely missed the point of both characters. Aragorn in the books was one-dimensional to Jackson because he had his sights set on the throne of Gondor from the beginning, and so Jackson made him full of self-doubt.

Jackson noticed Denethor's inner conflict, and he did keep that - notice how Denethor behaves before and after Faramir is wounded; it is basically like in the books - he only remembers he loves Faramir once latter is mortally wounded - but Denethor is basically reduced to this one note, with none of the complexities present in the book.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

To him, one-dimensional is a character that does not have inner conflict.

Yeah, I know. It's just that, if he's going to use a spatial metaphor, he should use a meaningful one. "Two-dimensional" indicates a character lacking depth. A "one-dimensional" character would be a line, and therefore invisible. It's a common mistake.

Just a personal maggot of mine -- don't listen to me. 😄

 

[Olorgando]

That abominable H'Wood cookie cutter "character development" 🤮 . For me the most pathetic part in that sense was the complete flip of the result of the Entmoot, with the "duh" Ents being convinced to attack Isengard by such an utterly pathetic ruse of Merry & Pippin's ... 🤮🤮🤮

 

[Radaghast]

Yeah, what did Treebeard think Saruman was doing? Carving his initials into the trees? Leaving campfires unattended?

And how the heck did Pippin know what was going on? He'd never been that way.

Incidentally, I've never seen the extended editions.

 

[d4rk3lf]

I must say that I think that Golum/Deagol scene looked perfect to me... maybe my favorite, if we exclude the awesome intro with battle at the gates of Barad Dur.

It got me thinking of possibility that Peter didn't directed Golum/Deagol scene, because it didn't looked like his style.
Maybe he was busy directing other shots, and gave that scene to someone else to direct, and that "someone else" did spectacular job.

 

[Thorin]

What I wrote: Jackson's obsession with conflict. To him, one-dimensional is a character that does not have inner conflict. Boromir is thus multidimensional because he was conflicted over the Ring and attempted to take it from Frodo before redeeming himself. Faramir is one-dimensional because he promised Frodo he will not attempt to take the Ring and kept to that promise. So in turn, Jackson turned Faramir into Boromir-lite, and thus completely missed the point of both characters. Aragorn in the books was one-dimensional to Jackson because he had his sights set on the throne of Gondor from the beginning, and so Jackson made him full of self-doubt.

Jackson noticed Denethor's inner conflict, and he did keep that - notice how Denethor behaves before and after Faramir is wounded; it is basically like in the books - he only remembers he loves Faramir once latter is mortally wounded - but Denethor is basically reduced to this one note, with none of the complexities present in the book.

Let us also acknowledge that we have no clue how PJ's Denethor knows all he does and has complete despair of victory because PJ didn't include the palantir in the movies at all. Such a butchery of Tolkien's character in so many ways on so many levels.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

A very old fossil, this thread, yet Thorin's "belief" as stated is entirely true. For many, the Film is now all they know of LoTR - to much great loss. And they try to talk "knowledgeably" about what Tolkien's LoTR is all about, and what the various characters have said and done.

Saints preserve us..!!
In such a case as this, may we ever find Radagast the Eccentric leading the wolves away in his Bunny-drawn Sled to keep us safe a bit longer from the pod-born Orcs of Isengard. (To mix different movies having the same malodorous types of errors as their frequent fare..!)

An old thread indeed, yet some prove to be timeless! My hope is that the movies lead to knowledge of the books, and knowledge of Tolkien altogether.