What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
I have problems with your explanation. Firstly you say PJ can CREATE scenes for Arwen, but berate him for having her do things out of character. How can you say what is in or out of character for Arwen? She has no character development at all. There is no way to tell what is out character.

My problem with your position is that you resent even small changes for cinematic reasons, and you wish they weren't there. There are two ways of avoiding making changes for cinematic reasons: either make a bad film, or don't make one at all.

\

JRR and the appendix give more of a character idea then you make it out to be....From that, a decent adaptation of Arwen could have been done and scenes to fit that mold. As far as I'm concerned, the scenes of Arwen at Rivendell were within the character of LoTR and were not true to the book, but they were appropriate....With the little evidence that we have of Arwen, her Rivendell scenes were more justified then her Ford scenes...Because PJ's Arwen is mostly speculation, I would have had a problem with her portrayed like that anywhere, nevermind (once again ) being where SHE NEVER BELONGED, and taking away from other characters WHO DO BELONG. And no, I don't care for some of the little changes, I would have liked things to be more true then they were (and despite Harad who feels that any deviation closer to the book from what PJ made would have made LoTR a flop), I think that staying truer to the little things would have made a bigger impression on a Tolkien obsessed audience.

I remember your criteria now:

1) What major plot change is enforced?
2) Does it radically alter the nature / texture of Middle Earth?
3) Does it give to major characters actions that they would not have taken?
4) Does it significantly detract from the development of other characters?

I feel that this is WIDE open for many changes that would in themselves gradually violate # 2, but would be acceptable by your criteria....I think that any real Tolkien fan would be upset by the number of changes that PJ could make in the next two movies that would stay within the boundaries you've set. I would hope that you would as well. When does it stop being the Tolkien that we love? I feel that PJ has already violated # 3 and 4 (heck he gave a MINOR character actions never mind a major character! #3). And I feel that number one was treaded upon somewhat.

 

[Snaga]

Originally posted by Thorin
And no, I don't care for some of the little changes, I would have liked things to be more true then they were (and despite Harad who feels that any deviation closer to the book from what PJ made would have made LoTR a flop), I think that staying truer to the little things would have made a bigger impression on a Tolkien obsessed audience.

Well I guess that's the nub of it really. You want the film to made for the existing fans of the book (by which you actually mean purists, rather than all fans). I want a film that will work for people who don't already know the books, and will be drawn to read it. Because it is more important to me that more people read the book, than that those who just see the film get every detail presented to them strictly as per the book.

Overall I agree with you that PJ has not conformed to my criteria, particular in the portrayal of Aragorn. But in the case of Arwen I'm not really bothered at all by what he's done.

I take you point that if enough small changes to the nature / texture of Middle Earth are made, this could add up over the course of the whole film to a major change. I can only give you my opinion, which is that it still feels like Middle Earth to me.

 

[Samwise]

Poll!!

I've started a poll and I want to know what was your favorite book of the trilogy. The poll is here http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3203

 

[Samwise]

poll

My first poll didn't work out (as you might've found out) I want to know what was your favorite book in the LOTR trilogy. here's the address:http://thetolkien.forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3259

 

[Maclock]

Please don't hate me....

Hi all

Firstly, I'd just like to say that I have finally seen the movie and I think it was excellent. However, I agree with those in the forum who find some of the changes a little hard to accept as necessary. Please forgive me if I'm repeating what has been said (in no way do I expect an answer to this, it's just I haven't posted on here in ages). The changes surrounding Saruman I disliked the most, personally because I liked the realisation that Saruman was actually under the control of Sauron. I think the film made this far to explicit.

Anyhow, regarding the situation with the DVD's. I would be intrigued if there were more footage on the forthcoming DVD - that would be truly excellent. Please don't hate me but I have actually already watched a DVD version of LOTR:FOTR!!!

I COULDN'T RESIST IT ANY LONGER, you see, I have been in China since December and therefore have not been able to visit a cinema at watch the FOTR. What with all your talk of WATCHING the film, well.... I am weak. I could not resist. I bought the DVD. I'm not suggesting that this is the authentic version (anyone who knows of the DVD business in China will not make that mistake) - but none of the extra stuff is in the film. This isn't just a recording off a cinema screen either, but a crystal clear version. I can't wait to see it on the widescreen when I come home... it looked so good on my TV.

Sorry for that pointless ramble, I just couldn't cope with the guilt anymore...

sob....

 

[Snaga]

Hey Mac if you're coming my way at all bring me a copy of that DVD will you please? pretty please!!

 

[Minas]

Saruman is in Sauron's Pocket?

Watched the movie again. I'm sure that Saruman was more independent in the book. PJ has S'man's little orcs asking him.
"What does the eye command?"
Also when S'man looks into the Palantir he asks what to do and the throbbing eye says
"Build me an army suitable for Mordor" or something similar. Then we see the orc pods as S'man builds his army.

It's taken a while for me to put my finger on whgat I didn't like about s'mans character but I don't like this change.

 

[Radagast]

Long time past

Hello all,

Glad to see the dialog continues as we get ready for the Two Towers. I'm sure PJ won't fail to give us plenty of amunition to slam him and his tattered reputation with. But, the plants who probably worked on the film will appear once again for damage control. Personally attacking those of us who quite normally gravitate towards JRR Tolkien's version of HIS own books. We will be called "purists" as if that's a foolish thing to be, so get ready, the boat is about to be rocked again soon in a theater near you!!!

 

[aragil]

Why won't this thread die?

Ah Radagast, I see you're still miffed about being turned into a moth in the first outing. I must say, it suited you. Your plan to go to the theaters in order to procure ammunition against PJ puts me in mind of an old Saturday Night Sketch involving sour milk- "This is really horrible. Here, taste it."

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by aragil
Your plan to go to the theaters in order to procure ammunition against PJ puts me in mind of an old Saturday Night Sketch involving sour milk- "This is really horrible. Here, taste it."

PJ provides plenty of ammunition on his own, and happily throws broken carrots and tossed dwarfs at the audience.
And FOTR isn't "really horrible"; it's just mildly irritating in places, made worse by the knowledge that it could so easily have been so much better.
BTW, what's this "ticks you off" anyway? To tick someone off is to reprimand them mildly, and to tick something off is to mark on a list that it has been noted. Do you mean "puts you off", or "irritates you", or what?

 

[aragil]

Talk about subjective stuff. In the UK "to tick off" mean to "reproach someone mildly", but here in the US (Aerin is an American) it means "to irritate, not so mildly". In a similar vein, opinion of the movie is subjective- to Radagast it really was horrible, to you it was mildly irritating, and to me it was great.

 

[Talimon]

But, the plants who probably worked on the film will appear once again for damage control.

NO COMMENT!!!!!!!

 

[Ascamaciliel]

i thought the movie was really great; but they didn't have to go and make all those little changes. and i'm recently re-reading TTT and was wondering is maybe PJ is replacing Ugluk with Lurtz, ew! that would suck! the thing i most disliked in FOTR was probably the Arwen thing, it just annoys me how she's this Xena-chick thing, she better not have a similar part in TTT or ROTK. and I have REALLY high expectations for Gollum, because he is one of my favorite characters, so I'm PJ does a good job with him...

 

[Azog]

Personally, and this only my opinion, I don't think that anything in the movie was majorly wrong. I didn't think that Arwen was that Xena like, because all she did was ride to a river and let her dad beat up all of the Nazgul. I thought that some of the wordplay was cheesy, and could've been better done.

 

[aragil]

Nevele11- I assure that if PJ even considers replacing Ugluk (the true hero of the story) he will be losing this fan!

 

[Longshanks]

After slogging through this whole thread to get a feel for the opinions of folks on this forum, I was embarrassed to see all the bashing that was done to this film before anyone had even seen it. Jackson's head was called for on the basis of 3 minutes of film in a trailer and some internet rumors. If some posters would go back and read some of their post from several months ago, they would be blushing.This film was a wonderful adaption of a great literary work, a visual feast for the eyes and an emotional treat for the heart. I would think true fans of Tolkien, after having seen the movie, would thank Jackson on bended knees for doing such a good job. I've loved these books for 30 years and this adaption is as true as I think is humanly possible, being translated from one medium to another. Such a visual medium as film forces the artist do handle things differently than the verbal medium of a book. The personification of the orcs in the one super-orc, Lurtz, gives Aragorn and Boromir an antagonist that makes the conflict personal, raising the emotional stakes in the scene of Boromir's Death and Aragorn's victory. Pippin knocking a skeleton down the well is MUCH more interesting visually than him dropping a stone, and it accomplishes the same thing, revealing the Fellowships presence in Moria. Fears of a Xenafied Arwen was also much ado about nothing. Enlarging the love story adds shades to the characters of Aragorn and Arwen, something that in film, must be SHOWN, not talked about or alluded to as in the book. This film was as close to a masterpiece as you can come, visually stunning, entertaining and it left me longing for the next installment. I can't help feeling that one had to be looking for reasons to complain if you didn't come out of the thearter feeling like you had just seen a dream come true.I know I did.

 

[Grond]

Longshanks, welcome to the forum. If you read the entire thread you'll see that there are numerous people who enjoyed the movie but didn't understand why many of the changes that you so loudly applaud, were made. I am one of those. The complexity of the Arwen/Aragorn love affair could easily have been handled in flashbacks and discussions in Rivendell and needn't have her invade into a role she never held in the book. As I've said over and over, her expanded role was my only criticism of the movie. I thought it was unnecessary and was just a way of getting a hot actress some more screen time. (And I like that hot actress myself).

Af for the Moria scene with Pippin, I thought the young Hobbits were portrayed as idiots and buffoons. I can only hope that this was done to contrast the true heroes that they will become when they "grow up" as the films progress.

 

[joxy]

Originally posted by Longshanks
Pippin knocking a skeleton down the well is MUCH more interesting visually than him dropping a stone....
Enlarging the love story adds shades to the characters of Aragorn and Arwen, something that in film, must be SHOWN, not talked about or alluded to as in the book.
I can't help feeling that one had to be looking for reasons to complain if you didn't come out of the theatre feeling like you had just seen a dream come true.

1. The skeleton is much SILLIER than the stone; it's boring, and it conflicts with the atmosphere of the Moria scenes.
2. The A/A romance scarcely exists in the FOTR book, and why anyone who is as familiar with the books as you should welcome its intrusion into the film I can't begin to understand.
3. No, we don't look for reasons; they jump out and hit us in the face.
4. It is so NEAR to being a dream come true, and it would have been so easy to make it even nearer, that the irritations become even more irritating.

 

[Talimon]

After slogging through this whole thread to get a feel for the opinions of folks on this forum, I was embarrassed to see all the bashing that was done to this film before anyone had even seen it.

THANK YOU!!! Finally someone else who recognizes the complete lack of objectivity that has been so inherent in many purists arguements. That's not even the worst of it, Longshanks. There are some other posts here with people saying they literally "cried in agony" during the trailer. Or other folks saying that PJ has butchered Tolkiens book months before having seen his movie. Yes, I agree. Embarrassing.

I have no problem with people not liking the movie. But I think that many, many folks from the "purist" camp were/are intent on bashing PJ's movies before even seeing them. And before anyone starts making noise, notice that I said "many", not all. You know who I'm talking about. In fact, most of those I'm talking about don't post here much any longer.

This film was as close to a masterpiece as you can come, visually stunning, entertaining and it left me longing for the next installment.

I agree. Regardless of what one thinks regarding it's trueness to the book, judged on it's own it is a cinematic masterpiece, in my opinion easily matching the mythic sweep of the original Star Wars (more often exceeding it). I can't think of any other "escapist" movie that comes close.

I would think true fans of Tolkien, after having seen the movie, would thank Jackson on bended knees for doing such a good job. I've loved these books for 30 years and this adaption is as true as I think is humanly possible, being translated from one medium to another.

I completely agree. In fact, I highly appreciate that you've posted, due to your vantage point of having read the book for 30 years. From that perspective it goes without saying that no adaptation can ever be the LotR. It's only what it claims to be, an adaptation. Having said this, for those who have waited so long it is easier to look at the full half of the cup rather then empty half. In other words, Tolkiens tale exists regardless. At the very least, PJ can only keep it where it is. There is no way he can lower it's quality or legacy. As such, from that point of view, one sees how much he's added. For those who have waited so long this is a dream come true. To see Middle-earth come alive, just visually, is on it's own incredible. To actually see carefully cast actors act out the charachters is leagues above anything we've previously seen. Then, to see the core events of the tale play out in-front of us, with all the emotional weight they deserve, is heaven. The fact that the movie takes itself seriously is, in my opinion, what really separates it from other fantasy-film efforts. The actors have no second-thoughts about being dressed up as hobbits, elves, dwarves, wizards... They take thier roles seriously and act them poignantly.

I guess my point is that, for some (me included), it would have been enough to just capture Middle-earth visually. The fact that the movie is filled with actual feeling, the fact that this feeling is real, and perhaps most importantly the fact that it corellates with many of the same emotions Tolkien's book evoked, is more then I could have ever dreamed for.

It's important to keep this in persepective: This is an adaptation of a 50 year old book, a book that has stood (and will no doubt stand) the test of time. This book isn't some one-trick phenomenon. It has lasting appeal. In the history of the telling of this tale, PJ's movie is just one attempt, hopefully the first of many to come (though perhaps we won't live to see them all ). I was watching the DVD yesterday, and Brian Sibely said something that I've heard others say (and have said it myself). It summarizes my feelings on PJ's movie/s:


"J.R.R Tolkien was very aware that he had created a world that existed within his books. But he also said that it was a world that could be enhanced by the people, with paint, with music, with drama. And that is what I think Peter Jackson has done. Tolkien created a myth, a modern myth. And what has happened is that by turning it into a film, a film-maker has given it a new dimension, has taken that myth one stage further. Which is how myths are born, how they are carried through generation after generation. So in a way I see Peter Jackson as part of the mythic process that was begun by Tolkien when he first wrote the first line of the book."

 

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
THANK YOU!!! Finally someone else who recognizes the complete lack of objectivity that has been so inherent in many purists arguements. That's not even the worst of it, Longshanks. There are some other posts here with people saying they literally "cried in agony" during the trailer. Or other folks saying that PJ has butchered Tolkiens book months before having seen his movie. Yes, I agree. Embarrassing.

I have no problem with people not liking the movie. But I think that many, many folks from the "purist" camp were/are intent on bashing PJ's movies before even seeing them. And before anyone starts making noise, notice that I said "many", not all. You know who I'm talking about.

Yes, you're talking about me, and all the ranting and raving I did about PJ's ludicrous changes months before the movie came out was not only justified and confirmed, but even WORSE in many cases then what I expected. My feelings have not changed, because I was protesting on mostly priniciple. The principle stays the same. The other changes I tried to sit through with an open mind, but they were as bad as I thought when I first saw them. No embarassment here.