[Elrond of Rivendell]

Well, I think if we keep ourselves overfixed to the books, we could generate a list ad infinitum. Still this is not my intention, although I recognize that I also disliked some parts of the movies. The general opinion however is a very good one, I still can enjoy watching FotR for instance, to be sure.<BR>I am honestly thankful to Peter Jackson for offering us this great work of movie-making (and not of literally 1:1-adapting Tolkien's works, which would be quite impossible, given the length, both in the space (cf. distances in Mordor) and in time (cf. the 17 years) of the latter).<BR>I think the best method of enjoying Peter Jackson's movies is to remind what they are after all: movies. If you want to have a Middle-Earth congruent with Tolkien's writings, then I regret, you have to read the books. There is no other way. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Arwen calling the River to destroy the Nazgul just got me mad, the river is under the command of Lord Elrond, and none other... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>E.g. this doesn't disturb me at all. The Nazgul are rebuked by some powers emanating from Elves (and Gandalf, as it is said in the books), is it really THAT important whether the force behind them was Elrond or his daughter (and therefore very close to his kin and even probably detaining the same powers)? - Honestly, I don't think so.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Ents stalling...I mean dear god, the movie is more than 3 hours, and still a lot of important and relevent things were cut out, and PJ has the nerve to have the Ents say "no" at first... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Here I have to admit that this was a very nice prolongement of Treebeard's saying "No one cares about the forests any more, no one is on my side". I think an Entmoot leading to enthusiastic Ents marching into war would not have been credible in the movie. Remember that even in the books, the Entmoot is an event of long duration, without the usual black/white reasoning (Oh yes, Saruman is evil, we must destroy him). Peter Jackson tried to represent this by letting the Ents firstly refuse their participation.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The taking of the women and children to Helms Deep, if there already not enough women and children in the caves in the book, PJ has to make the riding of the Riders into a refugee train...once again...I dont care about women and children and the effect of war on them...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I could not disagree more. What Tolkien wanted to show us in his books throughout his books, is the dramatic consequences of a cataclysm like a great war. (I remember reading or hearing somewhere that some battles are depicted in allusion to the trenches of World War I.) So I see the women and children crying and suffering, as shown by Peter Jackson, as of the same mind, which I greatly appreciate. We should not forget after all that Tolkien's books are a little bit more complex than mere orc-slaughtering.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Elrond's "Im a stubborn and overprotective father, forget my goal to return a king to the throne of Gondor, forget about saving humans and middle erath from the clutches of Sauron, I want my daughter to sail of the sea with me and thats final" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>For this point, I refer to what has been said on this board before: Peter Jackson has - IMHO - not tried to come with a stubborn Elf, full of disdain for the human race, but he presented us a loving father, caring for his daughter, after having lost nearly all his kind. In fact, I would almost use the word "human(e)" to describe his feelings. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Gollum turning Frodo against Sam was just unneccesary and bad, there was no need for it, and not only that, it got me mad, I already hated gollum, no need for me to hate him more... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I think this was quite a difficult decision for Peter Jackson to take. As it is, Gollum had to die at the end, but whereas in the books, his character can be dealt with throughout 700 pages or more, with appendices and so on, the movies only have a (very limited) space of time to do a complex character analysis. Therefore, Peter Jackson had to depict Gollum towards the end of the movies as fully evil, so that his death could be "accepted" even by non Tolkien-readers. Just imagine the uproar of horror and indignation to be heard if Gollum would have died after scene like the "name-giving" by Frodo.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> No Rangers, no songs of Elrond, no nothing, making legolas, Aragorn and gimli brave the paths of the dead all by themselves, without horses... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Again, they are not necessary in the movies. It is Aragorn only and alone who can enter the Paths of the Dead. He doesn't need any companion for his deed. Btw, I am sure, if more Rangers had shown up, some people would have used this fact to point at the chronological inconsistency.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Denethor was AWFUL absolutly aful, I mean dear god, I dont know if it is the actor of the role that was written for him, but every little thing he did ****ed me off, first with hi s rambling until gandalf hit him, then with his eating, and then the pyre.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Here again, not disposing of some entire chapter-lengths to deal with Denethor, Peter Jackson had to transform this character. Okay, I agree, the changes in this particular figure were quite deep, but I agree now with them, seeing that after all there are two Denethor's: the one from the books and the one from the movies. You simply must not juxtapose the two of them.<P>So I repeat that I recommend accepting Peter Jackson's movies as what they are: movies. This term - in my eyes - clearly implies the artistic licences of a skillful director. <BR>I still hope for another version of LotR-Movies, not because PJ's are bad, but simply I think that a book like this deserves more than one movie-adaptation.<P>Greetings,<BR>EfR<p>[ 6:00 PM January 23, 2004: Message edited by: Elrond of Rivendell ]