[willkill4food]

To begin, I would just like to say that in real life, I am not nearly as angry about any of these changes as it may seem, it is just as I watch the movies again and again, I have passed the "looking for every little detail" stage and am now in the "looking for every little flaw" stage, but dont get me wrong, I really do enjoy the movies and they make me proud to say Im a Tolkien fan...<P>Meela - To me, they really arnt tiny details, they are small, yet important parts of the movie that PJ, for some reason or another (call it artistic freedom or one too many beers while writing the screenplay) has changed, added or lefted out...in reality, I am not that picky, it is just the more I think about it, the more I realize that PJ should of done this, or shouldnt of done that...maybe I just need a life...<P>Armetiel - Now that I think about it, we do hear Haldir's name in FotR, but seeing him again in Helm's Deep doesnt add anything special, and yes, the viewer may recognize him from FotR, but it just erks me to think that Americans (and other audiences) need to be spoon fed their characters so they dont get confused...<P>Kronos - please dont take me as a cold, arrogante, war mongering fool...but seriously, the viewer never gets to meet the women and children, or even get to know them, they are just nameless faces which are meant to portray the evilness and heartless reality of war. But once again, the more I think about it, the more I dislike those scenes (the attack of the wildmen and the refugees at Helm's Deep), not only because they deviate from the book, but because they are, in all essence, useless. If you ask me, the viewer already sees the effect of war on innocente lives, whether it is the 4 Hobbits cought up in the middle of all this, or the Ents left to defend themselves againt a gathering storm, the addition of a mom and her two kids just doesnt do anything for me, sure I feel sorry for them, but that is the extent of my feeling...and you should remember that instead of getting to see a sneak attack on Theodred and the army of Rohan, you get to see a scene that was repeated from the prolouge to FotR...and about the children in the caves of Helm's Deep, you must also remember that in the books, those caves were filled with fighting and instead of refugees, and I dont think one can really say that PJs reason for putting the children and mothers in the movie was to portray the effects of war, it was more to give some cameo time to family of the cast...<P>Hama - Once again, EE just doesnt float my boat, I would like to see the numbers of the number of tickets sold to see the theatrical editions in the theatre, and the number of DVDs the theatrical edition sold compared to the number of DVDs the EEs sold...I bet you like less than 5% of people that saw LoRT saw the EEs, and that is why I am basing my "beef" with PJ on the theatrical version...<P>Elrond - I agree to some extent, yes, if you want the "true" Tolkien experience then you have to read the books, but I cant stop thinking that because PJ chose to take some artistic freedom, then we will never see many parts of the books on screen, we may never see Tolkien's Faramir, or his Elrond, or Arwen, or his Denethor, and we will never even see GLorfindel, Erkenbrand, or Imrahil on screen, we will never see Gimli and Eomer fighting their way out of the Glittering Caves, we will never see the Eomer, Imrahil and Aragorn meet at the center of Pelanor Feilds where as only a few minutes ago, tens of thousands of enemies stood between them...we will never see that, and thats why I am as hard on PJ as I am...<P>and that brings me to another point, Will LotR EVER been done again? will some other director 20,30,40, or 50 years later decide to remake it? Will it become alike to Shakespear in that every few decades someone does a different version of one of his plays?<P>My answer, no, we will most likely never see another LotR atleast in out time, why? because even though I would like to compare the two, but Tolkien and Shakespear are NOT the same, shakespear wrote plays, which inherently are subject to different interpretations, while Tolkien's work really only has one interpretation, and for that reason we wont see another one, unless sometime in the future some director decides to make LotR 20th century edition (a la Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo decaprio) but if someone did end up doing that, replacing swords with guns (imagine Narsil being a Desert Eagle with "Narsil" written on the side, and Sauron didnt break Narsil, he just unloaded it after killing Elendil, but it had one more bullet and Isildur desperatly shot off the ring with the last bullet, and of course, all of this would take place in East LA) and making ME a town in southern Cali...then, you would see another thread started by me, but this time list would be "ad infinitum"..<P>Rochararwn - <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> i think that peter jackson did a wonderful job for what he had to work with <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>...are you referring to the $300 million dollars, the 18 month long shoot, the entire landscape of New Zealand at his disposal and one of the most talented casts ever assembled (minus denethor)<P>Saucepan Man - Im alright with you disagreeing and nitpicking at my points and arguements, but lay off the spelling man, thats just a low blow =)..<BR>Concering the wild men, I know that it indeed happened during the war of the ring, but I would much rather have seen the Battles of the Fords of the Isen (even tohugh they were not depitcted in the books, they did have a drastic influence on the rest of the storyline, as where the wild men attacking did not) than the wild men attacking...<BR>I did not say that Arwen and Aragorn were not in love, I said that the depitction of the love story by PJ is just horrible, and most of the elements in the mo0vies had nothing to do with the anything mentioned in the appendix..<P>Cirdan...he was at the Grey Havens!! Where? I guess I have to go see the movie, again...<P>Gollum and Frodo, I know the fight was the same as in the book, it is just maybe a little too weird for me, and not to mention Tolkien didnt really leavethat many notes as to exactly how the scene was to look..<P>Frodo may of been trying to get his ring back, but one has to remember that he just had his finger cut off!!! And Gollum falling off into Mount Doom while celebrating about the ring just has such a sweet sense of Irony to me, an irony that Frodo fighting with Gollum lacks...<P>Knight of Gondor, let the fun commence...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>No mention that the Elven rings were made by Celebrindor, not Sauron, which just confsues the viewer as to why the Elves are almost untouched by their rings, while the 9 kings are now wraiths, and all 7 drawven ones are gone..<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Where would be a good place to insert this particular fact? The prologue didn’t say that Sauron forged all of the Rings at all. And if they had tried to say it somewhere in the movie, it would be what I refer to as a “TTM”; using dialogue to convey story concepts to the audience that they wouldn’t actually need to tell the people they are talking to. (I call it TTM because of a book that used it all the time)<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In the movie, there is no mention of the fact that though the Elven Rings are tied to the fate of the One Ring, they themselves were never touched by Sauron's Hand. It seems if Galadriel had said something about this fact at the Mirror of Galadrial, it would of been nice, but you are right to some extent, there was no real good place to mention this fact..<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>The rushing of Frodo's departure, in the bok it took 17 years, in the movie, a few minutes...not to mention almost the entire manner in which he escaped was either cut out or changed to an unrecognizable form..<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Again, it’s a time issue. Can you imagine how much time it would take, even in theater time, for them to convey the fact that 17 years past? Besides, who said they didn’t? You saw Bilbo going away, Gandalf left for Gondor, researching, etc, the Black Riders leaving Minas Morgul, and so on. It COULD have been 17 years. But Frodo isn’t going to go “Well, Samwise, my somewhat drunk but loyal servant, what a lovely 17 years these have been since Bilbo left.” (An example of “TTM”, there)<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Once again, I agree to some extent, it would be hard to convey that 17 years past, but also there is the fact that Gandalf wanted Frodo to leave the Shire, not altogether disappear, that and maybe some mention of Frodo's intention of moving to Buckland in order to hide his departure, but you are write that these would be hard to do, but Im not the screenwriter/producer/director, PJ is...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>The way to Bree was way to short, I do believe that Tom Bombadil had no real pace in the movie, but still, it seems like just a stroll in the park to get to Bree...If maybe somehow they could of had the barrowdowns without tom bombadil, that would give an explaination to how Merry wounded the WiKi so badly, maybe Frodo could of saved the 3 hobbits from the Barrowwight, or something to that effect..<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>People already complained about the walking that was already included in the movie, much less the books. If they had put more walking in to Bree, then others would complain of the too-boring walking scenes. PJ can’t please everyone. Besides, you should know that in movies, a large amount of walking, or time can take place without any indicator that it had. Barrow-Downs would have taken too long, and left more people going “HUH?”<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Its the walking that I have a problem with in the first place, in the books a lot more happens, while in the movie it is just a casual stroll with a few nasty black riders after them...and though I know deep down in my heart that Tom Bombadil had no place in the movies, I think that the Barrowdowns could of been, and I think that a Barrowwight would not of bored the audience...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Aragorn using another sword and a knife besides Anduril and not having Anduril be forged until RotK just got me mad, if Aragorn had the shards of Narsil at Weathertop in the movie, weathertop would not of been so horrible...<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>I’ve explained this several times before, but I agree with that change. Aragorn lived a rugged life for the sixty years or so that he wandered the Wild. He would not be able to have survived, carrying around a broken hilt of a sword! Plus, it makes more sense for the honorable heirloom of the house of Elendil to rest in the dignity of Rivendell.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Maybe Aragorn shouldnt of had the shards of Narsil, but still the scene on Weathertop really makes a double standard for the Nazgul...at Weathertop they are fought off by one man with a torch and a sword, but in the rest of the movie they were practically invincible, I just wanted some explainaation as to why the nazgul fled so easily (a reference to their hate of fire) and maybe Frodo attacking would of been nice...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>The scene of Bill the Pony being left go at the gates of moria....they never showed the scene were they bought bill, so why have the scene were they let him go?<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>More time. Everyone would get board of sitting around watching them buy a pony. “Big deal, so they buy a pony.” (Some might think) At least he was included!<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Im not asking for the "pony-buying" scene to be in the movies, I just want to know if we had never seen, heard of, or knew the name of Bill the Pony, then why does PJ have them leave the pony behind at the gates of Moria...a waste or precious seonds...we could of seen the full end of Isildur but instead we are stuck with a Pony we have never heard of...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>The adition of the wild men attacking parts of Rohan in the begining, I dont care about any peasants getting killed, I care about orcs, Balrogs, Trolls and Nazgul being killed...<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>If you ask me, you are a little inconsistent. You didn’t like the Nazgûl being battled, and yet you want more walking and pony-buying?<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You misunderstand me, I would of liked the Nazgul being battled if it made more sense and was consistant with the portrayel of the Nazgul in other scenes, I want more eventful walking, not just walking, and I want the pony entirely cut out...and the wild men just didnt do anything for me...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>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...<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Well, a lot of other people DO care, and PJ wanted to get across that the innocent suffered in the oppression of Saruman. While on a massive scale of dark lords, Elves, men, orcs, etc., you have regular peasants, probably not too different from you and me, being forced into an alternate life because of Sauron.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I alteady felt that the oppression and suffering was already well enough conveyed, but once again, I dont really think that PJ added these parts in just for the effect it conveys about war, I cant forget the families of the cats that PJ put into the movie...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>No extra men at Helms Deep before the battle started, no mention of the scattering of Erkerbrand's men, instead it was replace by ELVES and a runaway son, probably the worst part of TTT...<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Runaway son? Do you mean Éomer? First, he’s a nephew, and second, he didn’t run away, he was banished. People have already raised objections to the Elves, so I won’t go there. It departed from the book, yeah. But it was still cool.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sorry about that, I did mean Eomer, I get his and Faramir's connection to their lords messed up sometimes, but still I did not like Eomer's banishment one bit, probably because I liked the things he did at Helm's Deep so much...and I do agree that the elves were "cool", but it just sort of is a domino effect, eomer was gone, so they needed elves at helms deep, so they also needed to change...it just goes on and on forever....and also, the elves at helms deep just go against everything that the elves stand for in the 3rd Age, and everything that Galadriel and Elrond believe, in the books and in the movies...and if we are going to abandon all reason and allow anything to pass no matter how for it strays from the books, then next The Elves of Mirkwood, the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain,a dn the Men of Bard would be riding to save Gondor at Pelanor Fields...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>No more shots of the actors children, its bad enough to see random extras cower in fear, but when its a cameo from a child or spouse of an actor, it just gets me mad, not to meantion a good 10 minutes were spent on shots of the helpless women and children..<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Willkill, this movie was about more than just ugly orcs and beautiful women. It was a tremendous study in the human qualities such as mercy, justice, bravery, heroism, endurance, perseverance and so on. I think at some points you expect too much, and at others, you expect too little.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I felt that the books themselves depicted the qualities that you mentioned above, and I did not feel that the addtition of and people who have had their lives changed for ever due to the war adds anything in the way of the qualities above, it detracts IMHO...and I felt that almost every part of the story conveys those qualities, from Frodo, Sam and Gollum, to Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas, to Merry, Eowyn and Theoden, to Pipping, Faramir and Gandalf...(I made them all into Trios...wow..hehe) and for me, seeing the men of Rohan and Gondor fighting for their lives, does more to move my heart towards pity than any poor peasants...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>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...<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>You hated him because you read the books. For the rest of America, there was the turning of Frodo against Sam.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In the movies, you really dont feel any pity at all for Gollum, and for me it is exactly because of Gollum turning Frodo against Sam...in the books the reader had to decide for himself whether to applaud GOllums death, or to Pity it...in the movies, it was already done for you...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>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..<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>You just angered the almighty princess of Denethorism: Meela! Back, girl, back! (And again, if you wouldn’t mind watching the language)<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am a quiet large Denethor fan in the books, but I do cant stand Denethor in the movie, he is too crude, too mean, too arrogante, too crazy and just too plain ignorant for my tastes...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>The love story and elrond again, I didnt think it was possible , but the flashbacks and the scenes with arwen were worse than in TTT...not to mention Elrond riding all the way into rohan just to deliver a sword just shows that PJ forgot about Anduril for a while and finally remembered he needed to put it in...<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>If you truly believe PJ forgot Andúril, then you honestly understand nothing of the movie business. I alone understand very little myself, but these weren’t made one right after the other, but all together.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I am not implying that PJ ACTUALLY forgot about Anduril, and I know that all 3 movies were made at the same time, so it would be almost impossible for him to forget...but I felt that Aduril was almost added in as a last minute thing, I mean, how did Elrond make it all the way to Rohan so fast? but most of all, why didnt it happen in FotR? There is no reason in my mind for PJ to wait and put it in in RotK...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Celeborn boarding the boat into the west, just a useless change from the book, and also I didnt like how few people boarded the boat, I mean its not like any one of them knows how to sail in a boat, I was under the impression that a very large host of elves sailed west at the same time..<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>But at the same time, Bilbo, Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn, and Gandalf all climbed on board the ship, and then you couldn’t see them any more so you could concentrate on Frodo. Maybe the others were out of view. Again, probably another effort not to confuse poor perplexed mainstream movie-goers with nameless faces that they don’t know whether or not they are someone to keep track of.<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Im referring to all of those poeple boarding the boat, but my question is, which one of them knows how to sail? (most likely Gandalf or maybe Galadrial, who sailed from Valinor in the first age)...but I was under the impression that the boats that the elves boarded were giant and fair, not a tiny littly fishing boat...and I also thought that a very large host of Elves set sail for the west at the end of the 3rd Age, not just one boat...I would of liked to see the one boat join a giant fleet of elven boats at the grey havens...<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>No Cirdan...now thats just mean, I wanted to see Cirdan...you dont see a bearded elf every day...<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>*Cocks eyebrow* I did not remember Cirdan having a beard. But you could see the dude, in the prologue. And I believe he was there in the shot at the end, standing by. But no beard...<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Cirdan had a beard, atleast in the books...the only bearded elf ever mentioned by Tolkein...<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I agree with you on some of these issues, but I don’t see the need to raise such an objection about it. The movies were still extremely, exceedingly, spectacularly, exceptionally, extraordinarily, tremendously, enormously, remarkably, outstandingly, terrifically, marvelously, stupendously, staggeringly, dazzlingly, wonderfully done, and I think Peter Jackson should be commended by us, not chastised. He did a great job, and deserves a lot of credit for the massive amounts of work he put in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Cant.....take.....so.....many....... big words......brain melting.....please...turn off.....thesaurus......just kidding =)<P>PS, if you notice, I refrained from any "orc-talk" in this post...though I do think if you are going to be posting on the internet, one probably should have tougher skin, for not all forums are as clean and well modderated as BD...and I do respect the need for a clean and well moderated forum and I will keep my foul langauge in black speech and not english...<P>-willkill