Problems with the movie...

[Rosie Posie Burrows]

[<BR>I thought the eye was pretty damn scary myself! If they'd made it actually look like a real eyeball, it would have been gross, and Dr Who-ish, not scary at all. They've just made it a bit more fiery that's all. I liked that.<P>QUOTE]Originally posted by lobelia:<BR><STRONG>1. Why was the Eye of Sauron a vertical slit of fire? In the book, it is a lidless eye that roves ceaselessy across Middle-Earth, searching and searching. The movie eye was not scary at all; in the book, the Eye is the most terrifying thing of all.<P>2. Where (in Lord of the Rings or Tolkien's other writings) are the hobbits described as having pointy ears and as having big hairy feet (as opposed to normal-sized hairy feet)?<P>3. Why was Isengard pronounced 'Eyezengard' in the film? Tolkien's guide to pronunciation (Appendix, LoftR) seems to suggest it should be pronounced 'Issengard'.<P>4. And, yes, I agree, Sam in the book goes with Frodo out of loyalty and of his own free will. The film seems to imply that he goes because Gandalf told him to.<P>5. Yes, I also thought Lothlorien was sundappled and golden.<P>Apart from that: wonderful! Changes to plot, deletion of Tom Bombadil, etc.: makes it more movie-friendly. Sticking too slavishly to a book can destroy the independent life of a film.<P>[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: lobelia ]</STRONG>[/QUOTE]