My list of everything wrong with the movies (Not EE)

[Gorwingel]

Yes, I do have to agree with Knight of Gondor. These complaints have been heard before, and they can all be discussed in their proper places in the Barrow-Downs forum.

And to add... I do to understand many of your complaints about the films, for I also agree with many of them (even though I very much love the films).

But I was very pleased about the Oscars. It was nice that they actually rewarded the true best film of the year, instead of one that none of the actual public ever saw.

[The Mushroom]

Okay, I didn't have time to read through this entire thread so forgive me if I'm repeating things that have already been said. Here goes...
I LOVED the movies! The only things that really bugged me were the things that were internally inconsistent (not necessarily the things that were changed from the books). The two things that stick out are:
1. Entmoot. The ents didn't decide to go to war at the entmoot, and then suddenly when Treebeard sees the chopped trees they all rush off to attack Isengaurd. Seems a little hasty to me, and they made the point in the movie that the ents are NOT supposed to be hasty.
2. Sam leaving Frodo. "Don't you leave him, Samwise Gamgee." I think it was against Sam's character to leave Frodo, especially when Frodo was just about to enter the most dangerous stage of the quest, and with a very unsavory character no less (who Sam had guessed was planning to murder them both).
But whatever. I'm so thankful the movies turned out as well as they did!

[Cibbwin]

Shizuku, ye see the problem with that, it's much easier for people to relate to someone who has human fears and faults. It's a simple fact of life that no one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. It's much more believable for Theoden to be angry at Gondor. He's been watching his people die, and Gondor didn't answer his call for help, so why should he? Besides, in the movies, at least, they did not send an official plea of help until the Beacons, and Theoden rode after they were lit.

Aragorn's strength in the books is much more different than the movies. In the books, I saw him as the kind of loud hero. In the movies, he's much more quiet. And who can blame movie Aragorn for resisting his rule? He knows what happened to Isildur. And yet, he resists the ring. He lets Frodo go.

Eowyn, I've heard people say, is much less stoic. I don't necessarily see that. Of course she's a bit warmer around Aragorn, she loves him. Of course she's a bit warmer around Theoden, she's so joyful that he's well and strong again.

What I'm saying is, it's not just because of people's cynicism, it's reality. People are not always gonna be strong and brave and fearless. I love heroes as much as the next, but people need characters to relate to.

[Knight of Gondor]

Shizuku, I think you make a really good point!

There was a longer stay and big feast at Rivendell..

Just because they didn’t show it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. In movies, it’s a little difficult to show the passing of time. But with shots of Frodo and Sam exploring Rivendell, and with the Council, and with Aragorn’s slight encounter with Boromir in Elrond’s library, it’s somewhat evident that time passes. Heck, for the extended edition, that’s where disc one ends! Kind of like the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. There’s a lot of space in between!

Arwen at the River, I think was Glorifindel in the book..

You’ve got a lot of people that join you there...but if you only “think” it was Glorfindal...!

There was a 'special' relationship between Galadriel and Gimli..

Repeating this again, but if you’re going to judge PJ for his adaptation, then judge it by merit of the extended edition, which might just as well be called the Director’s cut. Peter Jackson showed the special relationship between Gimli and Galadriel there. Granted, he did not show the three hairs, but in the behind-the-scenes, the actor who plays Gimli, John Ryce-Davis explains the cinematic difficulties of showing three hairs to the audience.

They left out Bombadil and GOLDBERRY...

A common lament. Check out TheOneRing.net’s pictures of those two, however.

Gimli was made a comic character...

There was already a bit of humor contained in the contest for who can kill the most. They just embellished Gimli’s role a bit, to add the comic relief. (Probably for the kids who don’t belong watching it anyway)

Legolas is the son of a King, but in the film takes on the aspect of 'an archer'...

So how are they going to describe his lineage. “Greetings, Lord Elrond,” says Legolas. “Oh, hello Legolas, the prince, son of the king Tharanduil, the king of Mirkwood, and a darn good archer,” says Elrond. If you look above, I refer to this as “TTM” (based on a book that used these a lot), using dialogue to explain events and circumstances to the audience, dialogue that would not take place in the ordinary world because the two individuals already KNOW what’s happened.

The idea of the burial mound(barrow) is important in European History...

Hey, you’re right. I wonder if that’s why they showed the burial of Theodred.

<<They never mentioned The Elessar, which Galadriel used to grow Lorien and which Arwen uses as an ornament...>>

I believe you are confusing a couple of jewels here. The Evenstar was Arwen’s ornament. The Elessar was the green stone that Galadriel gave to Aragorn, and I believe she used Nenya to aid in the growth and protection of Lórien.

The idea of the White Tree is treated in passing, as if it had only a vague significance. In the end, Gandalf takes Aragorn into a mountain and shows him the young sappling which is the hope of Middle Earth in the Fourth Age...

Believe me, no one is more upset about seeing that beautiful white tree look like a tilting geezer. It should, at the least, have been straight and pretty. Either way, there was so much to cram in, I can just barely understand PJ’s need to shorten it all. I hope to see more of it in the EE.

In the book, Eomer becomes King of Rohan, Eowyn marries Faramir who becomes Prince of Ithilien...

Éomer became the king. Éowyn did marry Faramir. They just can’t show Éomer becoming king very well (audience could get a little confused; two crownings?), and they probably will expound a little on Éowyn and Faramir.

They left out the scouring of the Shire where the Hobbits become heroes

I thought that was a bit of a bad move. I understand that many complained of “too many endings”, but from the behind-the-scenes stuff, PJ explains that he pretty much never intended to do the scouring, pretty much because he didn’t like it. I think that wasn’t a good reason, but for others, it will pass.

and Wormtongue kills Saruman(Very important part)...

Extended Edition, coming this fall.

But Most importantly: Except for the little ditty Gandalf croaks in the first Shire scene, there isn't a single song or poem sung or recited all the way through until Aragorn in the final scene, which I don't remember in the book. The Poetry means so much, both as an inspiration and to the story line and spirit of Middle Earth because it had been a special gift of the Noldor..

“Hey ho to the bottle I go, to heal my heart and drown my woe! The rain may fall, the wind may blow, though there still be many miles to go! Sweet is the sound of the falling the rain, and the stream that runs from hill to plain, but better than rain or rippling brook:
is a mug of beer inside this Took!”

You can drink your fancy ales, you can drink 'em by the flagon! But the only brew for the brave and true comes from that Green Dragon!”

“Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare þe ure maegen lytlað”

I'm still baffled why he thought it was necessary when he's dealing with a book that is still a huge best seller, being read, enjoyed, even loved by this same 'modern audience'. Why the need to change what is already successful?

It’s probably necessary to remember that the films succeed as they are, despite the disappointments and protests from Tolkien big-time fans like us.

If it is simply to appeal to non-readers, then I feel he is tragically underestimating the intelligence of the movie-going public, and their desire to see good old-fashioned heroism.

I agree that the crowds do want to see heroism and chivalry again (as Mirando Otto put it, “ 'Lord of the Rings' reveres things I think society is aching to go back to [such as] honor, loyalty and dignity - qualities we tend to forgo so quickly for money.”), but I do not think he underestimates audiences. Remember, he’s been in this business for a while, albeit in the very corner of the spotlight. And a lot of run-of-the-mill movie goers don’t want to have to think about what they watch. For them, it’s mindless entertainment. PJ knew he had to target those people while still remaining as true as he could to us fans.

It needs characters with an instinctive sense of Good in order to function as Tolkien intended. It's a very sad day for all of us when heroism and nobility are seen as traits to be played down rather than celebrated.

That’s a pretty acute observation, Reg. And a lady by the name of Megan Bashem (spelling?) wrote an article about how the whole big picture of the general Good vs. Evil theme was overlooked (intentionally, Basham believes, and I agree) to keep the cast, crew, and audience more comfortable with their worldview that there is no such thing as a true, concrete sense of Right and Wrong. (Such a thing would mandate a Creator of Right and Wrong, which they don’t believe in, and really don’t want to) Instead, friendship, loyalty, naturalism, heroism, etc. are the themes that the cast/crew tout as prevalent throughout the books, without mention of the deeper spiritual themes of redemption, victory over evil, sacrifice, etc. Such values are entirely inert unless Someone created them.

I'd also rather sit down with the books than sit through the movies.

I think that’s a difficult thing to say for sure. I’m sure lots of people who would disagree, and would rather watch the action unfold quicker and more entertainingly on screen. (I mean, hey, like it or not, fights are much more exciting to watch then to read about, no matter how good the writer is) Most, like me, would probably want to do either, depending on their frame of mind. Since the books are more accessible for me (and I’m always reading in spare time), I’d probably opt for the movie, which I don’t usually have time to sit down and watch all the way through whenever I want.

*Brandishes sword* Who else wants to object to the movie?

[Anarion]

Just because they didn’t show it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. In movies, it’s a little difficult to show the passing of time. But with shots of Frodo and Sam exploring Rivendell, and with the Council, and with Aragorn’s slight encounter with Boromir in Elrond’s library, it’s somewhat evident that time passes. Heck, for the extended edition, that’s where disc one ends! Kind of like the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. There’s a lot of space in between!

Aragorn and Boromir? Shouldn't that have been Aragorn and Bilbo?

You’ve got a lot of people that join you there...but if you only “think” it was Glorfindal...!

If you only mean: "hey"...!

Repeating this again, but if you’re going to judge PJ for his adaptation, then judge it by merit of the extended edition, which might just as well be called the Director’s cut. Peter Jackson showed the special relationship between Gimli and Galadriel there. Granted, he did not show the three hairs, but in the behind-the-scenes, the actor who plays Gimli, John Ryce-Davis explains the cinematic difficulties of showing three hairs to the audience.

That wasn't Danny DeVito? Is that why Galadriel didn't say a single word to Gimli in that movie?

A common lament. Check out TheOneRing.net’s pictures of those two, however.

Like a comic book?

I believe you are confusing a couple of jewels here. The Evenstar was Arwen’s ornament. The Elessar was the green stone that Galadriel gave to Aragorn, and I believe she used Nenya to aid in the growth and protection of Lórien.

See: the two legends of the Elessar. What is the relationship between the White Ring(Galadriel's) and Sea Longing? Evenstar refers to...?

Believe me, no one is more upset about seeing that beautiful white tree look like a tilting geezer. It should, at the least, have been straight and pretty. Either way, there was so much to cram in, I can just barely understand PJ’s need to shorten it all. I hope to see more of it in the EE.

The sapling, or the tree that was destroyed?

Éomer became the king. Éowyn did marry Faramir. They just can’t show Éomer becoming king very well (audience could get a little confused; two crownings?), and they probably will expound a little on Éowyn and Faramir.

Theoden indicated Eowyn. When was the wedding? Two crownings or two Realms?

[Knight of Gondor]

Aragorn and Boromir? Shouldn't that have been Aragorn and Bilbo?

Please keep in mind that this movie wasn’t created for the sole enjoyment of you and Tolkien Purists everywhere.

Also please keep in mind that this topic is to remain friendly, though we may disagree. I read your comments as sniping and derogatory, but will not respond in kind.

That wasn't Danny DeVito? Is that why Galadriel didn't say a single word to Gimli in that movie?

“And what gift would a Dwarf ask of the Elves?” – Galadriel, to Gimli, in extended scene ‘Farwell to Lórien’.

A common lament. Check out TheOneRing.net’s pictures of those two, however.

Like a comic book?

:rollseyes

The sapling, or the tree that was destroyed?

We won’t see the sapling I know, so I just mean the tree.

Theoden indicated Eowyn. When was the wedding? Two crownings or two Realms?

Right. Such astute and picky viewers as yourself will surely not miss those details, but for the rest of America, who is not as smart and thorough as you, they stand a good chance of getting confused. Which would you have: LotR with very small success (low budget, poorer casting and quality, and general acceptance of the public accompanied with every little detail the way you would have done it? Or a few details that would have pleased you being left out, and having it be the top trilogy in the world?

Please go back and re-read this topic, as I am only repeating myself again.

[Anarion]

Originally Posted by Knight of Gondor

Please keep in mind that this movie wasn’t created for the sole enjoyment of you and Tolkien Purists everywhere.

Also please keep in mind that this topic is to remain friendly, though we may disagree. I read your comments as sniping and derogatory, but will not respond in kind.



“And what gift would a Dwarf ask of the Elves?” – Galadriel, to Gimli, in extended scene ‘Farwell to Lórien’.



:rollseyes



We won’t see the sapling I know, so I just mean the tree.



Right. Such astute and picky viewers as yourself will surely not miss those details, but for the rest of America, who is not as smart and thorough as you, they stand a good chance of getting confused. Which would you have: LotR with very small success (low budget, poorer casting and quality, and general acceptance of the public accompanied with every little detail the way you would have done it? Or a few details that would have pleased you being left out, and having it be the top trilogy in the world?

Please go back and re-read this topic, as I am only repeating myself again.

What is the difference between question and commentary?
Examine subjectivity and objectivity in relation to human attitude and response. View political theories, patriotism as compared to anachronism and interrelated religious and philosophical ideas.

[Lalaith]

for the rest of America

You're right, the film wasn't made just for Tolkien purists. But it wasn't made just for Americans, either.

[Knight of Gondor]

Yes, I've already been reminded once that LotR has opened for (and has been loved by) audiences that live in other countries. I just love mine so much, I tend to forgot about the others, ha ha!

Nonetheless, I don't believe I made that particular error again, did I?

[The Saucepan Man]

Arwen at the River, I think was Glorifindel in the book..

You’ve got a lot of people that join you there...but if you only “think” it was Glorfindal...!

Actually, it wasn't Glorfindel in the book either. Frodo was on his own. Glorfindel simply lent him his horse.

I thought that was a bit of a bad move. I understand that many complained of “too many endings”, but from the behind-the-scenes stuff, PJ explains that he pretty much never intended to do the scouring, pretty much because he didn’t like it. I think that wasn’t a good reason, but for others, it will pass.

Actually, I think that Jackson is on record as saying that this is one of his favourite chapters. He left it out for cinematographical reasons, which stand up pretty well to scrutiny in my book. The destruction of the Ring and defeat of Sauron is the climax of the film, indeed the trilogy of films. It simply wouldn't have worked to have another mini-climax following that. Quite apart from the timing issue. There is a prevalent view among reviews that I have seen (presumably by critics who have not read the books) that the ending was 15 minutes too long. By all standard film-making conventions, RotK should have ended with Aragorn's coronation, Arwen's appearance and the honouring of the Hobbits. So let's be thankful we at least had the Grey Havens.

And a lady by the name of Megan Bashem (spelling?) wrote an article about how the whole big picture of the general Good vs. Evil theme was overlooked (intentionally, Basham believes, and I agree) to keep the cast, crew, and audience more comfortable with their worldview that there is no such thing as a true, concrete sense of Right and Wrong. (Such a thing would mandate a Creator of Right and Wrong, which they don’t believe in, and really don’t want to)

Sorry, in what way was the Good v Evil theme not covered? The free peoples are good, and they are fighting a war against Sauron, who is evil. Seems pretty straightforward to me. In fact, I have read a number of articles complaining that the films are too simplistic in their portrayal of good and evil (elves and hobbits: good; orcs: evil) and that it therefore has nothing relevant to tell us about the complex world in which we live. Yes, the films are not overtly religious in their portrayal of good v evil (and rightly so, in my view), but then neither is the book. Nevertheless, many of the values which Tolkien held dear (which were influenced by his relious beliefs), and which are espoused in the book, seem to me to be present in the films.

And a lot of run-of-the-mill movie goers don’t want to have to think about what they watch. For them, it’s mindless entertainment. PJ knew he had to target those people while still remaining as true as he could to us fans.

I do think that you may make a good point here. There is far more emotional investment in a book than in a film. Most films demand no more than 3 hours of someone's time, whereas a book will demand a lot more. So I think that it's understandable that people expect far less "thought-provoking" content from films, particularly big budget productions aimed at the mass market, than they do from books. Books also require less in terms of sales to recoup their production costs than films, certainly those requiring the kind of investment necessary to bring Middle-earth to life. So, again, I think that it's understandable that those involved in making the LotR films aimed for mass, rather than specialist, appeal.

[Knight of Gondor]

I can understand where some people might think that LotR is actually TOO concretely right and wrong. (Especially with that line about having to fight a war, even though you don't feel like risking it? Peace activist Mortenson, grit your pearly whites!) The movie itself couldn't have been more clear about right and wrong. It's just a shame that the writers and staff don't like that idea quite so much.

Please see this link: http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000860.html If this does not bring you to it, visit the base website, Boundless.org and go to archives, type in Megan Basham's name, and find the article "Tolkien versus Jackson". I will not post it here because that is a side issue, off-track from fault-finding in the movies. Nevertheless, I found it to be an excellent article.

[Lalaith]

Knight of Gondor, it's a very interesting article, (although I personally disagree with it!) Perhaps you should start another thread in the movie forum to discuss it.

[Miriel Undomiel]

Jackson did an exellent job with the movie. How much can we Tolkienfans expect?
If it wasn't for Jackson there would proboably be a tenthousen times worse movie. If another director had taken the job of filmatizing the book, he might just look at the project as a job. Jackson has put tens of years into this trilogi because he wanted to. New Line Cinema didn't throw the book in PJ's face and say: ''do whatever you like, just make it good enough to sell.''

As for time passing in movies: just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen!!!!!! The Hobbits ate very much, so what do you think happened a few hours after a meal? Just because we didn't see anyone sneaking behind a bush, doesn't mean they kept it in until the war was over! It's a movie, not some crazy reality about elves and hobbits!

[starkat]

I think the theatrical versions are good. and the EE's are better.

[Miriel Undomiel]

I think the theatrical versions are good. and the EE's are better.

Excellent way to put it, Starcat! Nice and simple... I totally agree!

[Knight of Gondor]

*Ehem* Well, if you abridged me a whole lot, that's basically how I feel too.

[starkat]

Hey, if you want anything profound out of me, you'll have to visit with me at Narnia web site. I'm better at keeping things short then I am at expounding my full reasons. :-)

[TheBladeThatWasBroken]

Geez... this is really getting quite annoying...
The dude took eight years of his life to adapt a thousand-something pages book, ya can't expect him to follow every, single, darn word! If so, he'd probably have to make one movie for every three or four chapters, and seriously, who'd want to sit through all of Tom Bombadil's silly songs? At least he actually took the time to make the films, let's see you do better, and if ya don't like it, then just don't watch it! They actually gave some excuses concerning some of the changes, and most of those excuses are really acceptable... but if you're just too stubborn to accept them, then like my history teacher used to say: "Too bad, so sad, tear "

[Knight of Gondor]

Yeah, but they have the right to critique the movie. I just get to defend it! I have a few issues with the movie too, of course, I think it is far from perfect. I just think that this version is pretty much the best that Hollywood could have given us.

[The Only Real Estel]

Geez... this is really getting quite annoying...

I agree with that. At times it does get annoying, but there's no problem with a little intelligent critisicm.

At least he actually took the time to make the films, let's see you do better, and if ya don't like it, then just don't watch it!

I don't agree with that. If all you had to say was 'you couldn't do it any better, so it must've been good & above reproach', then life would be to easy.

They actually gave some excuses concerning some of the changes, and most of those excuses are really acceptable... but if you're just too stubborn to accept them

Some of the excuses are acceptable, some of them are tolerable. Some fo them are stupid. But just because someone doesn't agree with the excuses they give doesn't make the person stubborn, it just means that they either don't buy the excuse or they don't agree with it, & they're entitled to that.

Geez... this is really getting quite annoying...

But you have to look at it from the other side, too. It might get annoying for you to hear nitpicking, but it also might get annoying to them to be accused of being stubborn & ungrateful.