The worst change in FOTR

[ragamuffin92]

Lissen up, guys, I'm from Noo Yawk, and I know a thing or three about JerseyGirls. You DON'T want to get them ticked off--they can be dangerous when cornered. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about.

[jerseydevil]

I should have responded to this earlier, my argument isn't why the hobbits trusted Strider in the books and stayed in his room, but in the movie. In the movie Butterbur doesn't even remember who Gandlaf is and no letter ever appears. There are basically only two scenes with Butterbur - him in the pub area and then him cowering down as the Nazgul walk passed him to the hobbit's rooms.

There was no letter produced in the movie that would have made it plausiable for the hobbits to trust Strider enough for them to abandon their rooms for his. How did they know that he hadn't told the Black Riders where he was sleeping so they could take the hobbits away. If Gandalf's letter was in the movie - then it would make sense. I'm sorry - but without a little more proof - I wouldn't just go into someone's room when they've drawn their sword on me and know that I'm carrying something that others are after.

I feel that this scene does not make much sense - unless you've read the books.

[bropous]

No, jerseydevil, I'd not thought you'd not understood why the Hobbits trusted Strider in the book, and was clear that you were asking about why they trusted him in the film.

Had [film] Strider not been "trustworthy", he'd have skewered Frodo with his pigsticker and taken the Ring immediately. To me, this showed the hobbits that he could be trusted, and that's why they ended up in his room. It just made no sense that he would have been in cahoots with the Nazgul, because he did not attack them. Not much reason NOT to trust them, in my opinion. Occam's Razor in this instance, the most obvious answer is the correct one.

liZa, I DO apologize for not getting your name right. And, we seem to be working cross-purposes here. The only thing I said in response to your post, and the only thing I MEANT to say in response to your post, was that I loved both "Rob Roy" AND Jackson's film. You simply assumed the rest of the posting was directed at you. It was not. Fair enough?

You'll also note I agreed that, had I my druthers, I'd have left the scene at the Fords of Bruinen as it was in the book. That is in agreement with you. You've gotten the wrong impression, both as to the direction of my comments, and as to my motivations. No condescension meant, sorry you took it that way.

[Torch Boy]

I know there's a lot of things that could have been changed in the movie to make it more like the book and stuff... but seriously, if Jackson would have fixed all these things your complaining about, character building, missing scenes, etc. the film would be 6 hours instead of 3... at least.

The point is, like Tater said, you have to change it to make it a movie. Jackson had to change things to add drama and make the plot easy enough to follow for audiences that haven't read the books.

This is a fact: if he followed the book exactly like all you seem to wish he would have...
- you would not be on the edge of your seat glued to the screen (and ignoring such distractions as bodily functions and people kicking your seat) almost every moment of the movie
- the movie would be way too long and many people would walk out due to boredom.... plus a movie 6 hours long is quite inconvenient anyway.
- people who haven't read the books wouldn't have a clue what's going on.
- significantly less than the current 95% of the people that I have talked to that have seen the movie, would be planning to see it again (or already have). It is very rare for someone to watch the same movie twice in the theatre.

[bropous]

Good points, TorchBoy, and welcome to the Moot!

One last thing, liza: If you've read some of my other posts, and I hope you do, you might note I compliment folks at times for making good points in defense of their arguments, even though I do not agree with them. jerseydevil can attest I've extended compliments to his points with which I have disagreed. I do happen to accept that others don't agree with me, and though I may get strident at times, most folks here in the Moot would admit I tend to be pretty fair in most part. sorry you have the opposite impression.

[coolismo]

Someone a while back put their finger on why I found the movie such an odd experience. There are just so few elves in Rivendell and Lothlorien. Theres noone about. You do see the same seven extras in both sequences. Funny that big movies do this. They upscale the sets and backdrops and downscale the foreground ie the populace. It makes for a strange juxtaposition and a eery discomfort. In the book these two locations were described as hyperbusy but in TMP everyone's gone. The have the feel of Elvish out of town malls at 3 am. See how few extras there are credited. 4 million cgi created orcs and 7 elves. Galadriel must have felt like Snow White.

[Torch Boy]

good observation there coolismo... i had sorta noticed that in the back of my mind. I think maybe Jackson did this on purpose though, to make both Lothlorien and Rivendell seem more mysterious and beautiful... it would really change the feel if there were all these people (elves) bustling all over the place all the time.

oh and thanks for the welcome bropous

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by Torch Boy
good observation there coolismo... i had sorta noticed that in the back of my mind. I think maybe Jackson did this on purpose though, to make both Lothlorien and Rivendell seem more mysterious and beautiful... it would really change the feel if there were all these people (elves) bustling all over the place all the time.

Perhaps also to emphasize that the elves were a fading power.

[Eowyn, The Lioness]

Originally posted by IronParrot
What Tater said. I would have used the same example of Harry Potter.

What works on paper does not necessarily work on celluloid. That's your lesson for today.

It's been said that LOTR is being done from the perspective of a historical epic, with Tolkien's books regarded as historical records. Let's look at two other famous historical films:

- The Sound of Music significantly reduced the years between Maria's arrival at the Von Trapp household and the Anschluss down to what appears to be less than a year. Anyone who's seen the movie would know that this was the only way the pacing could remain consistent.

- Braveheart's most famous scene, the open-field Battle of Stirling, was historically the Battle of Stirling Bridge. In the movie hey changed the locale and took out the bridge entirely, but nobody cared because the scene was spectacular.

As I said on the other thread, true faith to the source material lies in faith to the mood, tone, and themes. Not the details.

Several versions of The Wizard of Oz have been made. How come the only one people remember is the 1939 version, which cut out the entire second half of the book? Because it actually took a step forward in the art of cinema.

If what advance word says is true, Peter Jackson has gone beyond merely retelling the story, and just making a film of LOTR. He has made a film based on LOTR that he has tried to make as the best film possible.

Go to the movie and see it as a movie. Don't pick on the modifications of the interpretation.

I still think Arwen's part should have stuck to the books, but you do have quite a point. However, I wish they had left Elrond to do the river and the healing of Frodo instead of Arwen. I can deal without Glorfindel, but to me it didn't seem right to have Arwen be the one to make the river destroy the Black Riders.

[easterlinge]

I finally got around to seeing FOTR. Having been forewarned, I was willing to tolerate deviations from the books, but.... some changes were a bit unsettling.

Isildur was King of Gondor? Then what's Aragorn doing in the Wild instead of being King and coordinating the war effort? It suggests the Kings were exiled for some reason, rather daft.

(I figured out later that since Anarion never existed, the Argonath would depict Isildur and his father Elendil. Elendil would be the bearded figure.)

And from Bree to Rivendell, Strider was exactly how I imagined him, but then he just wilts in front of Boromir. He doesn't recover until after Moria, where he again becomes the manly-Man-alpha-Ranger we love so well.

But the Nazgul were CREEPY, scarier than I ever imagined, and Lorien surpassed my own imaginings. Beautiful!! The Balrog, though, was .... I dunno, maybe I've seen one too many demons in movies.

[bropous]

I dunno, easterlinge, about Aragorn "wilting" in front of Boromir. I saw it more like this:

He just wasn't ready to address the issue of his kingship when Legolas blurted out that Boromir "owed him his allegiance". Now here, again, Jackson takes artistic license with the book, and I think he just simplifies things for the more slow-witted in the audience who have trouble remembering who is on the dollar bill, much less the lines of succession of Gondor and the Northern Realm. I think the film Aragorn would have preferred to keep his lineage a secret, and not let on to Boromir who he really was until later, perhaps in Lorien. He seemed to me not wilting, or withering, but more that he had become pensive as he began to realize what taking the crown as King of Gondor really meant. Maybe I'm just putting too much into it.

LOL, maybe he thought Boromir may have been the better King....he does seem to possess some self-doubts, and this would work in well. I gotta admit I thought Sean Bean kicked hindquarter in the role of Boromir.

By the way, a belated "welcome to the Moot" to you, Eowyn, The Lioness! I agree that Arwen being the "deliverer" at the Fords of Bruinen did not work as well as the originally written scene in the book. I think, however, that arwen is not solely responsible for the River rising. recall when she first comes into the story, she tells Aragorn, and I'm paraphrasing here, "We must get him across the River. The power of my people will protect him." Now, to me, she is not the enchantress who actually CAUSES the River to rise, although in the theatrical edit it really can be interpreted in this way. I think she only speaks a trigger, not casts a river-raising spell, but simply "trips the release wire" on the spell already there with her chanting. Again, I may be putting too much into it here.

[fedos]

Sean Bean was great for the role, I agree. Actually it's because of him that I first found out about the LOTR movies. I has just finished watching the last of the Richard Sharpe series and was looking for other movies with him when I found a rumour that he was going to be cast in LOTR.

[Starbreeze]

I think that bit was badly portrayed, but the worst change, in my opinion, was that they cut out Tom Bombadil, Goldberry and the Withywindle valley bit. I really enjoyed that bit in the book and I was disappointed when it wasn't in the film. I thought this bit told us much more about the hobbits, middle earth and their quest.

[JenniferTook]

Honestly, the thing that I was looking forward to the most was the part where Frodo sings and dances on the table in Bree and it wasn't there! I mean, all the giving things to characters that shouldn't have it irratated me, but I expected that really.

I just really wanted to see that; it was one of my favorite parts in the book!

Jennifer

[bropous]

Welcome to the Moot, Starbreeze!

Well, I think the Fords of Bruinen scene could have been more effective had they just stuck to the books. Plus, I see no reason why Gandalf's letter had to be omitted from the Prancing Pony scenes. Would have made things more clear as to why they would have trusted Aragorn so completely as to go off into the Wilds with him.

Also, the scene where Galadriel gives out the gifts, I thought, was edited out unadvisedly. There were aversions from the tale of the books which I thought were actually pointless.

[Luthien Tinuviel]

well, i don't have the time to go over all the pages and read all the posts, (wish i could), but the part i was disappointed about, was the way that the hobbits just kinda trusted aragorn w/ out reading Gandalfs letter or whatever. It just didn't seem realistic. Frodo wouldn't have done that, he was much more cautious. Sides, i have always loved that part in the books when they are being freaked out by him for a while until Butturbur finally remembers the letter, and even then, Sam has his doubts still. I am hoping that they just had to cut some of those scenes, and that it will go more into detail on the dvd.

[bropous]

I think you're mirroring the wishes of many a Mooter, Tinuviel, regarding the hopes that the DVD will contain the "Holy Grail" scene, held back from the theatrical release, which will save the film in their eyes.

[jerseydevil]

I think what will be sad is if in the Directors Cut of the DVD we find out there was a lot of charcter development that was cut in favor of action scenes. It'll just show Hollywood's egotistical and contemptatable attitude toward the movie goer; that the average movie goer does not have the intelligence to understand anything and can only watch something if it has nonstop action. Which I think is untrue and very condescending.

If this is the case - then I guess the Godfather would never be made today, especially Godfather II. In those Ellis Island scenes, they'd have to include a couple of hits there in order to keep people's attention today I guess. And forget about flashbacks - the average person today just doesn't have the intelligence to understand and follow them. To me - that is hollywood's contempt toward the average movie goer - especially the American movie goer. Their comtempt became clear when I heard someone in Hollywood state they were concerned HP might not do well in the US without any American actors in it.

Do they think that this is the only way to make a box office smash now a days or are they stuck in the "Independence Day" rut?

[bropous]

Well, now, fair call about Hollyweird's condescension to the viewing public. All you have to do is look at Liv Tyler's being given an excessivley expanded role to see just how pernicious the studio head formulaic approach to filmmaking really is.

"Women won't like the movie if there are not strong female characters."

"Guys won't watch the movie unless we give them cleavage and other eye-candy."

"American viewers won't like the movie unless we add more action and violence."

"Sensitive viewers won't like the film if we leave in more parts about Dwarves insulting elves."

etc, etc, etc.

You're right. Hollyweird thinks we're ALL a bunch of morons.

[Thrain of the Shire]

I did enjoy the film, it is always interesting to see how a director uses his vision to create something that so many already have their own visions for.

As Thrain, I enjoyed the film as an entertainment. However, there is one thing that I really had concerns about and that is the representation of hobbits in the film.

Now, I know that specifics are always good, so where I can (after a rapid re-reading of FOTR) I will be specific...

My concern is that the hobbits in the book are brave, quick, stealthy, intelligent, fighting and, yes, funloving.

In the film, certain scenes and editing could make them look like stupid, immature, prankster idiots who need big brave men to protect them as, left to their own devices they would be incapable of doing anything.

Specifics?

1. Merry and Pippin do NOT set off fireworks prematurely. While I agree that they need to be established as cheerful and full of fun, this prank could make people see them as big kids who cannot be trusted
2. By leaving out the whole initial trek out of the Shire, we are not given a chance to see for ourselves how well the hobbits cope with the travel etc and their skill at hiding and moving quietly.
3. Merry and Pippin are not accidentally met in a cornfield while stealing crops (more irresponsibility) but are long time friends who accompany Frodo even when, as he later finds out, they know of the ring and the risks of the journey -- ie they make a brave choice to support a friend and don't let him go alone, they are not incidental company
4. Pippin does NOT reveal that Frodo is a Baggins in the Prancing Pony...in the book he is telling a story that might give clues..
5. Frodo does not trust Aragorn on instinct or a whim or because he has no other choice -- he has a letter from Gandalf with clues in and Aragorn passes the test...Frodo is smarter than he looks...
6. And here's the big one -- the hobbits do NOT (sorry for shouting but this is sooo annoying) light a fire on Amon Sul!!! They are NOT that stupid anywhere in the books. In fact, Aragorn thinks that he was not careful enough in his epxlorations. Having the hobbits light a fire and cook a breakfast really could give the wrong impression.
7. In the subsequent fight with Nazgul, Frodo actually gets his injury while lunging bravely at one of them -- and actually makes contact. In the film he is cowering behind his friends.
8. At Rivendell, Merry and Pippin resist Elrond's efforts to send them home and insist on accompanying Frodo (this brave decision does not really come across in the film)
9. It is Boromir, NOT Pippin who tosses a stone into the water outside the door to Moria, waking the watcher. Again, Pippin is made to look careless annot too clever...
10. Merry and Pippin do NOT stand by and watch Boromir get killed while watching and doing nothing and then running full tilt into the orc army....again, this risks giving an impression of the hobbits as not being the fighters and brave souls they are.

Sorry for the length of the post, but as the Thrain I feel it is my responsibility to make these things clear so that Hobbits everywhere can hold their heads high and be proud.