The worst change in FOTR

[IronParrot]

Unfortunately, Silva, that's not how movies are made. Good ones, anyway.

Find me one good exact film adaptation of, uh, anything. Name one.

Gloer:

"It is not really about which woman deserves Aragorn. It is about Aragorn being the heir to the throne, gathering his strength and will to claim it, to be a king. Because then he deserves to claim Arwen."

Yeah, essentially. For all of you who have watched Unforgiven... "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

[olorin7]

i do not see how arwen is necessarily more important to the story than glorfindel is. sure Aragorn marries her latter but in between she plays no important role, at least not as far as lotr is concerned.

[Gloer]

...there is no Aragorn.

You see that fellow is totally uninterested in power the throne and such. He likes to live in the nature with birds and animals. He has been raised by elves so he is a bit of a loner amongst people. He is not the type to volunteer to take over the responsibileties of a king.

But then comes a woman. He wants her and to get her he needs to
1. prove himself that he is worthy enough to claim her ie. take what is his - so first he needs to do the classical quest to become a prince to get the princess
2. he needs to make Middle Earth safe for Arwen to stay at his house - otherwise she would probably have to go with Elrond across the seas or at least stay at Imladriss while the power of Elronds ring prevails.

So ARwen is all Aragorn cares for. But she doesn't need to be anything else. She doesn't need to be in the movie at all. It is more convincing to show that there is distance between Aragorn andhis love. He needs to feel very alone and missing her after Rivendell. But showing Arwen again spoils the effect!

[Hirwinion]

Let's see if PJ puts Arwen in vice Glorfindel maybe she'' displace her brothers in the Passing of the Grey Company in RotK. The post who stated that Aragorns musings on Arwen was right on the Money! Jackson copped out the way Bakshi did in that awful 70's version. It was Legolas that finds the hobbits and Aragorn. I can live without Bombadil, I don't like it, personally pj SHOULD MAKE A DIRECTORS CUT WITH TB IN IT! But Arwen on a horse opposing the Nazgul is insane and it is nowhere near JRRT's vision or version.

BTW the Glorfindel in FotR and Silmarillion are one and the same. Tolkien realized what he had done and in later letters and the edited works by son Christopher establishes the case for Elvish reincarnation.

[Haldir]

Well I saw the movie last night and despite what any one might say or think, if you are a LOTR fan, you love the movie, even if it isn't exactly true the book. (Which if you think about, would be impossible.)

In order for this movie to be made properly, it had to be commercially successful. It would be too expensive to make properly if were made just to satisfy only true fans of the books.

So they spiced it up a bit.

If any true fan watches it and don't like it...well I would be quite shocked and confused .

[Gloer]

...a DRAG QUEEN in the movie!

And you are surprised if a true fan doesn't approve?

Purely on the movie point of view the editing was clumsy- no poor!

And so was the pacing of the movie.
You do not get a feeling of time and space correct.

So it is not a bad movie, not a grand movie, it is very good entertainment though.

[jerseydevil]

Like others - I don't have a problem with them expanding Arwen's charcter - although it wasn't expanded as much as advertising would lead someone to believe.

I figured that Arwen was going to replace Glorfindel - but I thought that whole scene from Weathertop to Bruinen made Frodo look weak.

Frodo's line - "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair you shall have neither the Ring nor me!" I feel was key to expressing Frodo's strength against the Ring and his determination to fight - something the humans and others lacked.

Also - what was the deal with making him "die" after the crossing and Arwen bringing him back to life?

[Ben]

I have decided after two viewings that the worst change was Saruman. In the book, he wants the Ring for himself, and considers himself a rival of Sauron. The rivalry between the Orcs of Saruman and those of Sauron during Merry and Pippin's capture is important to the story. In the movie, they establish Saruman as Sauron's servant from the get-go. I think that takes something out of the story to just make a homogenous "enemy" in the name of simplicity. And actually, this may have made it more confusing - I've read an awful lot of critics' reviews that refer to the Black Riders, etc. as servants of Saruman. And the Gandalf-Saruman duel was a bit silly.

Arwen's role didn't bother me. Overall, she's more important than "just another Elf Lord."

[jerseydevil]

I agree that the battle scene with Gandalf and Saruman was laughable.

I also agree that Saruman is being portrayed as Sauron's 'slave" too early in the movie. In the beginning - he was after the the Ring for himslef - or so he thought. It isn't until Two Towers where you realise that Sauron is even contolling him through the Palantir. The Palantir doesn't even get revealed to Gandalf until the Two Towers - so Gnadlaf doesn't even know that Saruman is in "direct contact" with Sauron in FOTR.

I did think that Gandalf's character came off too much as an idiot. In the books him and Elrond are more equals, but in the movie - Elrond speaks to Gandalf as if he's talking to an idiot.

I went to see the movie twice - the first time as a comparision to the books - which I didn't like it that much. Then as just a movie - where I liked it more - but I still had problems with Gandalf, Merry and Pippin. Merry and Pippin I think look too old and it's almost impossible to tell them apart - other than by their hair color.

And is it just me - or are all the character's eyes blue? At least the good guys.

[ringbearer]

I do not get upset with the fact that Arwen is given a bigger part in the movie, than the book. I do get upset that it is done in a way that removes a GREAT character, Glorfindel, and his COOL horse Asfaloth!

[IronParrot]

No gripes with Arwen.

Three particularly notable gripes: first, the wizard duel. It was worse on the first viewing than the second, though. The second time around, I found that the thing about that scene that was particularly distracting - Gandalf spinning on the floor - wasn't as long as I remembered.

The second gripe: how do Strider and the hobbits manage to leave Bree, especially with the Black Riders around? That transition was far too abrupt, I found.

The third: I'm not sure we needed to actually see Saruman send out the Uruk-hai. I'm not sure how the film would do without it, either, but in either case, it's hard to determine how it'll work out simply because The Two Towers isn't out yet. Are Saruman's orders merely going to be reiterated when the orcs quibble? On the other hand: will the orcs even quibble at all, considering that only the band sent by the White Hand was present?

Out of the outright omissions from the book, I didn't really miss that many of them... well, I did miss the orc attacks in both Lothlorien and on the Anduin, but that would probably have been overkill anyway. Oh, and I missed the deal with entering Lothlorien blindfolded. It was really the big step in the Legolas-Gimli relationship in the book.

And of course, there's the ever-present big one I get more used to every day - it's made abundantly clear that the Scouring of the Shire's not going to be in ROTK.

[jerseydevil]

I remember other problems with the movie that I didn't like.

For one thing Isildur's hand is burned when he takes the Ring. He states that the scar will probably be there forever - in which case he couldn't have been wearing gloves like he is in the movie, unless the Ring burns him through his glove.

The other thing was when he was ambushed. He wears the Ring and attempts to cross the river and then it slips off his finger - then the orcs can see him and kill him. It's important I think because it shows how the Ring moves from one owner to the other - when that owner doesn't meet it's purpose.

I don't think changing these parts served any purpose.

[Lightice]

Dropping Elendil and Gil-Galad out almost completely.
One of my non-Tolkien fan friends taught, that Elrond and Isildur were generals of the army of Last Alliance.
Book told, that Elendil and Gil-Galad were ones who actually killed Saurons physical manifestation but died themselves as well and Isildur took the Ring from Sauron's corpse.
And it's a bit hard for me to imagine, that Sauron would a) come out from Barad Dûr when he still had his minions fighting for him and b) that he would slaughter mere soldiers. Only leaders of armies were worthy enough to feel his wrath.
Also, timeline was too short and I wondered laziness of the Nazgul; first they went to Shire, and then taught that vacation was in order before searching the Ring. Gandalf was oddly fast, regarding that he still didn't have Shadowfax to carry him.
But it was good movie, with all it's faults still. I liked it, and I'm going to go look it again.

[shrub beard]

The only movie that you could sit down and read the book along with was "The Lathe of Heaven" by Ursula K LeGuin. No adaption , Movie was "Dead On".

All in all, it's a matter of which character triggers which readers imagination in the book. No one will have the same response, I've enjoyed the movie GREATLY but will still enjoy the depth of the books far more.

[onering]

To sit there and watch Jackson rape the novel, by createing "Elf Cosmo-girl" Arwen was, to me, just heartbreaking. When Frodo "stood" at the ford it was one of the most pivotol scene's in the trilogy. I guess Jackson couldnt help being politicaly correct by createing this Arwin farce.

And the pity is that Tolkien had "strong woman figure's" in the trilogy. He knew that conflict's couldnt be won without woman which is why he created Galadrial and Eowyn. By letting Arwen "stand" at the Ford, instead of Frodo Jackson just kept up with his rape of Hobbit's, in fact, the whole movie showed Hobbit's as nothing but "scared rabbit's".

The reality was..........they werent!

The Trilogy was , most of all, a story about the stand of these little, forgotton people. Sauron wrote them off to his own undoing, but Jackson's Hobbit's were just one pathetic scene of whimpering, cowering, whineing,running,wide-eyed scene after another.

And I bet no-one here knew that Rivendale and Lothlorien only had about 7 Elv's between them, and they exchanged these!

Oh I could go on and on, this guy basically took the "greatest story ever told" and chopped it into a mess.

And before anyone here get's personal in their defense of this movie try to realize that the new "Corporate Movie America" has spent many million's to convince you that its a great movie. They paved a paradise of creative people and put up a parking lot of Corprorate Marketeer's.

Thats never been so obvious as with this **** movie.....................................One

[Darth Tater]

shrub beard, you're right, and Lathe of Heaven is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. People need to realize that this wasn't the book, it was a movie, it's seperate, and it's brilliant in its own right. The first time I saw it I was just in shock, so I didn't know what to think, but after seeing it again last night I am convinced this is a work of genious, and a film that will be just as much a classic as the book, but will luckilly stay seperate. I would have hated this movie if it was a visual retelling of the story. What's my imagination good for then? But PJ was smart enough to bring his own ideas to the story and it worked incredibly well as a result.

[Lightice]

I was a good movie. Very good actually. Perhaps even a classic. But it wasn't nearly as good as the book. It couldn't had been even if it was nine hours long.
But everyone here must remember: It was movie, not a book. Yes, couple of parts could had been done much, much better, but they also could had been much worse. As whole, I liked it though there was parts I didn't like.
These are my two cents.

[GoldenMallorn]

Here here lightice. He's right you guys. You need to RELAX. It is NOT the book, it is a movie to sit back and ENJOY. Personally I dont think that Arwen took away at all, she's only in three scenes and in two of those she's the princess Arwen Evenstar. The only action scene she's in is when she's sent to HELP Frodo across the ford. It's not like she chops orcs up in Moria or dices the black riders to bits.
And as for that life force thingymabob. Frodo collapses at the Ford in the Book, so we have NO idea WHAT went on AFTER he collpased. Remember Gandalf said that if a few hours had gone by before they had reached Rivendell he would have been lost. Maybe he was SO close to the turning point Glorfindel HAD to use some magic in the book. So why could'nt Frodo be close to the turning point in the movie?And I bet you Frodo just collapsed at the ford and did'nt die. He would'nt have anyway. He would have become a smaller Ringwraith under the bigger ones powers. You got to remember that the wraiths were'nt DEAD. They were kings continued in their life so much that they actually FADED and became wraiths. Frodo could'nt have died because of that fact.
As for worst changes. The Arwen Scene is NOTHING compared to the Watcher in the water scene and the freaky Galadriel scene. What is with Frodo being tossed about like a saltshaker? He had had enough BEFORE that thing began thinking he was a Saltshaker. And what is with Galadriel? They shoud have done that temptation thing not at all or SUBTLEY and SHORT.
As for my favorite change. I LOVE the way they did Merry and Pippin, the movie REALLY needed the comical relief.
Sam/mallorn

[jerseydevil]

I'm trying to look at it from two different stand points - as a movie and in comparison of the book.

I like the movie as a movie.

In comparing it to the book I still think they made Frodo way too weak when it came to "Flight to the Ford".

And I still think that they should have just had Frodo collapse from the horse and fade to black and then wake up in Rivendell.

Jackson knew that he couldn't please everyone. But I still feel that Frodo's ability to fight against the Ring is central to the whole story - and with that scene he appears too weak. When any of my friends (who haven't read LOTR) have asked me how the movie is - I've told them I'm the worst critic for this movie. I read it 12 times inside of 8 years.

Coming back from the movies I was thinking about how many interpretations of Dracula there are. - very few match the book. I just wish that some of the scenes in LOTR were a little closer to the book - since this is going to be the only LOTR movie in a very long time.

One thing - it's a billion times better than that cartoon that claims to be Lord of the Rings.

[noldo]

Bringing Arwen to the Ford was a something the writers wanted to do to bring more Lúthien to Arwen's character. Her facing the Ringwraiths had something same as to Lúthien standing on the bridge of Sauron's fortress or ensnaring the Enemy in his throne room.

And Arwen was a reincarnation of Lúthien's beauty and grace. Not a bad change, in my opinion.