RotK review from theonering.net...

[Dúnedain]

Well I don't know how you can say the "story" was changed. I mean the underlying theme is still there, the only thing that has been changed are certain scenes, but there aren't any big changes that drastically change the theme and the mood of what Tolkien wrote. I mean none of the main characters die when they aren't supposed to. THAT would change the story, not something like leaving out my lovely Dúnedain in the Paths of the Dead.

Now I give that example, because it is my absolute favorite part of the Lord of the Rings, that is the Passing of the Grey Company. Now, I am a huge huge HUGE fan of the Dúnedain (if you couldn't tell ), but with them not being in the movie, it isn't going to change the story or the outcome, it's just going to change that scene. Heck, Halbarad was supposed to be Aragorn's closest friend and kinsman of the Dúnedain and Tolkien doesn't even mention Aragorn's reaction when Halbarad dies on the Pellanor Fields, Aragorn just goes about his business like nothing happened.

Now, I don't think Boyens and Jackson should have written scenes out of nothing, but in the scenes where they did, it did hold true to the overall theme. And yes, I have disliked changes and ommissions, but again it still doesn't affect the outcome for me. I am still given a wonderful look at something we have all dreamt about.

Now, I am not saying they improved Tolkien's work by any means, cuz I'm not. I'm just saying that a lot of the people who get so up in arms about changes do so about things that aren't affecting the theme and overall outcome. Remember, this is an ADAPTATION. It needs to translate on screen, are you telling me Tom Bombadil would translate on screen? Come on, that would have been horrible, lol, seeing some weird guy prancing around singing and stuff (I like Tom, but on screen I just don't think it would have worked at all, lol). Besides, we still have one movie left. Will there be changes and ommissions? Yes. Will they affect the theme and outcome of the work? So far they haven't and I doubt they will in RotK.

If you want to argue any changes that affect or come close to the theme of the work, it will be the ommission of the Scouring of the Shire, however there hasn't been anything of that magnitude that has been changed thus far. If you think there is, let's discuss it, because in my opinion there is not, but I am open to what you have to say, but I'd prefer we keep the discussion civil and stop resorting to all this mudslinging and name calling...

Now again, as a disclaimer so my words aren't twisted here, I am not saying that those changes and ommissions are good, because there were changes that I didn't like, but again they are only parts and snippets of the work not the overall theme, mood and layout of the work...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Well I don't know how you can say the "story" was changed. I mean the underlying theme is still there, the only thing that has been changed are certain scenes, but there aren't any big changes that drastically change the theme and the mood of what Tolkien wrote. I mean none of the main characters die when they aren't supposed to. THAT would change the story, not something like leaving out my lovely Dúnedain in the Paths of the Dead.

That's not true - he made Aragorn running from his heritage and afraid of his kingship. That is a MAJOR plot change.

Now I give that example, because it is my absolute favorite part of the Lord of the Rings, that is the Passing of the Grey Company. Now, I am a huge huge HUGE fan of the Dúnedain (if you couldn't tell ), but with them not being in the movie, it isn't going to change the story or the outcome, it's just going to change that scene. Heck, Halbarad was supposed to be Aragorn's closest friend and kinsman of the Dúnedain and Tolkien doesn't even mention Aragorn's reaction when Halbarad dies on the Pellanor Fields, Aragorn just goes about his business like nothing happened.

The Dunedain weren't as important a character moment as Frodo's defiance against the Balckriders at the Ford.

Now, I don't think Boyens and Jackson should have written scenes out of nothing, but in the scenes where they did, it did hold true to the overall theme. And yes, I have disliked changes and ommissions, but again it still doesn't affect the outcome for me. I am still given a wonderful look at something we have all dreamt about.

It didn't hold true. Treebeard didn't even know Saruman was destroying his forest - a forest he was supposed to care so much about.

Now, I am not saying they improved Tolkien's work by any means, cuz I'm not. I'm just saying that a lot of the people who get so up in arms about changes do so about things that aren't affecting the theme and overall outcome. Remember, this is an ADAPTATION. It needs to translate on screen, are you telling me Tom Bombadil would translate on screen? Come on, that would have been horrible, lol, seeing some weird guy prancing around singing and stuff (I like Tom, but on screen I just don't think it would have worked at all, lol). Besides, we still have one movie left. Will there be changes and ommissions? Yes. Will they affect the theme and outcome of the work? So far they haven't and I doubt they will in RotK.

repreat repeat - no one has said we needed or expect a page by page transfer from book to movie. Most people agree that Tom Bombadil should have been left out. But Aragorn running from his heritage? give me a break. Arwen and here "come and claim him" - give me a double break.

If you want to argue any changes that affect or come close to the theme of the work, it will be the ommission of the Scouring of the Shire, however there hasn't been anything of that magnitude that has been changed thus far. If you think there is, let's discuss it, because in my opinion there is not, but I am open to what you have to say, but I'd prefer we keep the discussion civil and stop resorting to all this mudslinging and name calling...

I have mentioned several big theme changes that affected the flow and character development in the movies.

Now again, as a disclaimer so my words aren't twisted here, I am not saying that those changes and ommissions are good, because there were changes that I didn't like, but again they are only parts and snippets of the work not the overall theme, mood and layout of the work...

I don't think he captured the theme of the books. How many minutes of screen time is Frodo and Sam and Pippin and Merry in the movies. The books were "written" by them - in their point of view. Instead jackson chnaged it into the view from humans and interduced the whole love affair thing. Too much time is wasted in the love story. The Ring in TT too second place. It is the Hobbit's story - not whether Aragorn will become King, not whether Arwen will go with her father or choose Aragorn - it is the HOBBIT'S.

[jerseydevil]

Dunedain - I was going to respon to you in your other thread but SGH closed it - I am putting it here...

------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Dúnedain
JD, I am referring to everyone, not just you or BB. I don't want to blame one person, because one person cannot be blamed. I've seen all of BB's posts and while they did piss me off at times, I still don't think everything can be blamed on him. It is EVERYONE. I've been a part of it too. I'm just getting sick and tired of all the bitching that is going on between everyone.

And sorry for making it sound like I was going after the people who disliked the movies, as I said above, I started the thread that way and it just came across like that...

It did come across as you pointing the finger at the book fans as indicated by this in your first paragraph...

I mean, the fact that it has resorted to name calling and grouping those who like the movies into certain categories is beyond me. I respect your opinions, but do you have to inundate us with the same things that you've been repeating for the past 2 years? It's gotten pretty old very quickly and I've haven't even been here for a year!

Makes it pretty clear you started out your post just blaming the book fans. I didn' group all movie fans until I got completely fed up with another little-BB coming on board and making a deragatory "purist" comment. You're fed up? - I've been fed up with BB for at least the past 6 months. He twists our comments, doesn't listen to what we say and even had the nerve to say that we don't even know the book when he hasn't even read it. At least I have read the books and I have seen the movies. My opinions are based on my own personal experience of both.

[jerseydevil]

My use of the "movie moron" term did what it was meant to do - show the deragatory way that "purist" was being used. Now both are banned - so that is good. It was the only way to show people how deragatory that term was - since everyone seemed to just accept the way BB has been talking to and about the book fans.

[Ruinel]

I have no problem being called a "purist", even though I don't consider myself one. I don't see how Tom B. could have been portrayed on film by any actor without making him seem... fruity. I just don't think anyone is up for the job. So, I suppose that means I'm not a "purist". *shrugs* But I love the books as they are. And I still stand by my statements that PJ has ruined the story.

[Artanis]

I've never considered 'purist' to be an abusive term.

I'm curious how the battle scenes will be. If those scenes are going to take most of the screen time, they better be damn good.

[Sister Golden Hair]

I've never considered 'purist' to be an abusive term.

It isn't. It was just in the sense that it was being used insultingly and taken as such. So the book fans of this forum decided to create a derogatory term to counter attack. That is why neither term is permitted now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Artanis
I'm curious how the battle scenes will be. If those scenes are going to take most of the screen time, they better be damn good.

Don't worry - I'm sure the battle scenes will be great as always. Too bad the same effort wasn't put into the characterization, plot and dialog as the amount of detail that has gone into the battle scenes and miniatures.

[Elf Girl]

That review is positive. What about this one?

(spoilers are in it, of course)

[gdl96]

^broken link

*edit* nevermind, I fixed it

[squinteyedsoutherner]

from elfgirl's posted review.

In sum: although there were some excellent and very moving moments in this film, including the Grey Havens, I left feeling that Peter Jackson et al. had moved further and further away from an evocation of the original story, and more towards an excessively hyped-up, Hollywood-ized action adventure. Subtlety and complexity have increasingly given way to simple contrasts and exaggerated dramatic conflicts.

Those are my exact feelings toward the first two films, and I now fear the third as well.

and what the hell is this?

In order to give Elrond something to do, and amp up the dramatic tension, he delivers Anduril to Aragorn at Dunharrow, along with the announcement that Arwen is dying: her life force, he says, is now tied to the ring, so that if Aragorn fails and the ring is not destroyed, that will be the end of Arwen.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by squinteyedsoutherner
Those are my exact feelings toward the first two films, and I now fear the third as well.

As they are mine too.

and what the hell is this?

This is just more typical Jackson stuff. If it's true - I see more and more LotR fans hating the movies. This is the LARGEST outrage if it's true. We will I suppose see what is true and not true once the movie comes out - but I don't think that it bodes well. Not with Christopher Lee being so pissed off that he boycotted the premier and won't even support the film anymore.

[squinteyedsoutherner]

This is the LARGEST outrage if it's true.

I'm pretty sure it is - I've read that in several reviews now.

[Cirdan]

I really did want to like this film, but these spoilers are making me ill. Like the reviewer said, it is best to be prepared for disappointments. Was Denethor too complex too depict? Was Aragorn not motivated enough by the potential detruction of ME? It seems to me that PJ is being vindictive to book fans at this point because these changes don't even make sense in conjunction with the first two movies.

[Black Breathalizer]

I can understand some of your worries but you are basing your criticisms on second-hand information. I think it's good to go to the film psychologically prepared for changes from the book. But on the other hand, going in with the mindset that Jackson is going to screw you over is certainly going to sour your appreciation of the film. I don't understand why some people deliberately ruin the fun for themselves.

[hectorberlioz]

the worst things that im the most outraged about. denethors evilness and gandalf's beating him. sam going away for strealing lembas. the arwen dying theme. these are just to much for me to bear

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I can understand some of your worries but you are basing your criticisms on second-hand information. I think it's good to go to the film psychologically prepared for changes from the book. But on the other hand, going in with the mindset that Jackson is going to screw you over is certainly going to sour your appreciation of the film. I don't understand why some people deliberately ruin the fun for themselves.

Well, since there are several reviews saying the same thing, I think there may be at least some truth to it. to what extent will not be known until the movie is released.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
I can understand some of your worries but you are basing your criticisms on second-hand information. I think it's good to go to the film psychologically prepared for changes from the book. But on the other hand, going in with the mindset that Jackson is going to screw you over is certainly going to sour your appreciation of the film. I don't understand why some people deliberately ruin the fun for themselves.

Well - my opinion is based on the first two films - RotK just confirms my feelings that I developed after seeing FotR. Jackson made pure action films with no regards to the books or characters or to the fans of the books. He lied to the book fans and hyped up the movies.

So my appreciation of the movies have been soured from the first time I saw FotR and has only gotten worse since then.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well - my opinion is based on the first two films - RotK just confirms my feelings that I developed after seeing FotR. Jackson made pure action films with no regards to the books or characters or to the fans of the books.

Thank you for enlightening me, jerseydevil.

I never really grasped that you thought Jackson made pure action films the first two million times you told me.

But...I think we've ALL GOT IT now. Okay?

You don't need to keep reminding us with essentially the same posts over and over again a hundred times a day.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Thank you for enlightening me, jerseydevil.

I never really grasped that you thought Jackson made pure action films the first two million times you told me.

But...I think we've ALL GOT IT now. Okay?

You don't need to keep reminding us with essentially the same posts over and over again a hundred times a day.

Sorry - nothing wrong with me repeating my statements. You seem to have no problem repeating your statements of how great jackson is.