Why make those changes?

[Agburanar]

There were some really good moments, but I don't understand why the script was so poor. The film was nothing but battle after battle with little storyline to tie them together. There are enough battles in books 2 and 3, FOTR is about a small group of people who's hope is in 'going unnoticed, not walking openly into battle'.

Why have the pathetically raiders of the lost ark bit with the collapsing staircase in Moria? The time could have been better spent on more detailed bits of Lorien (like Gollum in the trees)or Radagast. The overplayed watcher in the water did not have enough mystery about it because it was too long, that time could have been used to do Weathertop PROPERLY.

Boromir's overacted slow motion death was too corny for words and Saruman's direct control of the snow over Charadras was unexpected.

Overall not bad. The props were good, the sets were great (except Moria, too open, not enough corridors) and SOME of the casting was good it was just the script that was too interested in big gory battles. boo!

[samwise of the shire]

Ok I think the Watcher In The Water was pathetic, and so was the Freaky Galadriel scene. Cate Blanchett played that part way too sinister. Moria was fine, it was'nt an orc city but a dwarf city. In Erebor Smaug was able to fit inside the main hall and that was just in a mountain. Moria was under the whole of the Misty Mountains or a good part of it. And you're not supposed to see side tunnels. Have you read the books?Remeber how Boromir said there were fell voices on the air?And how it seemed that there was a voice on the wind in the book?Either you have'nt read the books or have read them and missed that little bit there.
And I think that if a house or kingdom or whatever had'nt been inhabited for years I imagine that some things would be falling apart. Dont you?
I gotta go. I would say something about Boromir but I think I'll leave that to someone else
Sam

[Rána Eressëa]

It seems, my friend, you are not a child of the movies. If it weren't for epic battle scenes, neat objects (Sting, for instance), and frightening fights my seventeen year old brother (who is not a fan of Tolkien's work) would have never said it was one of the best movies he had ever seen. He understood the characters, the plot, so on, so forth, but you must remember: movies are mostly about visuals, while books are of words. You have to accept the difference in order to understand and enjoy.

And so it seems the only people who are shunning this movie are purely Tolkien purists.

I see a reoccuring pattern here.

[Captain Stern]

And so it seems the only people who are shunning this movie are purely Tolkien purists.

That's right, but the one's who haven't read the books don't know any better.

After the first time I saw the film, I was like a few of you here, I had nothing but good things to say about the film. After I saw it again twice I don't think the film even comes into my top 20.

I was caught up in the hype, but more than that I WANTED the film to be the best film ever made simply because it was The Lord of the Rings, I stoped deluding myself after my 2nd viewing of the film. I think that's a problem some of you here still have, the way you constantly defend any complaint about the film made by more objective people.

I don't think P.J was up to the task. I don't think he's a good film maker, but more than that I don't think he understood the book, the way some of the characters were portrayed were enough for me to be sure of that ( Galadriel any one? )

I'm saddened that there probably won't be another adaptation of the books in my life time.

[orald]

I think one has to ask why the movies were made in the first place?Was it to bring Tolkien's work to masses visually,and P.Jackson having the confindence to try it?Or was it that knowing he couldn't exactly reproduce the books to the big screen,he made an entertaining trilogy,so others would get caught up in the hype,and read the books.Or was it for the almighty dollar?And for those who think the changes were unnecessary,was Peter Jackson the real villian,or New Line Cinema,I was one that thought he cut out way to much,and added things that made him appear lazy,as a director.But I think i'm going to reserve my opinion,and wait for the DVD.Maybe he had no choice.

[Rána Eressëa]

Sadly, I don't delude myself. I happen to truly love the movie.

Here's a little something I said in another post:

"Am I the only one who thinks the movie is in deserve of an Oscar? It's the only one in history that I have seen more than once in theater (three times, to be exact). And am I also the only one that thinks it has, though perceptively very different from the book, claimed the truth of Middle-Earth? Just because is wasn't written in the exact Tolkien words doesn't mean it's a shame to the book. If anything, it has turned out to be a visual & emotional stupending masterpiece from a slightly different point of view. Afterall, Peter Jackson isn't Tolkien himself, you see.

So, yes, I think this movie is deserve of the exact amount of praise as the book."

I am a child of books and of movies alike and with that I stand my grounds for being very picky as to what I like. Some people only want stories that are short and sweet. Some want them long and detailed. Others want fighting and blood, while some want wisdom and love. With all these different points of view, I think Peter Jackson has untimately tried his very best to adapt the book to a movie version. I believe he did understand the book, but that fact that there are quite a bit of alterations leads you to believe it's just Peter doing a horrible job because you want it to be 100% true to the book. And that just isn't humanly possible.

The only reason I bring this up is because it's a forum, and if people are going to whine about the film, people should also be able to embrace it.

And for the record, it is in my top five films of all time. And I daresay it may even be number one.

[Agburanar]

I heard that PJ has read the book twice. Decide for yourself whether this is a qualification. Unfortunately, because he has made these films it is unlikely that anybody with a better grasp of the story will be able to make a better film. The book is still unfilmable and I believe that PJ wanted to make it because it is a popular book so many people would see the film and he would make lots of money.

[Captain Stern]

PJ wanted to make it because it is a popular book so many people would see the film and he would make lots of money

I can't be sure what P.J's motives were to make this film. Despite the fact that the film was a disapointment for me I personaly doubt that he made the film purely to make money, he doesn't strike me as the type.

Maybe someone with a deeper knowledge of P.J's filmogrophy can shed some more light on the matter? I've only seen 1 of his previous films: 'Braindead'. It's an increadibly weird low budget zombie film. It makes no amount of sense and is without doubt the most violent film I have ever seen. There's 1 scene for example, where the main character shreds dozens of zombies with a lawnmower, splattering the whole room with gore.

I heard that PJ has read the book twice.

This doesn't give much credence to the fact that "The Fellowship of the Ring" was a 'labour of love' does it people?

Unfortunately, because he has made these films it is unlikely that anybody with a better grasp of the story will be able to make a better film.

What's you'r reasoning behind that?

[Agburanar]

PJ said inn one press release that lotr was an idea that just came up, he had never consciously wanted to make a film of the book.

With the release of fotr all the trademarks are tied up, nobody could make another lotr film for a good many years and if they did it would probably be seen as an attempt to 'jump on the lotr bandwagon'.

[Captain Stern]

Too true.

[Kevin McIntyre]

For a good Peter Jackson movie check out 'Heavenly Creatures', very good flick. PJ wrote the screenplay and was nominated for an academy award.

As regards to the movie:

There was no doubt that PJ knew his material. However as I have stated in other threads some of the writing was awkward (ford of bruinen). As regards to Galadriel, there were sinister elements to her characterization (she was perhaps Tolkiens most complicated character). When she says:

"And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!" she was not talking lightly. And the description Tolkien writes:

She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad.
"I pass the test," she said. "I will diminish, and go into the West and remain Galadriel."


This seems to be what happens in the movie. (maybe not the beautiful part).

The biggest dilemma with making the FOTR as a movie is exactly what was said earlier "There are enough battles in books 2 and 3, FOTR is about a small group of people who's hope is in 'going unnoticed, not walking openly into battle'." The action in FOTR is muted: In the book Gandalf is taken captive by Saruman, no real action is described. Hoever in my mind I do not see Gandalf just saying "oh you got me Saruman" and giving up - they must have had a phsyo-spirtual confrontation of some kind - hence the wizard battle.

No action sequence in the movie was added, some however were removed - the battle with the wolves come to mind.

With the description floating around to what was cut from the original submission the final cut is what I'm most disapointed with - but I'll have to wait for the DVD to see.

[samwise of the shire]

Rouge's right. PJ wanted to portray the characters as close as they could get to the minds eye and if it's not perfect for you then you shouldn't grouse, they tried and complaning about it wont change a thing. Oh here's an idea. If you think that the movie stunk because it wasn't close enough to the book then read the book again and dont complain about the bad parts in the movie. Leave that to us.
Sam

[FrodoFriend]

I truly cannot understand most of the complaints about the movie. Of course it's not going to be like the book, that's impossible. But the movie, in my opinion at least, captures the spirit of Middle Earth and of the characters. The screenplay was quite well done and remained faithful to Tolkien's own words. I rather liked Galadriel's scene . . . that's what happens in the book, how can you complain? As for battles, all the battles in the movie were also in the book. Personally, as a fan of action movies, I liked the battle scenes. The contrast between the Shire and the dangerous world outside was really wonderful (same with Lothlorien). In the book these places are islands in the midst of a dangerous world . . . and I think that comes across very well.
Remember . . . the movie is not the book, just an adaptation (and a good one at that!)

[Agburanar]

His adaption, not mine, I think that's why I was disappointed. As was said earlier, his production of this version makes it unlikely that anyone will film another version coming close to what I imagined.. that's the biggest problem I have with it. But the damage is done and the little kids running around with plastic swords stabbing teachers and yelling "haha I got you Nazgul scum!" won't be crushed by any amount of Tolkien fan intervention.