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."

[jerseydevil]

Now that I posted my 10,000th post - I wanted to revive my very first post on entmoot which is on Page two of this thread.

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?

There we are. I always hated Arwen and continue to despise these dumb down hollywoodized films.

[brownjenkins]

i think one of the main goals of pj was to put a strong female character in the first movie... remember, for some audience members it may have been their very first exposure to tolkien period

frodo proves his strength all over the place throughout the movie... and he doesn't die either, he just goes unconcious (like in the book)

personally, i would have preferred this part to be more book-like with glorfindel and all, but it's not that bad

[Tree Dweller]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i think one of the main goals of pj was to put a strong female character in the first movie... remember, for some audience members it may have been their very first exposure to tolkien period

frodo proves his strength all over the place throughout the movie... and he doesn't die either, he just goes unconcious (like in the book)

personally, i would have preferred this part to be more book-like with glorfindel and all, but it's not that bad

I am one of those who saw first, read later. (At least for the first 2 books)
When I went back to read FOTR and found Arwen was not in that part, I was a little bit disappointed (in the movie, not the book). But I don't think it made a real difference in the big picture. I was still completely drawn into Middle Earth through that film and even more delighted once I read Tolkien's words.

[gollum9630]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Now that I posted my 10,000th post - I wanted to revive my very first post on entmoot which is on Page two of this thread.

Hey next time revive your first thread, you know, the one nobody responded too

[Curubethion]

At least they didn't do it like they did in the Ralph Bakhshi animated movie, where it was Legolas who took Glorfindel's place.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

At least they didn't do it like they did in the Ralph Bakhshi animated movie, where it was Legolas who took Glorfindel's place.

In some ways Bakshi did a better job than PJ in bringing LOTR to film. (IMO)

»The Battle at Weathertop
»Flight to the Ford
»Bree
»General portrayal of Gandalf
»General portrayal of Aragorn
»General portrayal of the Black Riders

to name few things.

Of course PJ did get some things better than Bakshi.

»The Shire and most of the party (Merry&Pippen was not done well IMO)
»The fight with the Balrog
»Most of the scenery, music and costumes.
»General image of Sam. (Bakshi did a bad job animating Sam IMO)
»General portrayal of Boromir.
»Many of the larger battle scenes.
(almost anything would look better than what Bakshi did with the animated/live action scenes. I could sympathize though with Bakshi in his use of animated/live action scenes. CGI was not available and there was no low cost effective method available to portray some parts of LOTR into cinema.)

In general, although there were many faults with Bakshi's LOTR, it seemed to me that he made more of an effort to stay closer to the spirit of LOTR than PJ. (This does not mean that I did not like anything from PJ's LOTR, but that PJ could have done better.)

(although with the budget & technology that PJ had to work with, I would have hoped/expected that PJ could have done a better job. This can be further discussed in the many threads that have been opened previously if needed.)

[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.