The worst change in FOTR

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

I would like to have seen it more accurate but it is Impossible to do so without boring non-fans. I mean how much longer do you want to make it. I do wish they had made the nazguls a little more threatening. The problem was that they lost their feel of danger. Like in a cheap eighties movie called "SOULTAKER" I saw on Mystery Science Theatre, I swear. At twelve this girl is supposed to die. So it keeps zooming in on this clock until eventually the clock is past 12 and there is no more apparent releveance with the time of her death. In the same manner. Its seems every situation w/ the nazgul is resolved quickly and each time making them less apparently dangerous to a lesser extent.
The movie was great and I loved it. And I can see both sides. Although I think I lean towards Darth Taters argument. It's mean to be a story slightly different than that of the book. Like somebody (my apologies) said earlier "You cannot take information from a book and replay it on the movie screen" The Massive amounts of Minor charecters which would give the movie and an unrealistic depth unlike the which minor charecters enhance the book. Since a book is written and does not regard the dimension of time,(you can read over it again, you can read it in more than one sitting.) It's structure is tight enough to support that amount of depth. So they have to make up for that loss of depth in major charecters. As far as the Nazguls go. I think they can be defied. Frodo does defy them in The book "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall have niether the ring or me". So I see them as verbally defyable.

[Renille]

The Nazgul seemed very threatening to me! (Except for two parts...1. When Arwen was riding with Frodo, completely surrounded, and still the Nazgul don't do anything except keep riding. 2. When they hesitated for about five minutes to cross the ford. I think the biggest problem with the Nazgul was that they were really indecisive!)

But my biggest gripe was the hobbits! I also thought that they seemed pitiful, weak, and careless. Except Frodo, who just seemed a bit weak...and in the book, he was!

[ringbearer]

I liked the Nazgul! Their screams were like I imagined, when reading the books!

[Haldir]

Okay, second viewing opinions:

The movie is not perfect. There are some definite changes that I am not crazy about. I too tried to view it 'just as a movie' on the second viewing and I enjoyed it a lot, but some things still stood out.

What bothered me the most, was the Arwen-replacing Frodo thing, and the hurried-ness of the travels. Even judged just as a movie, I think those transitions are bad and confusing.

I am going to withhold being overly critical of FOTR until I can see all three movies together. I watched the Star Wars trilogy (Epi. 4-6) this weekend (xmas gift) and all three movies together are a classic presentation. Take one of those movies separately and I am not sure you could say that, but the three together stand as an epic work.

So go again and enjoy yourself. Forget the book and revel in the beautiful scenery and the great action.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

It seems renille without fail. That every time I post something I am contradicted by you. Is that animosity, or pure coinicidence.

I too loved the Nazgul. Like I said, I love the Movie. Their were small problems...extremely subtle problems. When someone explains a subtle problem it comes across as a large problem with many complaints,when in reality I am just trying to give defenition to the problem with details. On my next post consider that as a possibility, as i feel my words are being misinterpreted alot. And I am being accused of things Ive never said or done.

[Renille]

Oh, no, not animocity at all...I just happen to disagree with some of your opinions. That's all. I'm really really really sorry if it came off wrong! Sometimes my mouth (er...fingers) get going and "say" anything that flies out. So I sincerely apologize for anything offensive I've said. I really don't mean to be, I promise! (And By the way, I was just re-reading your post on this, and after looking at it more in depth, I do see what you're saying, and actually agree...) Anyway, sorry again, don't leave Entmoot because of me. The real reason I was contradicting your opinions was because they were good ones! (Unlike mine... )

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

LOL I meant that more as a joke than anything, a small line at the front to relieve the tension of the argument. The problem isnt that you disagree constantly with me its that you believe what I believe but I word it so poorly that you cannot know that. I am not at all offended. It was simply a funny coincedence.
My apologies.

[liza disavino]

I just saw FOTR last night, and I enjoyed it tremendously on a number of counts. Visually, it is stunning. The casting is great. The performances are right on the money.
Beyond that, though, there were several directorial things that didn't work for me, and the major one is that instead of starting the story small, as the books do, we are thrust into HUGE battle scenes and elves and major figures and the history of the whole schmere. The reason that the books are so arresting, I think, is that we see this all unfolding from the point of view of the least of all - the hobbits. As the story goes on, the menace grows and becomes more and more immediate and deadly. So I thought that wasn't a good choice - we don't identify with the hobbits in the same way because we're not really seeing it from their point of view.

[liza disavino]

I just saw FOTR last night, and I enjoyed it tremendously on a number of counts. Visually, it is stunning. The casting is great. The performances are right on the money.
Beyond that, though, there were several directorial things that didn't work for me, and the major one is that instead of starting the story small, as the books do, we are thrust into HUGE battle scenes and elves and major figures and the history of the whole schmere. The reason that the books are so arresting, I think, is that we see this all unfolding from the point of view of the least of all - the hobbits. As the story goes on, the menace grows and becomes more and more immediate and deadly. So I thought that wasn't a good choice - we don't identify with the hobbits in the same way because we're not really seeing it from their point of view.
As for Arwen, well, I think the skimpiness of Tolkein's version of her role is the one major flaw in the book. (When she married Aragorn my first reaction was, "Where'd she come from?" ) So I can see padding her part a bit.

[liza disavino]

I just saw FOTR last night, and I enjoyed it tremendously on a number of counts. Visually, it is stunning. The casting is great. The performances are right on the money.
Beyond that, though, there were several directorial things that didn't work for me, and the major one is that instead of starting the story small, as the books do, we are thrust into HUGE battle scenes and elves and major figures and the history of the whole schmere. The reason that the books are so arresting, I think, is that we see this all unfolding from the point of view of the least of all - the hobbits. As the story goes on, the menace grows and becomes more and more immediate and deadly. So I thought Jackson's choice wasn't a good one - we don't identify with the hobbits as Tolkein intends, because we're not really seeing it from their point of view.
As for Arwen, well, I think the skimpiness of Tolkein's version of her role is the one major flaw in the book. (When she married Aragorn my first reaction was, "Where'd she come from?" ) So I can see padding her part a bit.
I think Bombadil was important symbolically (he symbolizes Earth, the force of nature, the Green Man, etc.) who goes ever on unaffected, no matter what. I guess they had to cut something, but I missed him.

[bropous]

No, at the Fords of Bruinen Frodo himself resisted the call of the Nazgul to cross back over the River. One IS able to resist the orders of the Nazgul.

As I stated in another post, I was initally quite offended to hear Liv Tyler had been cast as Arwen, but I was pleasantly surprised. She did a fantastic job as Arwen, and supplanting her for Glorfindel is forgiveable.

I agree that part of the charm of the books is the fact everything unfolds from the point of view of the innocent hobbits. However, I think Mr Jackson did an incredible job laying the foundations of the Ring itself. Don't forget that there are copious forewards before Tolkien begins to tell the story, and that without this background, the threat of the Enemy and the power of the One Ring are not fully fleshed out. I thought the Last Alliance of Elves and Men to be some of the most stunning filmwork in the film.

My girlfriend, who has also read and loved the books, felt the battle scenes were overdone and geared towards the young male in the audience. I disagree.

It IS a WAR with Sauron, not simply a subtle plan to destroy the Ring. The time clock is ticking and BOTH must occur; the War to distract him and the quest to reach the Cracks of Doom on Orodruin. The battle scenes, I feel, add more depth to the story.

Take, for instance, the battle with the cave-troll at Durin's Tomb. My girlfriend felt this was too long and overdone. I feel that the desperate melee to down this creature sets up the strength and terror of the Balrog, and why Gandalf is so scared of this Servant of the fires of Udun. Just fighting a few goblin/orcs of the Misty Mountains and then facing the Balrog does not show up how absolutely dangerous this demon of the ancients truly is, even to the second-most powerful of the Istari.

Can't wait for Christmas 2002 and 2003!

[Billadillo]

Well, I know there's been a lot of debate on the whole issue, but I'll throw my 2 cents in too...

First of all, I thought the film was very good. It did an excellent job of capturing the epic scope of Tolkien's world and stories. Casting and acting was great. But overall, I feel the movie falls just short of being truly excellent.

I certainly never expected an exact translation of the book to the screen. I understand the inherent contstraints imposed by making a movie from a book. And although I miss Tom B. and Bill the pony, I also understand the need to cut out some material for time considerations.

That said, there are a few things I don't understand. Except for Arwen, they are mainly small things, but IMO, they could have easily been done, without adding any extra time to the film.

- Isn't it Gandalf, not Frodo, that finally figures out the password to open the doors at Moria? I assume PJ was trying to achieve something here, but I can't figure out what. Would have been easy to stick to the story.

- Why show Sam letting Bill go, when the audience has no idea who Bill is? If they were going to cut him out, they should have left this too.

- Saruman saying "We must join Sauron"? I never remember Saruman willingly following Sauron. Maybe I'm wrong, but I always saw him as in it for himself. I think it weakens his character to make him a willing lapdog of Sauron. It was much better to have this wise, subtle and persuasive character foolishly thinking he could weild the ring. Again...it would have been easy to stick to the story. And what about "Saruman of many colors?? Big disappointment for me there.

- Why show Gimli trash talking Galadriel (elf-witch) and then leave out his total 180 when they meet. Very easy to do. They could have done it in place of that creepy "One who has seen the eye!!" bit...beyuck.

There are of course more things...all pretty small and nitpicky I guess...except for Arwen.

Now I've read alot of what people have to say about her, and I agree with some of both sides. I do see the need to "flesh her out" more. Honestly, first time I read the books, I didn't know who she was when she appeared in ROTK. But fleshing her out didn't have to make her into Xena, elvish princess.

There would have been plenty oppourtunity to focus on her in Rivendell, where it happened in the book. That was where the expansion of her role should have taken place. The majority of her lines that had any bearing on the larger plot all occurred there anyway.

If, for the sake of pacing and cohesion, they needed to give Glorfindel (an admittedly minor character in this story) the axe...then so be it. They should have left out the part completely, not twisted another minor character to fill his place. It would have been simple to give Aragorn a horse somewhere on the way. Then he could have put Frodo on it, and had him ride across alone...like he's supposed to. As others have said, I love the part where Frodo musters his last defiance...and it just isn't enough...so sad to have them ruin the climax of the first half of the movie.

And it just makes it worse, because even though people justify it with all kinds of different reasons, I still see Arwen's expanded role as lame Hollywood pandering. Trying to put up a pretty face for the trailers, and a butt-kickin female character to draw more ladies. And Arwen sneaking up on Aragorn...yeah, as-if.

There's my 2 pennies...do with em what you will.

[onering]

Im afraid "The Ring" isnt even in the same class as "StarWar's". True they could probably be called in the same Genre but, first off, the special EFX team that Jackson had was not in the same league as IL&M.

Lucas's IL&M basically wrote the book in shooting blu-screen set's. The last StarWar's , #1, may have had some story telling issue's but the EFX were magical, way above par over TLOTR's. Jackson had two composite scene's when the fellowship was in the mountain's ; They were two short scene's, head shot's, of Aragorn and another, shot on a green screen and later layered in. I was appalled that these scene's would be included in a 100 mil movie. They look no better then the same shot's layered in the movie "Eric the Viking", which was made when ? Maybe 20 years ago when this technology was still reletively new.

And the 3D of the 8 remaining member's leaveing Moria, it was very subpar work for a movie with this kind of budget. So was Lorien. And the shame was the movie DID have some very good work in it.

I think , again, that it was a very unfullfilling piece of work. It had the chance for greatness but was held back by its director "who was probably overwhelmed" and no doubt by the new corporate Moviedom, which is much more interested in profit then in quality.

StarWar's, the first three, didnt have any weak spot's. It was perfectly cast, perfectly acted, perfectly shot, perfectly paced, it was , and will remain, the "classic" of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy action genre, that other's will aspire to match. And StarWar's just got stronger as it kept going, heck I thought the 2nd one was the best of the three. And even #1, the latest, was a better movie then TLOTR's.

I was really let down by this movie..............Onering

[bropous]

Well, I must respectfully disagree.

For me, the Star Wars "quatrilogy" started great and then descended into silliness and ennui. "Return of the Jedi" [a cheap knock-off of "Return of the King", Mr Spielberg] was churlish and oriented to the merchandizing of little furry fighting teddy bears. "The Phantom Menace" was weak in story line, overdone in special effects, and ruined by the despicably irritating presence of CGI star Jar-Jar Binks.

As for the special effects in "Fellowship of the Ring", I thought they were fantastic and appropriate. Not overdone, not overhyped, but appropiate. The scenes of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men were the most stunning I have seen in film. I cannot wait to see the Battle of the Pelennor Fields!

For me, the full magic of this film is not the effects, but the superb acting done by all involved, the incredible level of microdetail in set design and costuming, and the screenwriters' treatment of the masterwork, which, although not 100% true to the original, trainslated the works of the master into an incredible movie experience for efficianado and novice alike.

When the film ended, each of the three times I've seen it since the opening, the audiences were dead silent. Silent, sad, and drained. THAT is the mark of this film's effect for me. The effect it had on a variety of moviegoers around me, and the effect it had on myself. It brought me to tears three times each time, and I don't cry at movies all that much.

Had I never read the books, this film would have had me at Barnes and Nobles that night purchasing all three books. Having read the trilogy twenty-three times so far, it spurred me to start again. Now, it's twenty-four.

Gilthoniel A Elbereth!

[Lelondul]

I have to agree with bropous too. The latest installments of Star Wars have become exercises in special effects, while TFotR movie only used them when absolutely neccessary to convey the grand scale of truly grand events.

One exception to your comments Borpous, the theaters' (in my two viewings) were dead silent, except for a couple of occasions of Merry and Pippin's slapstick lines and when Aragorn beheads Lurtz, in which claps and cheers resounded (also when the end credits roll). I've never seen audience reaction to a movie like this that I can remember. That reaction is what perhaps excited me the most, because like you, had I not read the books, I'd be heading straight for the local bookstore immediately afterwards to read the real thing ...

[fedos]

Hi, I'm a first-time poster here but this is the exact topic I came looking for.

I just saw the movie two days ago and although I can understand the movie making some changes and I thought the movie was pretty good overall, it upset me to no end that Mr Jackson did this with Arwen.

I can understand putting Arwen in the place of Glorfindel and the little lovey-dovey scene as an attempt to introduce who she is to those who don't know. But when she does that 'come and get him" bit and then the chanting to make the ford flood: that is too far. And then she's crying over Frodo! It's like hi, we just met and now I'm gonna mourn for you like you were the most important person in my life.

Also, I just want to remark on what someone said about Bill the lovable donkey. My father pointed out that they didn't even have Bill when they were climbing the mountain. They had same inconsistincy with the ring, first it's on a chain then it's not.

[Billadillo]

One other small addition to my comments about Arwen above...

It occured to me that most people who have never read the book probably think Arwen is great. I mean, look what they had her doing! Not only can she sneak up on Aragorn (the RANGER), she's a better rider than him! She tells off the Nazgul, and then summons the flood to wash them away. Then she cries over Frodo, apparantly brining him back from the brink of death. Pretty impressive, huh?

Well the question that would come to my mind, if I didn't already know the story is...

If she's so impressive, why the heck wouldn't she be chosen as one of the fellowship?

Honestly, if she were to continue acting the part of the female heroine they rewrote her as, I think she would accompany the fellowship regardless. Instead, she instantly becomes the background character Tolkien wrote her as. Totally inconsistant (IMHO)

Anyway, just another small example of how I think the way they expanded her character throws off the balance of the story. It certainly takes alot away from Aragorn, making him look incompetent.

And from what I hear, this will only be reinforced later, when Arwen shows up again to give him his sword. As though he forgot to have it reforged before setting out for Minas Tirith. Poor, hapless Aragorn. Good thing Arwen is there to save his butt. Blah...makes me ill.

[orald]

I liked the movie, as movies go,it was super,but as far as bringing the books to the big screen,Peter Jackson failed,and with Tolkien fans,there is no in between.I thought some of his changes were silly,as if to say,its my movie,and this is the way I want it to go.like the council of Elrond,that was goofy,Elrond should have picked the nine,like in the book,instead of them volunteering,that made it look like Boromir had bad intentions fromthe start.But,I guess the biggest letdown were the Nazgul,they were like keystone cops,dressed in black.why didnt Elrond flood the Ford?would have shown his power,instead of Arwin doing some chant.As I watched the movie,with a room full of strangers,I figured many had not read the books,and felt they might never get to experience the correct story,the way Tolkien wrote it,and that bothered me the most,but yes,as far as movies go,it was a hoot.

[onering]

I may be an old "Tolkien Fan", from the 60's actually, but I had no illusion's that the film would stick "completely" to the book. It appeared to me that Peter Jackson spent 3 hour's trying to figure out "where" and "How" he should stick to the book, as well as "why".

For instance the silly scene in Farmer Maggot's field and Pippin, or was it Merry, makeing the refernce to "The shortcut to mushroom's". This was pretty transperent and completely un-neccessary. He should have left this scene out altogether instead of pasteing a watered down clip in an effort at appeasement to the original dialouge.

Jackson just seemed bewildered over how to make an adaptation. He should have stuck to a true adaptation or gone completely his own way, mudleing in between really caused a lack of cohesion in the scene's. And it added to the complete failure to show "time passage" in Middle Earth, to show the maturation of the character's, and to give the film historic body and feel.

Cause when you read Tolkien you actually get a "historic" feel towards MiddleEarth. Thats what creates an Epic! You dont actually need a great passage of time but what you need is the drama and dialogue that makes you feel the player's matued, grew, and were emotionaly involved in the movie's events.

A classic example is "John Dunbar" in the movie "Dances with Wolves". The movie only cover's, at most, 1 year in his life. But when you look at Dunbar in the beginning, and Dances at the end, you get the feeling he lived and experienced a lifetime of experiences. "Sparticus" is another example, as is "Braveheart".

Now when you think of TFOTR do you get the same feeling ? Are the major player's really changed at the end of the movie ? Have they grown ? NOw! Did they in the book ? Was Frodo the same hobbit when he pushed that Elvish boat away from his companion's as he was when Bilbo left ? Of course not! Over 15 years had passed, he had grown ,matured, and most of all he had born the ring and used it. It was beginning to make him strong and give him sight.

In the movie Frodo was the same teenish, scared, running, sissy, wide-eyed Hobbit at the end as he was at the beginning. Personaly I think Frodo was miscast, and certainly misdirected. In fact, all the hobbit's were! My whole point was the movie just isnt "a good story". Sure NewLines corporate master can buy you enough special EFX to wow you, and spend enough on marketing to brainwash us, but really WAS IT A GOOD STORY?

To me it seemed like to much material shot , to big an editing job to do, and it looked to me like to much pressure to come up with "something" of manageable size,to send to the Theatre's. Jackson should have completely forgotten about the clock and just told a good story ; He should have properly DEVELOPED the character's, most of all showed the passage of time and the maturity of the player's.

Thats why I think he blew it. Not for special EFX and all the razzle dazzle but for the kinds of things that have been "fixable" for the last 80 years. I dont see how he can fix the lack of character developement, let alone the bad casting, in the next two installments.

And really , does he want to ? The movie will make money no matter what he puts on screen. We can only hope that Gandalf will be "reborn" into the real Gandalf and wont drone on as the bedraggled, scared, unsure,weak, and indecisive wizard Jackson thinks he really was....................One

[fedos]

Onering, I think you went into this movie already knowing that you were going to hate it. You had this idea that there was no way the book could be properly translated into a movie short of having every scene and every line included word for word. I'll admit that it wasn't perfect, but it wasn't the disaster you try to portray it.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier: the only major story change that I felt was truly wrong was Arwen at the Ford of Bruinnen. Heck, Liv Tyler is the casting choice I think they got wrong. Elvish magic was not done with words and chanting and for their subtlety to be turned into such a brute force is distasteful.

I don't see what your problem with Gandalf was, he's not some omniscient being. He had been fooled by Saruman and he, as Saruman had said in the film, had the ring right under his nose for decades before he began to suspect what it was.

Here was a man who now had to oversee the destruction of the most evil object in the world. He himself could not take it because he knew that he would be corrupted and with his power he would become as unstopable as Sauron. Noone else would keep the ring for fear of either the same fate or that the forces of Sauron would overtake them.

I think Jackson does care about the movie and not just the big bucks. When watch his interviews you can see the passion that he has for it.