The worst change in FOTR

[Gloer]

It is the part they gave to Arwen.

I do not mind having her come to search for Aragorn and heal Frodo instead of Glorfindel. That's ok.

But I saw the Newsweek trailer!

Arwen saying defiently: "Come and claim him!" with a passed out Frodo on her lap.

And then Gandfal saying defiently: " YOU CAN NOT PASS!"

Ok. We know that Gandalf is fighting Balrog. That is going to be a very grand moment in the movie.

They clearly thought Arwen could have a similar moment. My god it is TOTALLY BAD TASTE!

Ringwrighs are not violent like balrog. They attack your will power. Balrog doesn't really care. So Gandalf can clash with Balrog. Tension is there. But With Ringwrights one either runs for his life or freezes in fear. You can't have ANYONE stand his/her ground against them. Unless they seek to die and thus have nothing to fear.

Besides - It is Frodo's fight.
I hope I can skip over this scene. Arwen portrayal is so disgusting.
And I didn't think it would be so bad. I am not a fanatic.

[Silva]

You're talking about the scene where Frodo slips on the ring and turn invisible and is drawn into thw ringwraithes world, and becomes more visible to them, and they stab him. ? Then he takes the ring off, and Aragorn is able to protect him? At least thats the way it happens in the book.

Oh no! This is horrible, ghastly, how could they ruin it this way?

I've not seen any trailers yet, cant get them working, I have a free disk with trailers on, going to watch them later. If I can get them to actually work.

Oh well at least I've seen some of the still shots, and they look stunning, espeicially Rivendell, and the Swan boats. I want a full size swan boat for christmas, anyone wanna make me one?

[Wayfarer]

No kidding...

I always though that part was well done in the book, fordo atytmpts to put up a fight, and basically gets wasted. It shows you how dangerous the nazgul are.

[Gloer]

Originally posted by Silva
You're talking about the scene where Frodo slips on the ring and turn invisible and is drawn into thw ringwraithes world, and becomes more visible to them, and they stab him. ? Then he takes the ring off, and Aragorn is able to protect him? At least thats the way it happens in the book.

Nope. I think that happened at the Weathertop.
I am talking about the Fords where Frodo alone attempts to reach them before the nazgul. The Nazgul make him freeze in fear so they can catch him. Frodo tries to battle the fear showing that he has more will power than shows on top. But he fails and can't get going. Then The nazgul advance across the fords to take Frodo. But Elrond and Gandalf use the power of their elven rings to call the river to rise and they flood the nazgul away before they can reach other side. Frodo is saved.

No Arwen. No fearless confrontation. Instead gallant failure to conquer and control fear.

[Wayfarer]

exactly. Much better done in the book.

[Silva]

At this rate they'll be leaving out all the good scenes from the book, I mean doesn't this change Frodos entire character? Cos much of the book is about Frodos struggle with the power of the ring, and his strenght of will in not fully succumbing.

*sigh* No Tom Bombadill and now this. *sob*

Just so they can have more scenes with women in, like who cares?

[fireworks19]

I'm the one who wondered about Tolkien being sexist, but I'm more upset about them changing the story than giving more rights to females.

I don't think anyone wanted an 'adaptation.' I'd rather have a four-hour near exact performance of the books, with everything included. Because you know, everything is important to the magic of the story!!

[Darth Tater]

I think I'm gonna flip if I here one more supposedly intelligent person say that! Just look at Harry Potter! It follows the events of the book almost exactly, but leaves most of the magic behind! Film is a totally different medium. Stories are told in books in a way that can't always be adapted visually. People aren't willing to sit through hours and hours of dialogue, which is what a direct adaption of the Council of Elrond would be. Including Bombadil in the journey from the Shire to Rivendell would make the opening of the film so slow that people would be walking out of the theater! Without a little Arwen in the first movie no one would know who it was Aragorn was marrying in ROTK! Think for just a minute people! If the movie captures the magic of the book I'll be happy, I don't want to see the events exactly as they are in the book, what would be the point of watching the film then?

[IronParrot]

What Tater said. I would have used the same example of Harry Potter.

What works on paper does not necessarily work on celluloid. That's your lesson for today.

It's been said that LOTR is being done from the perspective of a historical epic, with Tolkien's books regarded as historical records. Let's look at two other famous historical films:

- The Sound of Music significantly reduced the years between Maria's arrival at the Von Trapp household and the Anschluss down to what appears to be less than a year. Anyone who's seen the movie would know that this was the only way the pacing could remain consistent.

- Braveheart's most famous scene, the open-field Battle of Stirling, was historically the Battle of Stirling Bridge. In the movie hey changed the locale and took out the bridge entirely, but nobody cared because the scene was spectacular.

As I said on the other thread, true faith to the source material lies in faith to the mood, tone, and themes. Not the details.

Several versions of The Wizard of Oz have been made. How come the only one people remember is the 1939 version, which cut out the entire second half of the book? Because it actually took a step forward in the art of cinema.

If what advance word says is true, Peter Jackson has gone beyond merely retelling the story, and just making a film of LOTR. He has made a film based on LOTR that he has tried to make as the best film possible.

Go to the movie and see it as a movie. Don't pick on the modifications of the interpretation.

[Ñólendil]

Well said!

Perhaps we should have an Admins vs. The Moot Sudden Death Match, the Evil Potato, the Silver Feathered One and the Know-Ledge No-Game Niggler take on the Perfect Purists of Piety. We could sell tickets for that!

[Bacchus]

Hear Hear, Darth!
For some reason I didn't see the two posts after Darth's when I first posted this. You folks are making the same arguments that I have been making on another board for months. Glad to know that I'm not the only one with a rabid love for the books who has the intellectual honesty to realize that they have to be changed in the translation.

I'm not an admin, but I'm firmly in your camp on this issue. Here comes an elbow drop from the third rope for the folks who have their panties in a wad without having even seen the movie yet

[Gloer]

wow!

There are actually people here who think P.J. is making this particular change because it is needed to introduce Arwen to the story!

1. It will introduce a violent character that does not exist in the books. Arwen is a real feminine princess that is scared of ghosts and needs a man to protect her (Elrond her father or Aragorn the future king)
2. Showing the original scene with Frodo alone fighting the fear was brilliantly shown in the Bakhsi animation. It takes probably less time on screen too.
3. Introducing Arwen could have been left for the Rivendell since they save time by showing in real time a lot what what is told in the council. No argument against that. And there are moments in during TT and ROTK where Aragorn clearly thinks about Arwen - they could show where his mind is dwelling instead of physical presence.

Let's face it: Peter Jackson made a bad choice. He thought it is easier this way. And it is, but it also shows he is pretty lazy director.

[Darth Tater]

This move is anything but lazy! It's daring, it's brave, it's a new look at LOTR, it's getting rid of a somewhat unnecesary character (who's great in the book but isn't part of the overall picture) and replacing them with a character who actually matters in the plot of the story! I'm not sure it'll work, but I'm not gonna condemn this move before I've even seen the film!!!

[Gloer]

Tater, I can not agree with you.

I can read between the lines of your messages that you wish so much that this movie is good that you deny facts. You want to seeeverything as rosy.

The fact is that there is nothing very strong to back the decision to change the personality of Arwen to show her more in the movie. Instead they lose the character all together. The Arwen from Tolkien's world is not in the movie.

They should have invented new scene's from the tale of Aragorn and Arwen that is in the Appendix of LOTR. Those scene's could have been added as thoughts or momories of Aragorn. It wouldn't have been easy. But at least Arwen would have been in the movie.

Cutting Tom Bombadil out is ok with me. He is more or less a figure that binds LOTR to larger context of Tolkiens world. So he is not so much part of the story. Glorfindel is also removed, but then I read The Silmarillion again just two days ago and Glorfindel actually died already in that book. I wonder if this a different guy or just a mistake in names or editing of the Sil. Maybe he survived there.

Anyhow. I am so sorry for the majority of the women out there that are actuaaly scared of icky things and rather have their men deal with them. Big HURREY for all the real feminine women who give their heros a break!

[sracer]

I find it amusing that people are judging the films based on the trailers that they've seen. It is quite possible, and not without precedent, that some scenes may be in the trailer but NOT in the final film.

I find it even more amusing that people who have seen only a few minutes of trailers suddenly become armchair directors and know what is best for the pacing of the film...without having seen the film.

The quality of this film is not going to hinge on any one scene..or how accurately the scene in the film depicts the respective scene in the book.

People are up in arms about the omission of Bombadil. It was a wise decision, IMO. Having him appear for a few minutes of screen time, never to reappear, would simply confuse the audience... they'd scratch their head and wonder WTF was he? What does he have to do with the story?

PJ could've done a scene-by-scene translation of the books and people would still find something to complain about.

I get the impression that some folks think it makes them more "discerning", more elitist, more intelligent, more of a fan, to find flaws in the films.

I, myself, will reserve judgement until I've seen the film...a couple of times. But hey, it's all just my opinion.

[mirrille]

I agree with sracer. There's no point really dicussing this level of detail before we've even seen the movie. Rumours and trailers don't really tell enough for us to make informed arguments defending or opposing decisions about how to best adapt the book because we haven't seen those decisions within the film as a whole.

If we see the movie and we like it in spite of whatever changes have been made because the movie retains the flavour and feeling and magic, then everyone can breathe a sigh of relief and enjoy the show. If we see the movie and find that there is some reason to be upset (Favourite character/line omitted, extraneous love scenes badly done, some person's eyes the wrong colour, character development severely off - anything could happen and people are looking for different things in a movie, after all) then see if we can still enjoy the show as a whole. If it's so bad that it ruins the movie for you (and it's happened to me for certain film adaptations, so I'm not dismissing the sentiments of anyone who will be upset), THEN you can choke on your popcorn, not before.
But I hope everyone enjoys the movie.

[Silva]

Arghhhh!!! what is this a campaign against Tom Bombadill???!!! How can you all say such things?

Just you wiat till I have time to respond properly, thats all I can say, In the meantime join my Tom Bombadill for president campaign :P

[Ñólendil]

Darth, I actually think Tom could have been kept in. He is important to the plot, Tolkien at least thought so. He is also a part of the overall picture, and is an important element in that way. By cutting out Tom Jackson has had to reshape the story and do a lot of other cutting, too. But still, I agree it really does not matter one way or another. PJ is adapting the book, and it's about his vision of an adapted vision. This is dramatic art folks, this is a movie. Art cannot be inaccurate, it is art. Inaccuracy has the same validity to art as falsehood. It's like calling the movie 'fake' because it's not really happening. It is a movie, and there's two logical options to my mind: don't see it, or judge it for what it is; a movie.

The movie(s) are supposed to be frightening, in fact terrifying, a bit humourous at times, entertaining and enchanting. It is based on the heroic romance of J. R. R. Tolkien and is supposed to be faithful to the mood, tone, and themes, as IronParrot said. It is not supposed to be a page-by-page made scene-by-scene representation, and so PJ cannot have failed in that respect.

[Darth Tater]

Gloer, anyone who knows me can tell you I'm a pessemist of the worst kind. However, I'm not gonna judge this film before I see it, that's just plain stupid.

[sracer]

Originally posted by Inoldonil
Darth, I actually think Tom could have been kept in. He is important to the plot, Tolkien at least thought so. He is also a part of the overall picture, and is an important element in that way.

Exactly how is Bombadil so important to the plot? One of the things that makes Tolkien's works so rich and lifelike is that he fleshed out Middle Earth beyond what was necessary to tell the story. That meant providing unimportant people and details. That is where the depth comes from. Bombadil, like Radagast, and a host of others are "backdrop" characters, to give readers a sense of the wonders of Middle Earth. Just because Tolkien mentions a character doesn't make it an integral part of the story. LOTR is far too multidimensional to intepret all characters as being important. There's a lot of peripheral to consider.

It is no different in landscape painting. Objects far in the distance are vague, not well defined... mysterious in a way. Whereas objects up close are richer, fine details are visible.