The worst change in FOTR

[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.

[Walguy]

Hi, I'm new here. Wanted to find a Tolkien board to read and write opinions about the new movie, so I did a search, looked at many places, eventually came back to this one, read some more, decided it was the best board to post on, registered, and to make a long story short...well, I guess it's too late for that, isn't it.
Anyway, here I am, with my own humble views of the movie.
Just to weigh in the the Arwen issue, I have no problem with the expanded role, but the scene at the ford was atrocious.
Other problems:
1) Unnecessary or unnecessarily protracted fight scenes (Gandalf vs Saruman [who the heck dreamed THAT up???], Fellowship vs cave troll, Fellowship vs orcs). If time was so precious (pardon the word) that they had to cut so many things out, why did they turn around and waste so much of it on this stuff?
2) The screwed-up timing between Gandalf and the hobbits as the latter try to reach Rivendell. Gandalf is supposed to beat the hobbits to Weathertop by three days and leave a message. Perhaps a minor point in the grand scheme of things, but it bugged me.
3) Gwaihir the Windlord being summoned by a MOTH! Renderest thou unto me a flippin' break!
4) The way Frodo was propelled into some sort of alternate universe while wearing the ring. According to the book his vision is dimmed a bit and his hearing sharpened, but it's still the same world and he is still able to function normally. This is not at all what the movie portrayed with Frodo. Strange that Bilbo didn't seem to be affected that way when he used the ring early on.
5) There are others I could list, but I'll conclude with my absolute biggest complaint, namely that PJ and company destroyed one of my favorite moments in the entire trilogy, the moment at the council of Elrond when Frodo announces that he will bear the ring to Mordor. In the book, everyone is talked out and just kind of looking around and wondering what to do. To wit:
"No one answered. The noon-bell rang. Still no one spoke. Frodo glanced at all the faces, but they were not turned to him. All the council sat with downcast eyes, as if in deep thought. A great dread fell upon him, as if he was awaiting the pronouncement of some doom that he had long foreseen and vainly hoped might after all never be spoken. An overwhelming longing to rest and remain at peace by Bilbo's side in Rivendell filled all his heart. At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.
'I will take the ring,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'"
The inner struggle of Frodo is one of the central themes of the story, and in no moment is it more touching and more gut-wrenching than this one. Frodo knew deep down that he was the one to bear the ring, but he knew that consenting to do so would be dooming himself to unimaginable horrors. In silence, alone with his thoughts, he struggles against the urge to do the easy thing and stay with Bilbo, and the brief struggle is so intense that when his courage finally wins out, his voice knows it before he does. When I was reading LOTR for the first time, it was this moment that at last totally linked me to Frodo emotionally, and set the tone in my mind and heart for everything that followed after. Every other time I've read the trilogy I've still been deeply moved by this moment.
In the movie, Frodo announces that he will take the ring in an effort to stop a battle royal going on between the other characters. The whole essence of what the moment was intended to be was utterly destroyed. I was devastated that they couldn't bring themselves to even let that one blasted moment happen like it was supposed to.
On the whole, as a stand-alone movie it wasn't too bad, but as an adaptation of the book I thought it pretty much stunk up the joint.
Well, that's what I think. What do you think about what I think about what you think about...eh, well, you get the idea.

[onering]

Fedos I think I said quite plainly what expectation's I had from the movie before I went to see it. What I didnt have was the 100 mil. dollars of "Time-Warner mindscrew" danceing thru my head TELLING me that it was going to be "The greatest movie ever", before I even saw it.

And please read your Tolkien. Gandalf was an extrememly powerful being, much, much more so then a man or even an Elf Lord. Gandalf was even killed and reborn in TTT. Gandalf always had misgiving and suspicion's about the ring ever since he learned that Bilbo found it. He just never told Saruman it. Just cause Peter Jackson's Saruman told Gandalf "you had the ring under your nose for years and never knew it", doesnt mean thats how it actually happened.

As it states in the book's "there are MANY MAGIC RINGS"

THE SHADOW OF THE PAST......."In Eregion long ago many Elvan rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds:some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essay's of the craft before it was full grown, and to the Elvan smith's they were but trifles-yet still to my mind dangerous for mortal's. But the great rings, the rings of power, they were perilous".

And Gandalf was perilous as well, as was Galadriel "who bore Nenya", as was Elrond "who bore Vilya". Besides, in reality, Gandalf had set a watch on the Shire, useing Ranger's, over 18 years before Frodo set out for Rivendale. Gandalf KNEW that the ring was a dangerous one , but , at the last of the White Council's, in Shire year 2953, Saruman said he discovered that the" One Ring had passed down Anduin into the sea".

Saruman was the leader of The White Council, he WAS the Ring expert. But still Gandalf was smart enough not to tell him about Bilbo's ring, "That was another of Jackson's scourgeing of both Gandalf and Tolkien". And not only, in reality, did Gandalf NEVER actually tell Saruman about the ring but he was ensnared, by Saruman, when another wizard "Radgast the Brown" was sent to give Gandalf an urgent summon's from Saruman.

You see, in reality, which I call the book's, Gandalf never told ANYBODY about the ring. Until that faitfull day in the Shire in chapter 2, The Sahdow of The Past". The REAL Gandalf was a much tougher, smarter, more powerful, and better dressed wizard then Jackson's beaten old man. In fact it is implied in "The Grey Haven's" that Gandaf always wore the 3rd great Elvish ring "Narya the Great": tho he only wore it openly as they were taking ship in The Grey Haven's.

Ive always thought that it was because he bore "Narya the Great" that he survived, and/or was reborn, the fall with the Balrog in Moria.

Think what you'd like, its a free country. But please dont confuse this movie with Tolkien..................Onering

[fedos]

OK, I just read the part of The Rings of Power in The Silmarillion that concerns Gandalf realizing the Ring's true nature. I'll concede that he did not tell anyone his thoughts on the matter. Also, it doesn't say exactly when he first suspected it; other than that it was after the Council had forced the Shadow from Dol Guldur.

My misunderstanding that Gandalf had told the White Council about the Ring was entirely from the book.

I think it was through divine intervention that Gandalf was "reborn" - note that Tolkien does not use this word: "Naked I was sent back - for a brief time, until my task is done." I interpert that has him being sent back by Iluvatar or by the Valar.

[orald]

I agree Walguy 100% with you, about the secret council of Elrond.That meeting showed all the readers ,just how important the quest actually was,instead of the movie's version of a drunken barfight,while Elrond, seemingly helpless,looked on.If only P.Jackson,had let Elrond choose the nine,that would have helped somewhat,since he took away Elrond's stamp on power,by flooding the Ford,and giving it to a,chanting Miss Tyler.but some things in the movie,exceeded past my own imagination,and for that reason,I liked the movie,and one of those instances being,when ever Bilbo,or Frodo slipped on the ring.

[bropous]

Oh, Holy Hannah. Some folks just won't be happy with anything.

I am getting a little tired of the purist rant that the film is a travesty and a mockery of the books. Peter Jackson did as fine a job as was possible bringing the flavor and texture of the books to the screen. The man was fighting a tough battle and attempting to strike a difficult balance: He was trying to please the VERY few total jerks of Tolkien fandom who set out to be displeased no matter what, trying to introduce an extremely complex and arcane plot to an audience of uninitiates, and trying to please his bosses at the studios. YOU try walking that fine line, Mr. Purist out there. YOU try to please those who refuse to be pleased.

No, the film is not a verbatim regurgitation of the books. Liberties have been taken with the story line, some MINOR characters were blended, some lines were given to other times and other characters. However, in my humble hobbitish opinion, the old saying holds true: "You can please some of the people all of the all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time."

However, I would add another line: "Tolkien himself could never please the hard-nosed fan who thinks he wrote the books himself and owns the copyright."

I love the books as much as the next Tolkien geek, okay? Twenty-four times through the trilogy and counting, and I LOVED this film! I think it is the greatest piece of filmmaking ever done. That is my opinion, changes to the masterwork or no. I have seen it three times already, and each time it affects me more deeply. No, this is not Star Wars, folks, it is not a special effects extravaganza, nor is it Harry Potter. It is a serious adaptation of an incredibly and deeply baroque masterwork. It is an invitation to the rest of the world to join us, the myrmidons of Tolkien worship, in his wonderfully detailed world.

Five million sales of the books this year and counting, my fellow travellers of Tolkien's world, five million and counting. A tenfold increase over last year's sales alone. Predictably, seven million plus sales next year. And why?

Because it tells every nuance of the books? Because it depicts every character, down to the insignificant Bill Ferny in every detail, because it quotes every line from the books? No, my friends. It is because it is a masterwork of RETELLING the story, covering an incredible amount of material in three hours. Because it is a masterwork of bringing the flavor, the texture of the rich tapestry of the Master's world to the screen. It is not a rewoven carpet, in exact duplication of the masterpiece.

I have to agree with my fellow hobbit: Some of you guys went into the theaters with the intention of getting your skirts in a twist at ANY variation from the original. And just how, may I ask, could Mr. Jackson pleased those who refuse to be pleased?

Again, I assert: Tolkien himself could not have pleased some of the folks who have railed against this movie.

I do apologize to you my friends if I seem a bit shrill at this point. I am just tired of the rant. Get over it. Peter Jackson, not YOU, had the job of weaving this piece of film history. I am so sorry Mr. Jackson did not contact each and every one of you personally to get your approval, without which, apparently, all his labours and care and love for the masterwork was for naught.

I, for one, love this film, as much as I love the books. I would hope a few of the more staunch "purists" would take a second look at the job that faced Mr. Jackson. I, for one, see him as a hero.

[fedos]

Thank you, bropous.

[onering]

Broupus I didnt get past your first paragraph, which showed your ignorance quite plainly enough. I didnt wish to read further. I would , however, be quite content to read another's view's without calling them a "jerk" of some kind. Apparently you havnt grown to adulthood yet and are incapable of haveing a mature conversation.

Well I have an idea for you to chew over, and I'll say it very slowly................Peter Jackson made this movie to make money..............understand ? Time-Warner bought NewLine to make money ; They fiananced this movie to make money ; They OK'd the final cut to make money ; They marketed the movie to make money.

So before you elevate P. Jackson to a Godlike-21'st century-hobbit figurehead you might want to digest that one a bit. He didnt make this movie to feed the worlds children, he didnt do it to make the world a better place, he didnt even do it to Honor JRR Tolkien. He did it to make money!!!!!

And when you make a movie, as an adaptation from a book, then I'd say you have to accept any criticism's about the adaptation. I realize thats a theory a child might have trouble grasping but people arent "jerk's" in this country for stateing their opinion's. Even you arent a "jerk" for your infantile blubbering's.

I wouldnt even call someone a jerk who thought TFOTR was "the greatest movie ever". I might call them a person "who is easily manipulated/brainwashed by 21'st century movie marketing technique's" but I wouldnt call them a jerk.

I wouldnt have the audacity to say why another went to see the movie either ; Im conternt to take them at their word. Dont get me wrong, I think its a fine thing to see you, and others, attack any criticism's you hear about the movie. God know's Time-Warner spent enough money to get you to think like that.

And I'd hate to see them not get their money's worth.....................One

[bropous]

Onering, my friend, to paraphrase Frank Herbert, "I hold up a garment of general cut and you claim it is tailored to your fit?"

I respectfully disagree, and apologize if you feel my words were directed straight at you. They were not.

As I stated, I was speaking of the VERY few jerks, of which I had not felt you were one. I felt you had made some good points in previous posts, and am more than willing to let your more ascerbic comments slide as a result of miscommunication, which was not my intent.

I disagree wholeheartedly that Mr. Jackson's intent was solely making money. Had it been so, I believe we would have ended up with just another Ralph Bakshi cartoon. This film is one of depth of imagination and great detail. Mr. Jackson did a fantastic job of, as previously stated, balancing the desires of the die-hard Tolkien fan and intriguing those who never cracked the spine on one of the books. I'm sorry we do not see eye-to-eye, but I feel your slant on his motivations might be a tad jaded. I can certainly understand.

We are in an age of commercialism, and of people in whose hearts only the almighty dollar reigns supreme. So many of these types are out there in Hollywoodland that some may feel that ALL are motivated only by this. I feel Mr. Jackson, in his work on this and the other two movies, is not one of those types.

We have here a work of tremendous depth and clarity. It is a work of love for the original, and it is, in this humble hobbit's opinion, a work dedicated to the masterworks of the Master himself.

We must agree to disagree here without resorting ot the disagreeable. Again, my apologies if you felt my comments were directed at you; the juxtaposition of my posting right after yours may have led to this misunderstanding. Please know I was attempting to refute something said by others, not something said by you.

Best of luck to you and I look forward to reading your comments in future. Hopefully you will accept this honestly extended hand of friendship in the spirit in which it is offered.

[orald]

Bropous;I agree with you it is a great film,but not a very good translation of the books.every change P.Jackson made,could have been left in.I do feel his heart was in the right place,but I get the sense he was overwhelmed.You ,and I are not fellow travelers,since you feel he didnt make the film about the insignificant "Bill the pony",and shouldn't have.The subtlety of seemingy unimportant creatures,was one of the great things about the trilogy.So did Tolkien himself,why else would he put in Tom bombadil?and yes,to one of your earlier statements,Tolkien himself could have pleased me,but his gift was in the pen.and if you did seem a bit shrill,it was because you wanted to.Which is grand,but to call Tolkien purists"JERKS"I again travel a different road than you.I am not a purist,I'll say it again,I liked the movie a great deal,but I feel,as does Chris Tolkien that it left important things out.By the way,the only reason anyone could have made this picture,is because J.R.R. Tolkien sold the movie rights many years ago,since the books weren't selling very well,and he wanted cash.but his heart was always in the right place,and he didn't overwhelm himself,in the process.

[Walguy]

I'm getting a little weary of the repeated statements in this thread implying that anyone who didn't like the movie went into the theater wanting to not like it. That is manifestly untrue in regards to me, and I'm sure to most other critics of the film.
I actually went to see this movie hoping very much that I WOULD like it. I had heard of some of the inconsistencies and omissions beforehand, but I truly believed that the movie could still be faithful enough to satisfy me. By the time it was over, I was completely satisfied that there had never been any intention on the part of PJ or anyone else connected with the project to do anything resembling a faithful translation of the book to a movie. If I had to sum up all my gripes into one sentence, I guess it would be this: They took a deeply emotional and thought-provoking fantasy book, and turned it into a pretty conventional action-adventure movie that happens to be set in Middle-earth. Most of the characters in the movie were caricatures of their counterparts in the novel. Two of the most interesting characters, Merry and Pippin, were not only hardly developed at all, but were portrayed as if they were twins, rather than the two distinct and fascinating (and significantly age different) personalities they actually are. And what was so much good stuff from the novel sacrificed for? For things like that asinine wizard fight scene.
And for those who rationalize away all the problems with this movie by saying that there has to be a fair amount of simplification and editing, let me just ask one question: How hard would it have been to have Sam refer to his master as MR. Frodo?? Sam saw himself as Frodo's humble servant, and in the book ALWAYS refered to him as 'Mr.' This attitude provided a wonderful contrast later when Sam emerged as a full-fledged hero in his own right, to his own surprise. Most of the time in the movie, Sam simply says 'Frodo.' This helps take all the depth away from the character, and makes him just another generic hobbit. It would have required no more time and very little effort to portray Sam correctly. They didn't do it that way because they didn't really care whether the movie was faithful to the book. There's no other explanation that can account for the huge number of completely unnecessary changes that were made.
As I said in my earlier post, on its own merits it's not a bad movie, particularly if you like action-adventure. As an adaptation of one of the world's great works of literature, however, it's like something Wormtongue would have come up with.

[drago11]

Hi everyone

First off i'd like to say sorry for posting my rant on a separate thread ('Time bandits meets Catweazle (ffs)'). Didn't look properly at existing threads...

So...

If they had just 1 scene that had some of the magic of the book it would have been redeemed, but every single scene in the movie omitted/changed a key element. Sure it kept the overall plot but at what cost.

Reading these postings has had me thinking about the term 'commercialism' and what it means. With a book like LOTR with an excellent plot, characterisations and pace it is easy to make an adaption into a commercially succesful film by simply lifting out the major pieces of plot and shading out the rest.This, i feel, is what has happened.

Fine point about Sam not addressing Frodo as 'Mr' - it is indicative of the approach to the film. i think we will see the director shying away from any feudal references to master servant as he thinks it will offend the sensibilities of a modern audience. Same with Arwen.


* * *

'Never give a sword to a man who cant dance' - Celtic proverb

[Billadillo]

Like Walguy, I went into this movie hoping very much to like it. In the end, I have to say my reaction was a mixed one.

I think the movie is very good...but it could have been better. I agree that the addition of small things like "Mr. Frodo" would have helped. Actually, there were countless small bits of dialog and imagery that I had hoped to see, and many of them weren't there.

But honestly, missing some of the little things didn't taint my enjoyment of the film. It's totally unreasonable to think that you can take any book and make it into a movie without having to make some small adjustments. In the words of Tolkien himself (from the intro the audio book FOTR)

"it is perhaps not possible in a long story to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at the same points"

Tolkien said this in response to the critics of the original work. IMO, a similar principle applies to the movie adaptation.

So that being said, I was willing to let many minor inconsistancies slide by. My great hope was that though the movie would omit some things, and slightly change others, it would stay true to the story.

This is where the mixed emotions come it. I feel the movie did that...with one glaring exception. Of course I'm talking about Arwen again.

I know many people have defended her, but I'm sorry, the new role they wrote for her just throws off too many important development points.

- She weakens Aragorn's character (ie: sneaking up on him, outriding him, & generally making it look like he wouldn't have been capable of handling things if she hadn't shown up)

- She weakens Frodo's character. As has been mentioned before, one of the main themes of the trilogy is his struggle not to succumb to the dark power of the ring. His attempted defiance at the ford is invaluable in showing that.

- She weakens Elrond's character by robbing of the summoning of the flood. This leaves Elrond looking like an insignificant (and grouchy) half-elf.

- She weakens the Ringwraiths characters. How tough and intimidating do they look when one princess can stare them down and then wash them away with just a little chanting?

Not only that, by rewriting her character, they created someone who it totally inconsistent with the story. If she was really as bad-a$$ as they made her out to be, don't you think she'd have been a great choice for the fellowship? At least she would have better things to do than wait around Rivendell for Aragorn to return.

More than anything else, the twisting of Arwen's character bothers me because I think it was motivated by Hollywood star-power/sex appeal.

Anyway, I know I'm ranting about Arwen yet again...but really, if it were not for her, I would have been willing to overlook all the other small things.

Still a good movie though. I'd give it 3.5/5 stars.

[fedos]

Walguy, my comment about not waiting to see the movie before deciding it was horrible was not directed at all those who didn't like the movie. I said it because I was being told that because I did like the movie that I had been brainwashed by Hollywood's marketing folks. Now that's just plain insulting.

Out of fairness, I'll say I had no open mind about Arwen before going into this movie. The second I saw Liv Tyler's name listed as a cast member, I knew I wasn't going to like her. Of course, the scene turned out worse than I expected; and, from what has been said about the future films, her role will only get worse.

[bropous]

Good points, all, and grist for the thinking-mill.

Just a minor pooint: In no way did I mean to infer that ANYONE who disliked the movie was a "purist jerk". Actually, with all the misunderstandings generated, I wish I had rephrased that, and especially had found a better word than "jerk". In no way am I even a pale shadow of Tolkien the wordsmith.

I assert again I loved the film, and though it did have many shortcomings, it is the best film I've ever seen. And, just as "all that glitters is not gold", all who disliked the film are NOT "purist jerks". Many apologies to those who took offense to my poorly chosen words. In my zeal to defend Mr. Jackson's labours I ended up being offensive and, admittedly, shrill.

I still feel this film was a good thing, and though Christopher himself did not like it, and he is an expert above all others as to his father's works, I still feel old John Roald Ruel would have smiled behind his pipe. At least once or twice.