The worst change in FOTR

[Darth Tater]

Exactly (though I don't understand that painting thing ). Bombadil's just about as important as the curious fox.

[Captain Stern]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is quite possible, and not without precedent, that some scenes may be in the trailer but NOT in the final film.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh my god could such a thing actualy happen with the Arwen fiasco? I'm crossing my fingers It would be one hell of a joke P.J's pulled on us all.


Gloer is a wise man, I think he's hit the nail on the head in relation to Arwen's expanded role.

[samwise of the shire]

Actually I think that PJ is following the book VERY closely from what I've read there's only a few minor changes and only acouple of bigger changes but other than that the movies follow the books plot purdy close.
I dont think we should worry about Tom Bombadil and Arwen, every movie has it's not-so-well-done part, but like any really well done movie the dumb parts blend RIGHT on in with the plot and you forget about them because it's such an exellent movie.
Sam

[IronParrot]

I now return with my amateur film critic's perspective:

This is not a film of The Lord of the Rings.

This is a film based on - or, "inspired by" - The Lord of the Rings.

LOTR was, in essence, Tolkien's "translation" of the Red Book of Westmarch, a historical chronicle of the War of the Ring and the events leading up to it. The movie is the Peter Jackson interpretation of that "historical" source. It's been like that from the beginning. Lawrence of Arabia was based on Lawrence's The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, but it was not solely an adaptation of Lawrence's reflections on his exploits; it was primarily the David Lean interpretation of the character and the Turkish front of the First World War.

Arguing that Arwen in the film is not Arwen in the books is really irrelevant, because they are two different interpretations of the same character.

I do not want LOTR to be another Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone of a film - that is, a film that despite its faithful production values and spectacular visuals, is utterly and blindly enslaved by the source material, pandering only to the fans of the novel (not entirely successfully either) instead of trying to be a real stand-alone movie on its own right.

I do want Peter Jackson's film, The Lord of the Rings, to be a significant achievement in cinema.

It is utterly unfair to judge a film's quality by the adaptation, because that says nothing about how it uses the medium of cinema to tell a story.

Ideally, films should be criticized based on their strengths. It's unfair to criticize romantic comedies for not having spectacular special effects. It's unfair to criticize trashy teen films for lacking in philosophical applicability and depth. It's unfair to criticize serious gangster flicks for not being funny enough.

The purpose of the LOTR movie was never to be an exact re-creation of the books. Rightly so, I would add.

As for leaving out certain elements. Well just look at Howard Hawks' The Big Sleep starring Humphrey Bogart, based on the Raymond Chandler novel. Why is it, alongside The Maltese Falcon, considered one of the definitive private eye films? Because it maintained all the crucial plot elements, characterizations and leitmotifs. Now, mysteries such as Chandler's are written with a degree of complexity that are so meticulously put together like a house of cards, removing one clue leaves a plot hole. It's a matter of being able to patch up these holes by taking liberties to seal them up again. (Not done in Harry Potter, particularly in Dumbledore's talk with Harry in the denouement.)

In The Big Sleep, famous for being originally filmed very faithfully to the book in 1945, but released in a significantly revised form in 1946, the 1946 version removed apparently "indispensible" scenes such as the visit to the District Attorney, and Vivian Regan's first visit to Marlowe's office. It even added a completely new scene involving Vivian and Marlowe talking dirty about horse racing in a restaurant, now considered possibly the most memorable scene in the film. Liberties were taken. But the same people were still murdered by the same people. The same people were still dehumanized or permanently affected by the unfolding events. The arrangement of clues and developments was edited together differently, yet the result was that the film worked far better as a film.

So stop complaining about Arwen. Stop complaining about Tom's omission. And come TT, stop complaining about how the film will be edited together sequentially, despite sacrificing the dramatic irony of Tolkien's backwards narrative (one of the most striking features of the novel). Why don't you just go and see the film first.

Omissions and alterations are absolutely and undeniably necessary when adapting prose to film. Prose has far greater freedom; it can use words to describe thoughts, feelings, and emotions. It has freedom of pacing in that time can suddenly advance through simply using a paragraph break, or a paragraph inserted anywhere can describe a bit of a character's background.

You don't have this freedom in film. You can't just tack on an Appendix A about Aragorn and Arwen at the end of the film of ROTK. It doesn't work that way. And you can't place it before, either, because then there's no focus. You have to work it in edgewise. Come on, at least Arwen is only at the Ford, and not at, say, Moria. Big deal. You can't suddenly zoom around with an "X years later" caption every twenty minutes (for a lesson on why this doesn't work, see Bicentennial Man). And flashbacks only work well if they are edited into the narrative of the film without being too distracting - even Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon almost fell into that trap, but not quite.

This is not about appeasement of the Tolkien fans. This is about making a great movie. A great movie that can hopefully exist as an independent entity as a significant achievement in film, just like other not-entirely-faithful adaptations of books such as Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, The Maltese Falcon, The Sound of Music, The Godfather, Murder on the Orient Express, Fiddler on the Roof, Jurassic Park, and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

You might as well complain that Ben-Hur interpreted Jesus of Nazareth differently than you envisioned. Or The Ten Commandments and Moses. At an extreme, you might as well complain that O Brother, Where Art Thou? isn't faithful to Homer's Odyssey.

There's a reason why I think West Side Story is by far and wide infinitely superior to every "faithful" adaptation of Romeo and Juliet in existence. Free drinks for the first person who figures out why.

[potyondi]

I would say that the point you're missing is that many casual movie-goers will see FoTR and believe it to be equivalent to the book itself, instead of merely an adaptation.

Despite your learned perspective, I'm willing to bet that when the non-fans get around to seeing the movies as a matter of interest, they won't read the books afterward and will have only PJ's interpretation.

I think my biggest fear is having someone who is reading the books after seeing the movies come up to me and say "That didn't happen in the movie!"

[fireworks19]

There have been things done in the past that take away from the story of movies based on books, IMO, that is.

Take the Shining. I just watched the Jack Nicholson(sp) version.

The directers or whoever left out some of the parts that I thought were most interesting, like the visions of people in the other hotel rooms and the hedge animals. I can understand the hedge animals, maybe. I can't remember exactly how long ago that one came out, but it was decently long enough ago that they may not have been able to make them move. But little things like that sometimes make the story seem more real. In the book, they focus on all the little things that Jack did when he was drinking and how they are picked up again. The scrapbook in the basement. The boiler. Really interesting things, IMO, and they're just left out. There's more before hotel and after hotel stuff in the book, and all that's gone. Those things make the characters seem more real.

Plus, the girl that played Wendy did NOT do a very good job. She looked like she was trippng acid or something.
(I know, I just threw any attempts at sounding intelligent out the window.)

Basically, what I'm getting at is that some things have to be included to make the characters seem more real. And I personally don't like it if they expand roles just to appease people. A story is a story and it should be taken as originally told. There's no reason to change it, unless its just leaving stuff out. Dont add to it....

[Darth Tater]

Very well said IP.

Fireworks, I really don't think they added Arwen in to make the femenists happy. I'm sure they did it to make the story work. I've never read or seen The Shining, but what you're talking about is probably applicable to many other films and books. The two mediums are different. In a book departure from the plot works much better then a movie, since books are usually longer and one can break their attention away, whereas you usually watch a film in one sitting.

Oh and IP, there are a number of versions why West Side Story is better then the original (Romeo and Juliet is a decent play at best, IMO, definately Shakespeares worst work.) I think the major reasons are that the conflict between the two families (or gangs, or racial groups) is much more believable in WSS, and also that the romance works better, and feels more strained, not to mention the girl's (gah can't remember her name) speech at the end which can't exist in Romeo and Juliet because she's dead.

[webwizard333]

I an understand Arwen because I can see them wanting to show love outwighing immortal life, so I'm left with only one problem about it: Lurtz. I wish they wouldn't throw new chararcyters in but instead keep the ones in the book(s). I think Arwen's change should work out fine, as long as they don't have her tossing the One Ring into the fire.

[Gloer]

I see you are an administrator, Darth Tater!

And here I must say that The Lord of the Rings works well with an almost physically absent Arwen.

Arwen is the motivator of Aragorn. She is the only reason for him to take responsiblity, to claim the throne and challenge the Dark Lord. If Arwen was not there Aragorn would be perfectly happy as a hermit living with nature and killing evil creatures when they pass his path. The point is that Aragorn is not ambitious if though noble and proud. He never wants power because of himself, nor really because it is his responsibilety. Only when he falls in love with Arwen there is a reasonfor him to do his utmost against the Dark Lord and also claim the throne. He must show be worthy of her. This is a typical tale of a hero that is sent to accomplish a task to earn the hand of a princess. The princess is often only a passive prize, but sometimes secretly helps the hero. But the heroine never does the "mans" job. She is on the sideline. So Arwen should never be a central figure that all depends upon. And that part of FOTR where they put her alone against the evil Nazgul goes against this basic role for the princess.


There is another lady, Eowyn, who breaks this patriarchaic female role. The book portrays Aragorns attitude towards the role of a woman very well: He tells Eowyn to stay home when the men go to battle, because it is womens part to make the homes the men are protecting. Eowyn says that this time there might not be any homes to return to and secretly joins the battle, doing heroic acts and amazing all the "chauvinistic" heros. So there is no way Aragorn could fall in love with a woman that is challenging the most fearful of the evil foes to a duel! That is an Eowyn type of a female and not the type Aragorn would fall in love with. He actually felt sorry for Eowyn.

Ok. After this FOTR I really think they should leave Liv Tyler out of TT and bring her back in ROTK only after the action.


This is just my well grounded view.

[Captain Stern]

Good point WebWizard.

If it is necessary to the film that more of Arwen be shown, then have more scenes with her in Rivendell. The only reason having her in The Flight to the Ford and that awful 'If you want him come and claim him!' speech is to be politicaly correct.

I agree with you that changes should be made to make it a good film but Arwen's expanded role done in THIS way is definately uneccessary.

[Darth Tater]

I see you are an administrator, Darth Tater!

What does that have to do with anything?

[noldo]

New-B...

Very well said, IronParrot. I agree with you totally.

[Captain Stern]

Gloer I mean not WebWizard I confused you'r 2 posts.

[hama]

Gloer,

I agree with your post by and large but I am not sure I can agree with your interpretation of Eowyn's character or Aragorn's feeling's about her.

I think if Aragorn was not already in love with Arwen he could definitely have fallen in love with Eowyn. He felt pity for her because he could not return the love she held for him. He also believed in duty and honor. He knew that Ewoyn had been given the charge of ruling Rohan in Theoden's abscence. However, had Eomer been given the same charge, I think Aragorn would have argued that he stay behind as well.

I think there is a certain chauvinism in Tolkien's writing which is totally natural given the time he was writing. As for Eowyn's role in the movie I think it would have been better to expand Eowyn's role rather than bringing Arwen into the story in such an artificial manner.

Just my two cents worth....

[IronParrot]

Actually, what I think is that in the novel, Eowyn comes off as far more deserving of Aragorn than Arwen was or ever will be... she gets totally gypped by the fact that Aragorn was already devoted to Arwen.

But that's just me.

[fireworks19]

I actually agree with that, IP. Arwen really didn't do anything to help, except make the staff. Perhaps thats why the directers felt it necessary to expand her role.

[samwise of the shire]

They(the movie people) say that it IS just an interpretation of LOTR, it is something to enjoy as the books are something to read and enjoy. You dont go through the books and cross section them and go through with a Tolkien dictionary to discover what the Dunedain are. Same with the movie you dont watch it, memorize it and go home to read the books and pick it to bits part by part. It's to enjoy and relax over.
Only nine more days until it comes YAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAY!
Sam

[Gloer]

Ok.

Read the part where Aragorn has a exchange of words with Eowyn before he leaves to The Paths Of Dead.

Aragorn realises she loves him and wants to follow. He can not return the love and he only can pity her for her unreturned love. Eowyn is very proud and feels that now she can only die.

Later in Minas Tirith Aragorn states that he felt that Eowyn fell in love with the fame and glory that Aragorn represented and she longed for. It was that she wanted. And then after the battle of Pellenor she fell in love with Faramir that was a very humble and peaceful man.

Does it matter if Eowyn deserved Aragorn better than Arwen?
Now it would be strange if there was a woman in M-E that could claim to be worthy of him. He is after all going to be the king.
And the king takes what is his. Eowyn is very proud and aware of her status as a princess - but immidiately she falls for a man that she deems of higher origin (dunedain) and a mighty hero.

Did Arwen deserve Aragorn? She could have gone over to the Valinor and live happy ever after. So for her it was a bit of a down step socially to be a mortal human and be removed from her father forever. Something the elves usually do not need to worry about. If she was prepared to do that just for Aragorn, she did deserved him.

The point is that Aragorn was for Eowyn something that would save her from being a nurse to an old and weak king. But for Arwen he was something that would bring her a lot of sorrow for the exchange, and still ultimately he would leave her by dying. And still she rather stay with Aragorn for a little while thatlive forever without him.

AND LAST: 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. Or how would it sound if someone had a throne to inherit hand he has no guts to claim it but he has balls to ask for your daughter. Could this kind of a fellow protect your daughter?

PS.
Darth Tater:
Administrator.
I do not know what it has to do with anything. I only just then realised it. What does it mean? What do you do?

[Darth Tater]

I control the fate of the world.

[Silva]

Originally posted by 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?

i want the film to be an exact representation of every scene in the book, thats what it should be, I am a supposedly intelligent person saying this. *sits back contentedly and waits for Darth Tater to "flip", hopes it will be entertaining. lol
Sorry about that Darth Tater, couldnt resist.

And now to answer you seriously. Firstly Tom Bombadill, I really dont agree with you on this at all, if they leave out Tom Bombadill then presumably they have to leave out the scenes where the Hobbits go into The Old Forest? Because without Tom the hobbits would never get out of the old forest. I for one think that to have the old forest and the threatening trees which seem almost alive would be stunning in a film ,if done right.
Just think how atmospheric it woud be, I've always been enchanted by the idea of the trees that hate poeple and hobbits because of being burnt or chopped down in the past, so they trip them up with their roots or drop branches on their heads. Just imagine that on film, and then how ominous and scary it could be as the mist starts to descend and the trees seem to move in around the hobbits, closing off all paths, it'd make fantastic footage, and I'm very sad that presumably it'll be missed out.
Also the scene with old man willow couldbe really incredible, this is what a film of Tolkien is all about, seeing the characters and places of our dreams brought to life before our eyes.

I dont see why they couldnt have done two versions of each part of the trilogy, a shorter one for mainstream release for the masses, and a longer "directors cut" with things like Tom Bombadill in.

And if all the events in the book were portrayed just as in the book there'd still be a very good reason to watch the film, to see Tolkiens wonderfull world and characters bought to life.
As for Arwen she could be explained in the prologue or brought in at Rivendell but Frodos flight across the ford should be done as Tolkien intended.