What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR

[Wally]

Although the LOTR trilogy was pretty good, it was far from perfect and much of it strayed terribly from Tolkien, such as the Elves at Helm's Deep.

IMHO, what really kept the series from being a disaster was the strength of Tolkien's work, a work so powerful that even those two dopey women, Fran and Philippa, couldn't screw it up too badly. In contrast, compare LOTR to PJ's next effort, King Kong, to get a better feel for just how totally incompetent those two screenwriters were (and are).

My list of complaints include the dumb Arwen dream sequences, the 'dramatic' loss of Aragorn over the cliff during the fight en route to Helm's Deep, the aforementioned Elves, the numerous pointless changes to Tolkien's work (such as Frodo correctly guessing the password into Moria instead of Pippin [or was it Merry?]), and the omission of incredibly important plot points from these works (such as Denethor's use of the palantir). I am no PJ fanboy and do not hesitate to take him to task for these sins. For $300MM and 2 years of shooting, these films should have been perfect. Does anyone else have an opinion here?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Wally

Does anyone else have an opinion here?

Arwen sure is purty

[brownjenkins]

I think he did a good job all told. Out of the thousands of movies made based upon books, only a handful equal or exceed the book version. Many are terrible, many are average, and many are pretty good. I'd put LOTR in the pretty good category.

My litmus test was not how much I liked it, since I have too much book baggage to be objective, but how much my kids did. And the enjoyed them quite a lot (though their major complaint was the drawn out dream sequences as well ).

[tolkienfan]

I agree that it wasn't perfect, and there were too many changes.
However, I wouldn't call Fran Walsh (or Philippia Boyens) dopey. And I'm not sure what you're trying to say about King Kong, as the screenplay was by Fran Walsh and Philippia Boyens in King Kong as well. (or are you saying that the screenplay was incompetent in King Kong?)

[Kevin McIntyre]

Making a cinematic version of the Lord of the Rings is a very difficult challenge and changes in the story will always occur whoever were to make the movie(s).
Firstly the number of characters that appear in the book is much to high for movies (don't you hate when someone leans over and says 'now who is that again'). With this in mind the changes that I most disliked are:
Elves at Helms Deep - I need a good explanation for this
Entmoot - why did Merry and Pippen have to fool Treebeard into attacking Isengard when you go through the trouble of filming the Entmoot.
Faramir - I think PJ slipped on this- Faramir is a truly great character and is treated poorly in the movie (imho)
Hems Deep - the battle is great, however Theoden decision to go there in the movie is not correct at all, and seems only done to make it appear that Aragorn is dead - not cool
I also did not appreciate the whole sequences of Elrond and Galadriel telekinetic communication - just too hokey.

However as a fan of cinema - PJ's movies are an incredible achievment and the few issues I have over a 12 hour movie seems like quibbling.

If you want to see a scene by scene recreation of the LOTR it would have to be done on TV where a scene like The Shadow of the Past can get a proper treatment. This could work if whatever network signed on was willing to produce a show with a finite storyline and ending.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Kevin McIntyre

Elves at Helms Deep - I need a good explanation for this

I suppose that, in part, this was to make the elves look a bit more involved. From reading the books you find out about all the behind-the-scenes work the elves did, along with some straight-out fighting on the part of those from Lorien, just not in Helm's Deep. Also, Elladan and Elrohir helped in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. So, while the event itself is not accurate, there is some basis for getting the theme of direct elven help across.

Originally Posted by Kevin McIntyre

Entmoot - why did Merry and Pippen have to fool Treebeard into attacking Isengard when you go through the trouble of filming the Entmoot.

That wasn't too far from the book. The basic theme, that Merry and Pippen helped push the Ents into action, but that it was also a reaction to Saruman's destruction, is basically right.

Originally Posted by Kevin McIntyre

Faramir - I think PJ slipped on this- Faramir is a truly great character and is treated poorly in the movie (imho)

I agree Faramir was off-base from the book, but he still comes out as a great character, maybe even better because, instead of acting noble just because he was just born as that kind of person, he actually makes the choice against his better judgement. In some ways, the movie Faramir is a more "real" character.

Originally Posted by Kevin McIntyre

Hems Deep - the battle is great, however Theoden decision to go there in the movie is not correct at all, and seems only done to make it appear that Aragorn is dead - not cool

The one other quibble my kids had about the movies is how many times someone is presented as killed (i.e. frodo) and/or dead (i.e. gandalf/aragorn), and then miraculously come back.

Originally Posted by Kevin McIntyre

I also did not appreciate the whole sequences of Elrond and Galadriel telekinetic communication - just too hokey.

I agree 100%. I would have editted those right out.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Kevin McIntyre

Faramir - I think PJ slipped on this- Faramir is a truly great character and is treated poorly in the movie (imho)

http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Kevin McIntyre

Elves at Helms Deep - I need a good explanation for this
Entmoot - why did Merry and Pippen have to fool Treebeard into attacking Isengard when you go through the trouble of filming the Entmoot.
Faramir - I think PJ slipped on this- Faramir is a truly great character and is treated poorly in the movie (imho)
I also did not appreciate the whole sequences of Elrond and Galadriel telekinetic communication - just too hokey.

Elves at Helms Deep: emphasizes the interrelationship between the races and the the Elven leadership's decision to play an active, engaged role together with men in countering Sauron when they could have just ran (or rode) for the hills (or the Gray Havens).

Faramir - have you read this? http://www.istad.org/tolkien/faramir.html
According to the script writers, to have Faramir simply pass immediately on the Ring after all that have been emphasized previously as to its irresistability and utter corruptibility would have been unbelievable to most viewers.

Elrond and Galadrial's "teleknetic communication" - 100% true to the book. From the Tolkien Meta-FAQ:

Was there "telepathy" in Middle-earth?

Although it is not emphasized in the books, direct communication of thought from mind to mind was certainly part of Middle-earth. This is stated directly in the chapter "Many Partings" of LotR, when Celeborn, Galadriel, Gandalf, and Elrond lingered before parting:

...they did not move or speak with mouth, looking from mind to mind; and only their shining eyes stirred and kindled as their thoughts went to and fro.

Another example is the voice Frodo hears in his mind on Amon Hen, saying, "Take off the Ring!", which was that of Gandalf as he "sat in a high place, and... strove with the Dark Tower" ("The White Rider"). ("The Black Gate is Closed" confirms that this was Gandalf, when it suggests that Frodo felt Gandalf's thought on him, "as he had upon Amon Hen".)

Tolkien discusses the details of this "telepathy" at length in the essay "Osanwe-kenta: Enquiry into the Communication of Thought", which was published in the journal Vinyar Tengwar #39 (available from http://www.elvish.org/). It seems that all minds had this ability, but that it was "dimmed" whenever it passed through a physical body. Elves could therefore use it more easily than humans, as their wills had greater control over their bodies. The essay contains many more fascinating details, but there is not space even to summarize them here.

[me9996]

One thing that realy bugs me is the army from Minus Morgal.

I'm pretty sure that it's wraiths in the book.
And even if it isn't, the army of orcs in the movie doesn't remotely fit the discription in the book!

From the book:

All the host was clad in sable, dark as night. Against the wan walls
and the luminous pavement of the road Frodo could see them, small black
figures in rank upon rank, marching swiftly and silently, passing outwards
in an endless stream. Before them went a great cavalry of horsemen moving
like ordered shadows.

[Peter_20]

Oh, and Orcs crawling up from the ground =/= corrupted Elves.

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

Originally Posted by Wally

My list of complaints include the dumb Arwen dream sequences, the 'dramatic' loss of Aragorn over the cliff during the fight en route to Helm's Deep, the aforementioned Elves, the numerous pointless changes to Tolkien's work (such as Frodo correctly guessing the password into Moria instead of Pippin [or was it Merry?]), and the omission of incredibly important plot points from these works (such as Denethor's use of the palantir). I am no PJ fanboy and do not hesitate to take him to task for these sins. For $300MM and 2 years of shooting, these films should have been perfect. Does anyone else have an opinion here?

Merry guessed the password. It's little things that they changed that bugged me. That, and Arwen, Helm's Deep, and the non-existence of the Scouring of the Shire. I still like all three movies, though and have watched them countless (literally) times.

[paul]

The movies if they had held to the text would have been way too long and way to complex to be good film. What was done really in style & spirit in tune with the books. I really liked both the books and thhe filmd

[Thehoundsofdeath]

Originally Posted by paul

The movies if they had held to the text would have been way too long and way to complex to be good film. What was done really in style & spirit in tune with the books. I really liked both the books and thhe filmd

This is the eternal defence of the film apologists, that the book is too long to be turned into a good film.

This conveniently blurs two basic issues.

LOTR is too long to be rendered into film form without substantial summarizing and editing, and no one has ever pretended otherwise.

However, this is NOT the problem with the films, and the criticism of the films has not focused on that point. The fact of the matter is that the worst elements of the film are those which have been ADDED.

There is an entire films worth of non-Tolkien material added to the movie triology. This time could have been used to much better effect showing parts of the original story which Jackson did not have time for. Who would you rather read, Tolkien or some film hack? Tolkien? Yeah, so why would you want to watch what the film hack writes? It is like watching some retarded 14-year old write Middle-earth fanfiction.

As for "style & spirit", sorry you just haven't read the books properly if you think the vulgar diminishing of character of Merry & Pippin, Gimli, Elrond and so on (and on, and on...) into base stereotypes, have anything to do with the books.

[Gordis]

What can I say - short and to the point Great first post.

Welcome to Entmoot, Thehoundsofdeath!

[barrelrider110]

Originally Posted by Thehoundsofdeath

The fact of the matter is that the worst elements of the film are those which have been ADDED.

Yes, like the Orc-spawning.

Ditto Gordis, welcome to entmoot, THOD.

[Jon S.]

barrelrider, dig your sig line.

If it were mine, though, I'd have it say:

"I am the friend of Bears and the guest of Eagles. I am NOT the Washington Redskins."

[barrelrider110]

LOL Jon.

But I AM the New York Giants!

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Thehoundsofdeath

However, this is NOT the problem with the films, and the criticism of the films has not focused on that point. The fact of the matter is that the worst elements of the film are those which have been ADDED.

Totally agree with you on every point you made, especially this one. I beleive the author should be respected enough for the film-maker not to assert his own ideas, unless time or cost is an issue, or story comprehension.

Welcome to the 'Moot, THOD.

[Snowdog]

Now we get to see what he is going to do with The Hobbit....

[Belwen_of_nargothrond]

The only thing I really liked about the movies is the casting. They did a great job with that. I saw the movies before I read the books and when I read the books, I was very disappointed. Arwen taking Glorfindel's place when Frodo was injured? Most of all I didn't like the fact that Haldir was killed off when he wasn't even suppose to be at Helm's Deep.