Defendable changes.

[DGoeij]

I'v seen a lot of threads lately that regarded a lot of bickering. Nothing came close to sensible argument about if any changes were really defendable. Mostly it came down to: A movie is not a book, I didn't/did like it, shut up, things like that.

So tell me, what changes to the original story, and there were many, were actually defendable, for the movie being a movie and not the original book?

Personally, the shots where Boromir is giving lessons to Merry and Pippin (not metioned in the book) was something I really appreciated. It gave Boromir the friendly touch he deserved. A change that I liked.
The other one was in Khazad-dum, Pippin, instead of dropping a rock, tipping over a dwarven skeleton. It made Pippins curiousity once again clear and it gave a more dramatic effect on screen.

To give a example of the opposite (in my view): Saruman interfering with the Caradras. Why did the movie-makers put that in? It didn't add anything and it wasn't true to the nature of the Caradras as Tolkien described it.

I'm looking forward to some views wich contain arguments instead of personal remarks. I'll be without a computer for a few days, but I hope to see some thoughts when I'm back

[Maria Atilano]

I have to say that even though it irritated me at first, the fact that Aragorn was aware of Frodo's plan to leave for Mordor by himself seems like a good choice. It saves a lot of time for guessing what happened to Frodo and Sam, which Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli can spend looking for Pippin and Merry instead. Not that much worrying on their parts, since they know that the ringbearer is safe and on his journey. It was a change that was neccesary, I think.

[Rosie Cotton]

Originally posted by Maria Atilano
I have to say that even though it irritated me at first, the fact that Aragorn was aware of Frodo's plan to leave for Mordor by himself seems like a good choice. It saves a lot of time for guessing what happened to Frodo and Sam, which Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli can spend looking for Pippin and Merry instead. Not that much worrying on their parts, since they know that the ringbearer is safe and on his journey. It was a change that was neccesary, I think.

Yes, and it also gives movie goers an idea of what to expect in the TT.

[Greenwood]

I apologize if I am breaking any forum rules by lifting things from one of my own posts from another thread, but I just didn't feel like retyping the stuff below. It is from some posts I did on the "My precious ..." thread.

Anyway in defense of probably the most complained about change in the movie:

In the Silmarillion (p. 175 of the first American edition) we find the following passages: “Then Sauron yielded himself, and Luthien took the mastery of the isle and all that was there .....” One paragraph later: “Then Luthien stood upon the bridge, and declared her power: and the spell was loosed that bound stone to stone, and the gates were thrown down, and the walls opened, and the pits laid bare ......” A few pages later on p. 178: “With that leaf she staunched Beren’s wound, and by her arts and by her love she healed him ....” Luthien sounds pretty powerful and active to me. Is it really so untrue to Tolkien’s vision to think that Luthien’s direct descendent Arwen, might have some of the same abilities?

The movie will be seen by millions of people who have not read the books. As others have said, many of these people will be confused by this elf princess who suddenly appears to claim Aragorn in the last movie. Now they have an intro to her and she is someone that they can see as an equal to Aragorn.

[aragil]

The introduction of Pippin and Merry. Having them shoot off the Dragon firework speaks volumes about their characters in a very short amount of time. I also very much like Pippin's wide-eyed wonder when he sees the pint of beer. I can't imagine a better way to portray innocence in its first exposure to a (literally) larger world.

Gandalf opposing Saruman. I don't think that Gandalf would have meekly walked upstairs in Orthanc if Saruman had asked him. At this point in both the book and the movie there was no threat from Saruman's orcs, so what would have made Gandalf go upstairs? This was an effective way of introducing the magical abilities of both Gandalf and Saruman. Remember, up until this point in the film all Gandalf has done in the way of magic was fireworks. Two disclaimers here: 1) This scene wasn't really a change to the book, because the book never addresses in what manner Gandalf was imprisoned by Saruman. 2) The way in which I evaluate whether a change was good or bad is whether I enjoyed it or not, and whether I thought it was in the spirit of Tolkien. I don't expect these opinions to hold for everybody. What a boring world that would be!

The discovery of the hobbits' swords at weathertop. In making a movie from a book, it is so hard to 'cleanly lift' four chapters. Out of the chapters spanning from The Old Forest to Fog on the Barrow Downs there come several things that later on turn out to be important. Probably the single most important event in this span is when the Hobbits get their swords. This is because they happen to get swords made by the ancient Dunadan of Arthedain, which had specific spells woven into them for the destruction of the Witch King of Angmar (the lord of Nazgul). Since the Barrow scene was lifted, it makes sense that the swords would be discovered at the fortress that was constantly being contested by the forces of Cardolan and Arthedain on one side, vs those of Angmar and Rhudaur on the other. This is not inventing action outside the world of Tolkien, it is displaying a very deep breadth of knowledge of Tolkien's history and appreciation of his works.

Arwen at the ford. Throughout The Lord of the Rings, Arwen is hardly mentioned without being compared to her illustrious ancestor, Luthien. I think that what PJ has done here can be interpreted as showing us that Arwen is similar to Luthien, much in the same way as how Tolkien always told us. The fact of the matter here is that Tolkien decided not to emphasize Arwen's character, and so he never said whether or not it would be in Arwen's character to resist the nine. He did say that she was like Luthien, and we know that this is the sort of thing that Luthien would have done. The sad truth for those of us who like Glorifindel, is that his character (not to be confused with his actions) is not as important to Lord of the Rings as Arwen's is. By having Arwen carry out Glorifindel's role here we are still getting the requisite deliverence of Frodo, and we are getting to see a comparison between Arwen and Luthien. Many thanks to Greenwood for pointing out the similarities of movie-Arwen's actions with those of Luthien.

The character of Lurtz. I'm not sure what movie critics are complaining about here. In the books there is a lot of verbiage describing how the Uruk-hai are different from normal orcs. The fact that he has created an entire race of orcs, and that these new orcs are superior to the older breeds shows much of the ambition and power of Saruman. Most of the description of the Uruk-hai in the books is turned into personification in the movie via the character of Lurtz. Lurtz also provides us with a very important dramatic element in the movie: the climax. By giving us a character which the disintigrating fellowship has to fight and overcome, PJ is giving movie watchers something to cheer about at the end of the movie. I don't think anybody in their right mind would ever try to make a movie as anti-climactic as Fellowship would have been without the death of Lurtz at the end. If anybody ever does, I hope I never see it.

Those are the changes that I agree with. As for the character of Saruman, and the portrayal of Lorien, I'm witholding my judgement. I don't think we can say what Saruman's true motivations are until we see The Two Towers, and I fervently hope that much of the filming of Lorien was later edited out (what else is going to be in those two hours of footage on the director's cut DVD?). If Saruman turns out to be totally in line with Sauron, then that is a very poor twisting of the story. If Lorien was never filmed in sunlight, then that is a loss of potentially beautiful scenery for the movie.

[aragil]

Greenwood, you pre-empted me in my reply. Oh well, serves me right for writing such long-winded posts!

[Olorim]

I am very new to this forum, though not new to Tolkien. A lot of you seem to be very angry in your threads and this is one of the first thought out threads with cogent and thoughtful responses. It is a nice change.

I will add to the other responses in hopes of restoring some semblance of sanity. First, I agree with the previous posts about Arwen and the Uruk-Hai. Arwen was and is powerful. She has a bloodline the likes of which few beings in middle earth can claim. No it wasn't in the book, but yes I like it. As a matter of fact it was one of my favorite things about the movie...and one of my least favorite about the book. I wanted to know more about her in the book and the movie has satisfied that. The Uruk-Hai are also well represented in the movie and Lurtz makes for a good action scene at the end. It will be a hard enough sell to the non-Tolkien readers with the ending the way it is. Now imagine no dramatic confrontation at the end. Come on people...the movie needed this.

PJ did a wonderful job in my opinion. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But for him to make it perfect for me would make it imperfect for many others. Thats the danger of adapting a book to a movie. Particularlly one as long and detailed as this.

The things I didn't like was the lack of a real sense of time. But again, I understand why this was necessary and I am ok with it. I would have preferred a longer movie to fit in the feeling of time, but there are very few movies over 3 hours that mainstream people will watch. I think he did a decent job, when he could, of highlighting the time frames. Ex: Moria. Gandalf specifically says it is a 4 day journey. Though it only encompasses some 15 minutes and goes by rather fast due to the action i think it helps to give a sense of the size of Moria. Add that to the visuals of the sheer magnitude of the dwarven construction and it was done very well.

Just try to enjoy yourself. Think of it as an adpatation, which it is, not a word for word verbatim representation. It would have been impossible. Look at the new things as something positive. Arwen is a great plus for me and Liv Tyler is what I imagined her as in the books.

[Greenwood]

Just to expand on my defense of Arwen's role at the Ford in the movie. In the book the lead Nazgul makes it almost all the way across the river at which point there is the confrontation with Frodo (more on this below). Most, but not all of the other Nazgul are behind him in the river. At this point as Frodo looses consciousness the river rises and sweeps the Nazgul away (complete with the plumes of water looking like white horses). It is not until later that we are told the river's rising was Elrond's doing (with an assist from Gandalf on the white horses imagery). I am afraid this would have been difficult to pull off in the movie; always remembering there are countless viewers who haven't read the books. These viewers might be left sitting there saying "Where did this flood come from?" It wouldn't really work cutting in a scene of Elrond doing an incantation (or however he does it; Tolkien doesn't specify). Viewers would be sitting there saying "Who is this guy?" Having Arwen there to do it prevents this confusion. I did find Arwen's next scene a bit over the top, but I suppose Jackson felt he needed a transition but it could have been handled better.

The flight to the ford has always been among my favorite episodes in the books and the confrontation between Frodo and the Nazgul is certainly very dramatic and I dearly love it. However, the question can be raised: If Frodo was not strong enough to resist the urge to put on the Ring at Weathertop, how does he have the strength to defy the Nazgul now after bearing his morgul wound for a fortnight and when he is, as we are told in the book, nearly a wraith himself on the border of the Ringwraiths world?

[ReadWryt]

...I think that a lot of what is being explained as being good for having reduced audience confusion is both insulting to movie audiences and implies that Peter Jackson could not, or was too lazy to, find ways to show the audience just what was in the story without having to invent, dumb down or otherwise twist the story around. That's just my opinion...but then I take Jackson at his word when he says...

It's been very very difficult. We've been writing it for two or three years and we still are writing it. It's such a complicated work and it's actually interesting because over the course of the time we've been writing, we've been revising. It's just the way we like to work, to consistently try and improve it right the way through the shoot. And we find ourselves going back closer and closer to the books.

Way back at the beginning we thought there is quite a bit of this we are going to have to alter or change, do things to turn the book into a film but the more we got into it and the more we really started to know the books in great detail, it would be fair to say we've gone further and further back to the books again.

So a lot of our so called clever ideas at the beginning we've long since abandoned and Tolkien hopefully has a fairly clear voice in the film.

New Zealand Herald:12/11/00

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=159619

[chrome_rocknave]

I hate to say it but...

I'm glad they done away with Tom Bombadil and Goldberry (although I miss Fatty Lumpkin and the Barrow Wights). I never loved Tom in the books to begin with and I'm glad I didn't have to see him on screen. However, I still think it would have been better to have him there (although I did not personally like him) for the story line, etc.

I also liked the part about the pint of beer in Bree--nice addition (didn't take anything away from the story).

I kind of liked Strider's little talk with Frodo at Amon Hen before Frodo left for Mordor. I liked it...but, I would have rather seen Strider trying to run after everyone saying "wait we must form groups..wait" and then having him lose Frodo and feel bad. But, this change wasn't too bad and it was ok.

[Arwen]

I agree with a alot of you......i also agree that Arwen has been mixed with Luthien...wasnt such a bad idea.She did it well...

[Wide Boy]

Well this is a pleasure. Reasoned discussion without people being pompous, pedantic, petulant or all three!

I also agree with the Arwen/Glorfindel thing. In the context of a movie it works better than the scene as written would have. I don't think that modifications to reduce the confusion of the non-fanatic is a bad thing. It makes the movie much more accessible and will probably lead people on to reading it anyway. It's a matter of keeping enough true to the book to satisfy the the purist (no snide reference to other forum members intended).

Having read LOTR more times than I've had birthdays, I have some claim to fanaticism but even I thought it passed muster. To avoid EES (Elevated Expectation Syndrome) I set the desired accuracy mark at 75% and got about 85% so PJ did a good job in my opinion.

Dropping most of the Conspiracy, Old Forest, Barrow Downs stuff was a bit disappointing but I thought it was justified from a movie perspective. There isn't really much there that is vital for the future except the sword Merry needs to unhinge the Lord of the Nazgul at the Pelennor Fields but it would take very sharp eyes on the part of your average 1 time reader to spot that.

I thought that reshaping the Council of Elrond was necessary because the background to make it understandable would have required either long narration or lots more dialogue. However, I think that the script for that scene could have used some work.

I loved the interpretation of the Argonath. Nothing like the picture in my head, and not entirely true to the description in the book but it worked very well.

Merry and Pippin as two Scottish apprentice lager louts was a bit of a shock at first but I warmed to them very quickly, especially after the pint of beer snippet at the Prancing Pony. I think that trying to get across their characters as portrayed in the book (which weren't ALL that different after all) would have required narrative that wouldn't have worked as well.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what to do about the Narsil/Anduril thing? Pretend that the re-forging got done but wasn't mentioned and explain it all in a quiet moment during the TT? Ignore it altogether - does Aragorn really have to own a famous sword? Get it delivered by Elladan and Elrohir in Rohan along with the standard? Or even have Arwen deliver it to Aragorn in the heat of battle, descending from the skies in a halo of blinding light, borne by a giant eagle wearing mithril armour and accompanied by a choir of Elves singing Men of Harlech in Quenya (choke, splutter!).

Better yet, does anyone have any certain knowledge on what PJ is doing about it?

[proudfoot]

Very good points, Greenwood.

Arwen HAS to be introduced, and it was best done in this way. As I've written elsewhere, as Elrond's daughter, and being 3,000 years old, she should have learnt a few things about the ford, and how to use a sword in that time. Also her two brothers are mentioned in the book as being Rangers, and anxious to avenge their mother who was slain by orcs. Surely Arwen should feel similarly?

Introducing Glorfindel/and/or Elrond at that point in the film would just confuse everybody.

And yes, ReadWryte, audience confusion is best avoided. Did you ever watch the DUNE movie? It flopped because it was totally incomprehensible to anyone who hadn't read the book beforehand and so knew the background and motivation of the characters. A lot of the "purists" have picked up knowledge of character background over years from numbers of books and appendices - even Tolkien's letters! Trying to introduce someone like Glorfindel in a couple of minutes is a surefire audience confuser.

PS I liked Saruman creating the snowstorm. Tolkien left its origins doubtful, either Sauron, whose "arm has grown long if..." or Caradhras himself. Saruman doing it is far neater.;)

[chrome_rocknave]

Well, I watched Dune and loved it (and I'm pretty sure I understood it :rolleyes: ) although I've never read the books...

[ReadWryt]

Proudfoot,

I saw Lynch's Dune, it suffered not from being made out of Frank Herbert's book as much as from having been done badly. Right now there is a far more confusing film in the theatres, "Vanilla Sky", which is getting rave reviews, and if you had ever seen "Memento" or "Fight Club" you would see that very confusing concepts can be shown without dumbing down the story for the fictitious "Ignorant Audience Member".

Anyone who walked out of Dune scratching their heads had a few good reasons, it was a confusing screenplay and much of Lynch's original footage ended up on the floor, but anyone who walked out of, say, "Highlander" put off by the fact that it jumped about through time or "American Psycho" because they didn't beat you over the head with the obvious would, from the reviews, have been in the minority and are probably sitting at home right now thouroughly perplexed as to how Ross could be the father of the impending child on "Friends".

If by making changes to make it easier to understand one means showing the meeting of Gandalf and Saruman in real time because it makes for good cinema, I agree completely as the Council of Elrond would have been as exciting as "My Dinner with Andre" were it just shot as written, but if you mean that Peter Jackson should take a great story and make gross alterations to the characters and story to appeal to the lowest common denominator so that it can appeal to the broadest audience then I think you have a future working in the Movie Industry as a Script Editor, they love concepts that ignore artistic integrity in favor of potential ticket sales...

[markrob]

Everyone hold their breath, I agree with every post and point in this thread. Except Readwryt's of coarse. ;)

[graen]

I don't have any information about how it is done, but in the Sci-Fi channel's "Making of..." special, the swordsmith describes one of the blades as the sword Aragon weilds before he receives Narsil. The implication here would be that there will be a re-forged Narsil in the movie.

[Thrakerzog]

chrome_rocknave,

Did you watch the version of Dune with the prolog of, I believe hand drawn pictures and a voice over, giving you a great deal of background?
All of that was a fix up from the original total flop.

Beyond that, many people that loved the book also loved the -original- movie because they understood all of the background and no additional information was need.
For everyone else that saw the -original-, it was very painful and confusing.

This is exactly the type of situation Peter Jackson wanted to avoid when he changed the story.

Here are some quotes from another thread where several changes to the book where pointed out. I think most all of these a things that have been picked on, yet to me they all serve a purpose:

How does portraying Arwen as an Elven Witch simplify anything?
She was not portrayed as a witch, but simply a user of magic, which the elves are known to be. This is how they make blades like Sting, which glows when orcs are about. One a subtle form, the other more overt.

Pod Derived Orcs
This simplifies things a great deal. It removes awkwardly dealing with a birth scene in a PG-13 movie while also making the creation of orcs a means to show they are hideous mutations.

words whispered to insects
This made it WORLDS easier to understand why the Great Eagle came to get Gandalf for people that haven't seen the film. Things like this give reason behind action that can not so easily be translated from book to screen. I asked my girlfriend after the movie if she understood why the Eagle got Gandalf, and she was quite positive it was because he had sent for help.

adding the ten minutes of Wizard Duel
Again, this must be done for the sake of the new viewers.
It explains why, so suddenly, Sarumon, whom Gandalf has gone to see for console, has turned on his friend. To have Gandalf walk up to Isenguard and suddenly end up in prison, with no explanation, no fight, would have been very confusing.

inventing acts of futile dwarvish ring bashing
Same thing.
So it's a ring, just bash it, right? This was a pointed way of showing that the ring truly is indestructible except in the fires of Mount Doom. Only saying so would have left a lot of people saying "but they didn't even try"...

frantic and manic displays of mad fear about the condition of the Ring from Gandalf
This is the same as the bashing. The ring, in and of itself, is nothing to the average viewer. You must go through the motions of gently revealing it's true and totally evil power. If Gandalf where passé and just eh, I don't want to hold it, you should. It wouldn't show how corrupting he felt the ring would be in his possession.

not simply having Aragorn possess Narsil all along as he did in the book
I don't know. I'm sure there are other plans here, I hope it was changed simply to help explain things as the other changes above have. But we won't know until next movie I guess.

Just take a step back and look at the changes Peter Jackson made to the movie and try to understand it from the eye's of someone that hasn't read every word Tolkien has penned.

[Greymantle]

I believe the only truly justified change was not truly a change at all: I thought that their choice to extend FotR to include the death of Boromir was definately wise. Other than that....!
Note that I'm not talking about necessary adaptations, i.e. using human actors for Elves. ;) These are justifiable.

[ReadWryt]

"She was not portrayed as a witch, but simply a user of magic, which the elves are known to be. This is how they make blades like Sting, which glows when orcs are about. One a subtle form, the other more overt. "

Elves are never portrayed as casting spells and Tolkien states in his writings that the "magic" in Middle-earth is not derived by "Lore or Spells". Witches cast spells and use incantations and so did Arwen, ergo Arwen Elven Witch.


"This simplifies things a great deal. It removes awkwardly dealing with a birth scene in a PG-13 movie while also making the creation of orcs a means to show they are hideous mutations."

Funny, but I don't recall them showing the Bachanalia and rampant fornication of Elves, Men, Hobbits, Dwarves or Trolls, and yet the audience does not seem confused as to where THEY come from! How is the origin of the Uruk-Hai explained in the books? Word of Mouth. How could it have been explained in the movie? The same way...

"This made it WORLDS easier to understand why the Great Eagle came to get Gandalf for people that haven't seen the film. Things like this give reason behind action that can not so easily be translated from book to screen. I asked my girlfriend after the movie if she understood why the Eagle got Gandalf, and she was quite positive it was because he had sent for help."

Oh yes, worlds easier then the brief conversation between Gandalf and Radagast that explained it in the book. Besides, you don't have to cast or actually pay a computer generated Moth, you simply need to invent some rediculous act that is outside the character of Gandalf and more in the realm of Radagast.

"Again, this must be done for the sake of the new viewers.
It explains why, so suddenly, Sarumon, whom Gandalf has gone to see for console, has turned on his friend. To have Gandalf walk up to Isenguard and suddenly end up in prison, with no explanation, no fight, would have been very confusing."

Once again, the ACTIONS of Saruman and his WORDS explain well enough that he has turned on the White Council. The truth is that the duel was created to make up for the fact that Jackson turned Saruman into Sauron's lacky instead of having the aspirations for the Ring himself. There was NO reason for the pitifull Crouching Gandalf, Hidden Palantir duel. All that need to be done was portray Isengard to be full of the Orcs and Uruks that Saruman had mustered and it would be obvious to the audience that Gandalf would be hard pressed to leave Orthanc alive, or at least without a struggle. I suppose that you think that in the book Gandalf was too whimpy to do anything BUT get captured and that is why he ended up on the roof of Orthanc, never thinking about the fact that when Gandalf returns to Isengard and finds the Hobbits lazing about the rubble of Treebeard's rampage that there was the evidence of a huge army of Orcs all about, and that there is only one way in/out of Isengard to begin with.


"Same thing.
So it's a ring, just bash it, right? This was a pointed way of showing that the ring truly is indestructible except in the fires of Mount Doom. Only saying so would have left a lot of people saying "but they didn't even try"... "


I suppose that you would have a point except for the myriad things that the audience is expected to believe on heresay anyways, but you certainly don't hear the audence walking out of the theater saying, "Why didn't he just put the ring on, turn invisible and go to that Mount Doom thing while nobody could see him?" Once more, another case of assuming that the audience is so stupid that they need to have complex concepts spoon fed to them.

"This is the same as the bashing. The ring, in and of itself, is nothing to the average viewer. You must go through the motions of gently revealing it's true and totally evil power. If Gandalf where passé and just eh, I don't want to hold it, you should. It wouldn't show how corrupting he felt the ring would be in his possession."

I never suggested that Gandalf was "Behind the times" and I have no idea why you suggest that I might suggest he act thussly. Nor do I suggest that he act in a manner that does not convey the gravity of the situation. I don't recall him manically freaking out at the Council, are things any less grave there? He could have spoken in a manner befitting his dignity and presence of mind. Bear in mind that Gandalf had been around since TA 1000, nearly 3000 years, and that he had seen many events in his time that had been, although not as grave as this, quite dire indeed...

"I don't know. I'm sure there are other plans here, I hope it was changed simply to help explain things as the other changes above have. But we won't know until next movie I guess."

It was another vehicle by which Jackson could inject Arwen into the story more. She will be delivering Narsil to Aragorn in the next film. This simplifies nothing.

[Greenwood]

Elves are never portrayed as casting spells and Tolkien states in his writings that the "magic" in Middle-earth is not derived by "Lore or Spells". Witches cast spells and use incantations and so did Arwen, ergo Arwen Elven Witch.

Read Wryt

I repeat from an earlier post:

I disagree that Arwen's portrayal in the film, particularly at he Ford, does irreparable violence to Tolkien’s view of elves, particularly elf princesses. In the Silmarillion (p. 175 of the first American edition) we find the following passages: “Then Sauron yielded himself, and Luthien took the mastery of the isle and all that was there .....” One paragraph later: “Then Luthien stood upon the bridge, and declared her power: and the spell was loosed that bound stone to stone, and the gates were thrown down, and the walls opened, and the pits laid bare ......” A few pages later on p. 178: “With that leaf she staunched Beren’s wound, and by her arts and by her love she healed him ....” Luthien sounds pretty powerful and active to me. Is it really so untrue to Tolkien’s vision to think that Luthien’s direct descendent Arwen, might have some of the same abilities?

I will add from the Mirror of Galadriel chapter in FOTR: " 'And you?' she [Galadriel] said, turning to Sam. 'For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy. But this, if you will, is the magic of Galadriel. Did you not say that you wished to see Elf-magic?' " [italics added]

I also gave some examples of elven magic in another post in answer to a challenge by you. I also repeat that Tolkien does not tell us how Elrond loosed the flood on the Black Riders at the ford. I think most readers assume it was via some magic and not the opening of some sluice gates at an unseen damn up river.

Please give me some discussion beyond "blasphemy" which was your last response to this question. The LOTR is a work of fiction, not a religious text and blasphemy does not apply.

[Greymantle]

blas·phe·my (blsf-m)
n. pl. blas·phe·mies
1. a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
b.The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

The second definition is perfectly legitimate, no, Greenwood?

[ReadWryt]

I'm still working over the Database trying to find the occasion where I used that word in that context to begin with.

I believe that were you to really think about the fact that Galadriel's Mirror was actually a pool of water, and that she WAS wearing Nenya, the Ring of Water. Coincidence? I think not...

As for Luthien, they had just destroyed Sauron's body and sent his spirit back to Morgoth. Sauron no longer was able to maintain the "spell" which "bound stone to stone" and once he left things fell apart. Her declaration of her power is not described as being implicit to the destruction of Sauron's lair.

[Foe-Hammer]

from readwryt on the "magic" issue. Also consider the elven rope of sams. I know it never said it was magic but sam was an expert at knots etc and the rope was not broken. I think greenwood has established the magic issue.

[Greenwood]

ReadWryt

I am afraid I must continue to disagree.

p. 172 of the Silmarillion (referring to Luthien escaping confinement): " .... she put forth her arts of enchantment, and caused her hair to grow to great length, and of it she wove a dark robe that wrapped her beauty like a shadow, and it was laden with a spell of sleep. Of the strands that remained she twined a rope, and she let it down from her window; and as the end swayed above the guards that sat beneath the tree they fell into a deep slumber." I am at a loss as to any word to describe this but magic; and Luthien had no ring.

p. 174 (as Beren and Felagrund lay captive in the pits of Sauron): "In that hour Luthien came, and standing upon the bridge that led to Sauron's isle she sang a song that no walls of stone could hinder. Beren heard .... " Once again, it sounds like elven magic to me and is getting awfully close to what some might call an incantation.

I agree that Arwen at the ford is a major change from the books and I can certainly understand and respect your opinion that you don't like it. But I repeat it didn't really bother me and I did not feel that it violated the spirit of Tolkien's LOTR. I will await what happens in the later films. I am not going to loose any sleep over rumors and hypotheticals.

[Greenwood]

As for Luthien, they had just destroyed Sauron's body and sent his spirit back to Morgoth. Sauron no longer was able to maintain the "spell" which "bound stone to stone" and once he left things fell apart. Her declaration of her power is not described as being implicit to the destruction of Sauron's lair.

ReadWryt

No! From the previous two paragraph on p. 175 is: "Ere his foul spirit left its dark house, Luthien came to him, and said that he should be stripped of his raiment of flesh, and his ghost sent quaking back to Morgoth; and she said: 'There everlastingly thy naked self shall endure the torment of his scorn, pierced by his eyes, unless thou yield to me the mastery of thy tower.' [emphasis added] The Sauron yielded himself and Luthien took the mastery of the isle and all that was there ..... " The next paragraph continues as I quoted it earlier.

Huan (a wolfhound) was present and aided Luthien but it is quite clear that it was her power that bested Sauron. Sauron's body was definitely not destroyed. In fact in a passage that I did not quote it explicitly states that he fled to Taur-nu-Fuin in the form of a vampire and dwelt there. It is quite clear in context that Sauron has already fled when Luthien destroys his lair by her own powers.

Sauron's body was not destroyed until the battle that ended the Second Age when he lost the Ring. Luthien clearly has great powers without a ring of power and Arwen is her direct descendent. There is no reason to assume that Arwen could not possess some considerable measure of power.

None of us can know what Tolkien would think of Arwen's powers in the movie. Based on the very considerable powers Tokien gave to Luthien, he clearly had no problem with an elf princess being quite powerful in her own right.

I have really resented all the snide comments about "XenaArwen" that have been blithely thrown around by people who don't like the Arwen portrayed in the movie with loud protestaions that they know Tolkien would hate such an elf princess. I have never seen even a single episode of Xena, but I have to say that based on the powers that Tolkien apparently gives Luthien, I suspect Xena is a babe in the woods. :)

[ReadWryt]

Greenwood,

I missread and thought that it said that they HAD "stripped him of his rainment of flesh", but in fact they merely threatened to do so. I was in error in my haste.

I can only step back now and admit error, for the only other argument would be to say that elves stopped performing magic of "lore and spells" after the second age, and I have nothing to back up such a claim. All I know is that no such event occurs in any accounting of the third age, but then there are no accountings of the Fellowship sneaking off into the woods for potty breaks, but one assumes that they disgarded their used Lembas somehow...:eek:

My argument though has not been so much that Elves were not so much users of Magic, but instead that they needn't recite incantations to invoke it. Tolkien states that "a difference in the use of `magic' in this story is that it is not to be come by `lore' or spells; but it is an inherant power not possessed or attainable by Men as such." This leads me to think that spells are not needed by the Elves. In fact, he states that it may be that Aragorn's healing power may be enhanced by his being of the bloodline of Luthien herself, which is a ringing (no pun intended) endorsement as to the great power she possessed.

He also states, in Letter # 131, that "I have not used `magic' consistently, and indeed the Elven-queen Galadriel is obliged to remonstrate with the Hobbits on their confused use of the word both for the devices and operations of the Enemy, and for those of the Elves. I have not, because there is not a word for the latter (since all human stories have suffered the same confusion). But the Elves are there (in my tales) to demonstrate the difference. Their `magic' is Art, delivered from many of it's Human limitations; more effortless, more quick, more complete (product, and vision in unflawed corespondence)."

This leads me to believe that the Elves did not, until Sauron taught them to do so, manufacture Magic Items for the sake of making magic items. Useful things, their great ships for instance, they crafted out of "art" an in doing that they probably imparted a magic in them, but the Silmarillion states that once the Elves detected Sauron wearing the One Ring, they removed theirs. This angered Sauron and he went to war against them demanding the Three Rings because, "...the Elven-smiths could not have attained to their making without his lore and council...". These last are presumptions on my part, I have only the inference of Tolkien to "Art" and the lack of anything of a nature to the Three Rings in Elven history that I can recall. I may be as much in error in this as I was in my hasty presumption that Luthien had skinned Sauron.

Foe-Hammer:

I never said that Magic Artifacts didn't exist, so your posting is not germain. It would indeed have been folly for me to make such a claim as, were there no magic items, there would indeed be no story as the One Ring would merely be a toroidal chunk of gold. The fact that I state my belief that Galadriel's Mirror was powered by one of the Three Elven Rings is evidence that I am in no way deluded into the idea that no magic objects exist in Middle-earth. Although I do find it amusing that by saying so you think me stupid enough to have though so...

[aragil]

Also from the Silmarillion, p171 of the same edition as that quoted by Greenwood:

'By the arts of Felagund their own forms and faces were changed into the likeness of Orcs;' These arts sound a little bit more sophisticated than make-up.

'Thus befell the contest of Sauron and Felagund which is renowned. For Felagund stove with Sauron in songs of power, and the power of the king was very great; but Sauron had the mastery, as is told in the Lay of Leithian;
He chanted a song of wizardry,
...
Then sudden Felagund there swaying
Sang in answer a song of staying,
...
The chanting swelled, Felagund fought,
And all the magic and might he brought
Of Elveness into his words.'

In my opinion this is a fairly convincing display of Elvish magic coming out of an incantation.

[aragil]

As usual, by posting a long-ish reply I have posted late. My last post was meant to further argue a point, not rub it in ReadWryt's face after he admitted to the fact. Ooops.

[ReadWryt]

DAMN YOU!! Damn you...you "nose rubber inner" person you!! :p If I had a nickle for every time I have been typing a long post only to discover that someone else quickly made a much better post then the one I had just slaved away at, I would almost feel like I was making a living in this Forum. Bahahahaha

See, and there again...Luthien Sings as well. Art again. Eru sang, as did the Ainur...Luthien danced as well if I recall. Damn, she must have been one fetchingly gorgeous gal to have made Morgoth salivate. Tinuviel...*Sigh* Kicks butt all over Britney, huh?

[Greenwood]

blas·phe·my (blsf-m)
n. pl. blas·phe·mies
1. a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.
b.The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.
2. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

The second definition is perfectly legitimate, no, Greenwood?


Greymantle

My sincere apologies for my private message to you. I was out of line. I here make a public apology for comments that I wll not repeat publicly. My only excuse is irritability brought on by lack of sleep.

No, you did not prove me wrong and the second definition is not perfectly legitimate. Both of your defintions involve something being sacred (the root word of sacrosanct is the same as sacred). The LOTR is a work of fiction, it is not a sacred text. You cannot blaspheme it or any of the fictional characters in it.

One of the main things that stimulated me to join this forum only a few days ago was my annoyance at the attitude of righteous superiority displayed by the self-proclaimed purists that they have a corner on Tolkien's work and thoughts. Your signature lines are a case in point and I expressed my objections to them on one of the threads in an exchange with ReadWryt.

I have tried in my posts to engage in a civil, reasoned debate and I think if you review my posts you will find (I hope) that that has been true (at least for the most part).

It seems to me that tempers have cooled a bit as evidenced by the thread A Truce to which you contributed. In your post on that thread you said: "What needs to stop is the misunderstanding, intentional misrepresentation and wanton ridicule and profanity."
Your post on seadragon's thread concerning a members typing "movies" instead of "movie" struck me as an example of "wanton ridicule". Your somewhat snide post above interjected only minutes later while I was attempting to discuss the nature of elven magic in Tolkien with ReadWryt provoked an intemperate (private) response to you on my part.

Again, I publicly apologize.

[Thorin]

It is safe to say that the elves were created with powers inherent in there genetic make-up (They were immortal for pete's sake, how much of a stretch is it to say that Eru created them with special gifts?). They did not see what they did as "magic" like humans would. Galadriel at the Mirror made that quite plain to Frodo and Sam. They had great powers and talents given to them from the creation. Look at Feanor and the jewels as a good example and Luthien could fall under that as well.

I can't believe that I'm even justifying any part of Arwen in this movie, she doesn't belong at the Ford....period. But Arwen's portrayal in the movie specifically making an incantation shows more a portrayal of magic as humans would see it, rather than something inherently possessed from creation.

This scene has made it difficult for some Christians to accept the fact when we say that Tolkien's elves did not practice witchcraft, that they did not need to summon some pagan or satanic deity for their power. PJ has made (though we as fans know it otherwise) her seem to some non-Tolkienites like some spell casting witch-elf. That is another reason why PJ taking such cinematic license does distort the spirit of Tolkien.

[Greenwood]

This scene has made it difficult for some Christians to accept the fact when we say that Tolkien's elves did not practice witchcraft, that they did not need to summon some pagan or satanic deity for their power. PJ has made (though we as fans know it otherwise) her seem to some non-Tolkienites like some spell casting witch-elf. That is another reason why PJ taking such cinematic license does distort the spirit of Tolkien.

Thorin

The discussion has been over whether Arwen's portrayal in the movie violates the spirit of Tolkien in regard to elf princesses, particularly in regard to her apparent powers and the use of them. I and others, through the use of many direct quotes from Tolkien's own works have demonstrated that the movie does not violate anything. You now advance this incredible argument that some extremists are going to take the film and Tolkien as anti-Christian because of this one scene! Tell me, is it only elves or female characters that create this danger? Certainly you are aware of Gandalf uttering spells in LOTR.

As Legolas said in FOTR: "A plague on Dwarves and their stiff necks!" :) :)

[markrob]

I hope everyone is starting to see the ludicrious interpretations that I have been trying to champion over the last week. It is borderline insanity. Now that I see religion in the mix, it may be time for me to hang it up. Not sure yet, contemplating....:confused:

[Thorin]

Greenwood,

First of all there is way to much interpretation here of the book by the movie's standards it should always be the other way around. The fact that Tolkien did not write such a role for Arwen tells you his opinion on her "powers" (if any) she had and whether or not she could, or should use them. The obvious fact is that Arwen does not belong doing what she is doing, Tolkien wrote her the way he did for a reason and distorting her character and others to fit your own interpretation for no reason and then try to justify it's existence by claiming it stays true to Tolkien moves further and further away from your source...It doesn't belong...period.


When you work in a Christian school like I do, you come across a lot of stuff like that. Believe it or not. Gandalf was a Maia, an angelic being who possessed such powers. That is easy to justify to some people who would find it anti-Christian. Having to explain to people that the elves portrayed as spell casters in the movie is not the way Tolkien made them is a nuisance.

[ReadWryt]

Thorin,

Bah! Damn those witch hunting Christians!! heheheh Let them go castigate that Potter kid in the next theater over...

Actually, the thing was that I was arguing that Arwen was an Elven Witch because I presumed that when she did that incantation at the ford it was unusual for an Elf. Since then, as you can see in the disscussion, I had to eat crow on that as I was shown plenty of Second Age accounts of such things happening. It was yet another case of me having admitted being in error... DOH! :eek:

[Thrakerzog]

Funny, but I don't recall them showing the Bachanalia and rampant fornication of Elves, Men, Hobbits, Dwarves or Trolls, and yet the audience does not seem confused as to where THEY come from! How is the origin of the Uruk-Hai explained in the books? Word of Mouth. How could it have been explained in the movie? The same way...

Readwryt, this is a movie, not a book. Because of that things can and generally should be explained much easier and more clearly with pictures.
I did not go to see a word for word reading of the first book. I went to see the world brought to life. This is done to good effect and as I said, its a way of "making the creation of orcs a means to show they are hideous mutations." Thus we get far more from the movie about how evil and twisted they are then you do from the book.

"This made it WORLDS easier to understand why the Great Eagle came to get Gandalf for people that haven't seen the film. Things like this give reason behind action that can not so easily be translated from book to screen. I asked my girlfriend after the movie if she understood why the Eagle got Gandalf, and she was quite positive it was because he had sent for help."

Oh yes, worlds easier then the brief conversation between Gandalf and Radagast that explained it in the book.
Yes it most certainly does, for the same reason Gil-Galad or Tom Bombadil arn't in the movie. Who the hell was that guy Gandalf talked to for a minute? Where did he come from? Is it Captain Bird Man?
In a movie, you don't have the background, so you most remove otherwise confusing information.

Besides, you don't have to cast or actually pay a computer generated Moth, you simply need to invent some rediculous act that is outside the character of Gandalf and more in the realm of Radagast.

I don't think Peter Jackson was skimping on money on any part of this film... To imply this was why he changed it is silly.

"Again, this must be done for the sake of the new viewers.
It explains why, so suddenly, Sarumon, whom Gandalf has gone to see for console, has turned on his friend. To have Gandalf walk up to Isenguard and suddenly end up in prison, with no explanation, no fight, would have been very confusing."

Once again, the ACTIONS of Saruman and his WORDS explain well enough that he has turned on the White Council. The truth is that the duel was created to make up for the fact that Jackson turned Saruman into Sauron's lacky instead of having the aspirations for the Ring himself. There was NO reason for the pitifull Crouching Gandalf, Hidden Palantir duel. All that need to be done was portray Isengard to be full of the Orcs and Uruks that Saruman had mustered and it would be obvious to the audience that Gandalf would be hard pressed to leave Orthanc alive, or at least without a struggle.

Ah, I see, when you said "ten minutes of Wizard Duel" I thought you meant the entire debate in Orthanc as clearly the actual fighting was only a minute or so of that whole scene.
I don't agree at all that Peter Jackson did this to "make up for" Saruman's interaction with Sauron. In fact, I don't even know how or why you relate those two things...
As for the actual fighting, it is a way to show Gandalf was held against his will.
I again seem confused, you say Gandalf should have been forced to stay because of the Orcs and Uruks under Sarumans command, but why in the world would Gandalf had walked into Orthanc, or even Isenguard, if he say it busteling with Orcs and Uruks?!

I suppose that you think that in the book Gandalf was too whimpy to do anything BUT get captured and that is why he ended up on the roof of Orthanc, never thinking about the fact that when Gandalf returns to Isengard and finds the Hobbits lazing about the rubble of Treebeard's rampage that there was the evidence of a huge army of Orcs all about, and that there is only one way in/out of Isengard to begin with.

Please don't put thoughts into my head. I have NEVER thought Gandalf whimpy at all.

I suppose that you would have a point except for the myriad things that the audience is expected to believe on heresay anyways, but you certainly don't hear the audence walking out of the theater saying, "Why didn't he just put the ring on, turn invisible and go to that Mount Doom thing while nobody could see him?"

It was made VERY clear that putting the ring on was a very bad thing. The warning from Gandalf, the Eye of Sauron he saw when he did put it on in Bree, other such events.

Once more, another case of assuming that the audience is so stupid that they need to have complex concepts spoon fed to them.

No, it is you that seems to think the general audience already knows the full story. Many many people do not. Just because Peter Jackson takes the time and effort to make sure things are clear does not mean he is making the movie for morons. That is an insulting assumption to EVERYONE that hasn't read the books.

I never suggested that Gandalf was "Behind the times" and I have no idea why you suggest that I might suggest he act thussly. Nor do I suggest that he act in a manner that does not convey the gravity of the situation. I don't recall him manically freaking out at the Council, are things any less grave there? He could have spoken in a manner befitting his dignity and presence of mind. Bear in mind that Gandalf had been around since TA 1000, nearly 3000 years, and that he had seen many events in his time that had been, although not as grave as this, quite dire indeed...

Um, to many suggestions there. :) The main reason I see him as acting excited at the shire with Frodo is because he was damn well aware that the Nazgul where on there way, he was scared, exampled by when they heard Sam outside the window. Even a Maiar spirit 3000 years old and can be scared for the future when things are so dangerously on the edge.

Have to run.

[theGrenadier]

I bet Thrak was the kid who liked to antagonise the teacher.........hahahaha!

[Foe-Hammer]

are not teaching anything except how to be stubborn and ignorant to a fault.

Thorin,

Because of Arwen is not a real live living person, I can make up a story about her, say that she desired Aragorn because she thought the ring would come to him, and all you could say is that it violates the spirit of the book.
In that context, nothing that PJ did with the characters violates the spirit of the book.

[Greymantle]

My sincere apologies for my private message to you. I was out of line. I here make a public apology for comments that I wll not repeat publicly. My only excuse is irritability brought on by lack of sleep.

Okay, thank you.

No, you did not prove me wrong and the second definition is not perfectly legitimate. Both of your defintions involve something being sacred (the root word of sacrosanct is the same as sacred). The LOTR is a work of fiction, it is not a sacred text. You cannot blaspheme it or any of the fictional characters in it.

The root word is of course Latin for "sacred," but the actual word sacrosant differs in meaning. Its definition is close to the other word used in the definition I referenced: inviolable. For many people (including myself), the Lord of the Rings is very special and precsious (no bad jokes, Foe-Hammer! :P). It is important to us, and has a sancity to it not unlike what some people may feel for a religious text. For these reasons, many people do consider LotR something "sacrosanct" and "inviolable." Blasphemy can be defined as "an irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct." Therefore, some people may legitimately consider the movie adaptations "blasphemous." It's perfectly logical.

One of the main things that stimulated me to join this forum only a few days ago was my annoyance at the attitude of righteous superiority displayed by the self-proclaimed purists that they have a corner on Tolkien's work and thoughts. Your signature lines are a case in point and I expressed my objections to them on one of the threads in an exchange with ReadWryt.

Funny, few of us have signature lines that even relate to the movie or this debate... mine and Mike's are the only ones that immeidately come to mind. And mine is a direct quote from Tolkien itself; how can this be objectionable?

It seems to me that tempers have cooled a bit as evidenced by the thread A Truce to which you contributed. In your post on that thread you said: "What needs to stop is the misunderstanding, intentional misrepresentation and wanton ridicule and profanity."
Your post on seadragon's thread concerning a members typing "movies" instead of "movie" struck me as an example of "wanton ridicule".

It could be considered such. However, my post was not intended as offensive in the slightest. I did not mean to be rude to the poster, and I made no statements in regard to their positions in this debate. It was this latter kind of ridicule that I so strongly disapprove of; what I posted was a simple, idiotic jest that is being blown entirely out of proportion.

Your somewhat snide post above interjected only minutes later while I was attempting to discuss the nature of elven magic in Tolkien with ReadWryt provoked an intemperate (private) response to you on my part.

Well, I was responding to the fact that you criticised ReadWryt for allegedly misusing the word "blasphemy." If anything was "snide," this was. If you were going to be nit-picky about language, I saw no harm in responding to you in kind, especially since your criticism was without true logical basis.

[ReadWryt]

Readwryt, this is a movie, not a book. Because of that things can and generally should be explained much easier and more clearly with pictures.
I did not go to see a word for word reading of the first book. I went to see the world brought to life. This is done to good effect and as I said, its a way of "making the creation of orcs a means to show they are hideous mutations." Thus we get far more from the movie about how evil and twisted they are then you do from the book.

This actually did nothing to show how Morgoth created the Orcs in the First Age. The fact is that Orcs reproduce the same way as the Elves that they were created from. Seems pretty simple to let the audience assume that. They would not need to do a word for word translation as there is not a SINGLE word in The Lord of the Rings about how Orcs reproduce, or how they were bred by Sauron into Uruk-hai.

Yes it most certainly does, for the same reason Gil-Galad or Tom Bombadil arn't in the movie. Who the hell was that guy Gandalf talked to for a minute? Where did he come from? Is it Captain Bird Man?
In a movie, you don't have the background, so you most remove otherwise confusing information.

Yes, well...I suppose it was much more important to the story to show Hobbits playing with Gandalf's fireworks and stealing from neigbors and other filler that never occured in the book then to simply show a moment of Gandalf saying, "Radagast old friend, please go to your friends the Eagles and tell them this...", and then leave it to Gandalf to mention at the council that the Eagle had done what Radagast told him...

I'm not going to go on in this debate. Instead I am going to defend Peter Jackson. Yes, you saw correctly, DEFEND Jackson. I am going to defend him against the many individuals who have implied that he actually assumed that the viewing audience was so ignorant that he had to dumb down so many things that were not impossible to portray in the movie so that they could understand them. I believe that Peter Jackson actually has respect for the people who made movies like "American Psycho" and "Fight Club" such box office monsters. I think that he has faith that the viewers who made so potentially confusing a show like "Twin Peaks" a phenomenon. I DON'T think that he removed so many things from the movie and then replaced them with something else for the purpose of simplifying things for anyone other then Peter Jackson.

For every thing that has been mentioned as making things easier for the audience to understand there is at least one thing that has been removed, perhaps with the exception of the Uruk-hai, which was so blatantly for the "Yuck" factor. Radagast was not removed to be replaced by a moth for the same reason Bombadil was left out, as is evidenced by the fact that he had to be REPLACED. Are you actually saying that it would be easier for an audience to believe that Gandalf can speak to Moths then another Wizard? No, Jackson has padded this film out with so much needless **** that had nothing to do with the story that he had to make cuts as well, and there is not much else that can be said about that.

If something is removed or changed from the original story for the sake of "Simplifying it" for the viewing audience then it had to have been confusing for the reader as well, and I refuse to believe that these books have gained the popularity that they have by confusing people.

[Thrakerzog]

Readwryt,
Please answer me this:
Where did you get this fact from, as I have no doubt I'm not as versed in all of Tolkiens works as many here:
The fact is that Orcs reproduce the same way as the Elves that they were created from.

If something is removed or changed from the original story for the sake of "Simplifying it" for the viewing audience then it had to have been confusing for the reader as well, and I refuse to believe that these books have gained the popularity that they have by confusing people.

I TOTALLY disagree with this. I mean really, you can not fail to see how going from a book, which can use a great deal of "inner thought", or full explanation of facial expressions or gestures can be very hard to translate to a movie? Then we have the epilog and the Simirlians etc etc.

I'm not saying that what Peter Jackson did we genius, or a great thing, but simply that these changes, for the most part, where made to make the movie flow smoothly and logically for the uninitiated while building up characters like Gandalf and Marry and Pipen to give them a life and personality.

As for defending Peter Jackson, it seems you are simply more precisely defining your attack... He didn't do it to dumb it down, he did it to "pad it down" with silly scenes.

With Radagast, tell me exactly where you would put him in that movie as the movie was shown. When would he have said these words?

Also, how did you vote in the "did you like it" poll? Did you hate the movie because of these changes, or are you only disgusted at the changes and liked the movie overall?

[Thorin]

Thraker, I am so amazed that you and others are so hell bent on defending this movie that you can't see the Tolkien forest through the trees. you guys will defend up the ying yang instead of seeing a bit of logic and not try to justify every change PJ did. At least see the reason in ReadWryt's posts. He makes clear cut sense to me, NPW purist or not. Stop being such a Pharisee.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thrakerzog
[b]Funny, but I don't recall them showing the Bachanalia and rampant fornication of Elves, Men, Hobbits, Dwarves or Trolls, and yet the audience does not seem confused as to where THEY come from! How is the origin of the Uruk-Hai explained in the books? Word of Mouth. How could it have been explained in the movie? The same way...

You make no sense here. It is better to fabricate a scene on the false origins of orcs instead of explaining it properly? What do you want sensationalism or truth?Because you can't show orcs fornicating, you must show an alternative? RW was saying that you don't need to show any such thing. You obviously seem to think they do, that is why the new fabricated scene is better? What kind of logic is that??

Readwryt, this is a movie, not a book. Because of that things can and generally should be explained much easier and more clearly with pictures.
I did not go to see a word for word reading of the first book. I went to see the world brought to life. This is done to good effect and as I said, its a way of "making the creation of orcs a means to show they are hideous mutations." Thus we get far more from the movie about how evil and twisted they are then you do from the book.

Hello? What are you reading into our posts? Never have we ever said that we want a word for word reading. What we did expect is to see accurate pictures and scenes that bring the book to life (and some have). Not some fabrication that doesn't do anything but add needless sensationalism. I think you get the idea that all orcs are evil and twisted. You do not need to make up ridiculous scenes to portray that.

Oh yes, worlds easier then the brief conversation between Gandalf and Radagast that explained it in the book.
Yes it most certainly does, for the same reason Gil-Galad or Tom Bombadil arn't in the movie. Who the hell was that guy Gandalf talked to for a minute? Where did he come from? Is it Captain Bird Man?
In a movie, you don't have the background, so you most remove otherwise confusing information

I don't fully understand the fear you folks have of inserting a character in to the story. Putting Radagast in and having Gandalf talk to him is no stretch of the director/screenplay's ability. You all act like any actor who doesn't play a major part of the story shouldn't be added in. Let's fabricate a two minute scene with Gandalf talking to a moth instead of having the real thing put in. That makes a whole lot of sense. I can't believe you people are justifying this! Where does your allegiance lie??


If you liked the movie, that's great! I didn't mind the movie. I like a lot of movies. I do, however, see the idiocy in some of the things done in the movies (espcially when they are based on books) and point out the foolishness of a scene. You seem to think this movie is justified in every change and PJ is God's gift of Tolkien reincarnated to the world. Stop justifying stupid parts as if Tolkien didn't know what he was writing. RW has put forth many a good argument here and you're so bent on defending the movie at all costs, that you've seemed to miss the logic.

[Ancalagon]

Where did you get this fact from, as I have no doubt I'm not as versed in all of Tolkiens works as many here: The fact is that Orcs reproduce the same way as the Elves that they were created from.

' For the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar (Elves and Men); and naught that had life, or semblance of life, could ever Melkor make since his rebellion in the Ainulindale before the beginning; so say the wise.'

This quote is taken from The Silmarillion; The Coming of Elves and the Captivity of Melkor.

Its either regular sex, of which hopefully we all partake, or PODS or quite possibly 'Delivery by Stork', though I dont see that working in book or film.

[Greenwood]

First of all there is way to much interpretation here of the book by the movie's standards it should always be the other way around. The fact that Tolkien did not write such a role for Arwen tells you his opinion on her "powers" (if any) she had and whether or not she could, or should use them. The obvious fact is that Arwen does not belong doing what she is doing, Tolkien wrote her the way he did for a reason and distorting her character and others to fit your own interpretation for no reason and then try to justify it's existence by claiming it stays true to Tolkien moves further and further away from your source...It doesn't belong...period. -- Thorin

Thorin

I am afraid I do not understand the first sentence of your post so I cannot address it. As to Arwen's role in the movie, it was repeatedly claimed that it was wrong because Tolkien had made it clear that elf princesses could not have such powers, did not utter anything that could be considered an incantation and would never take such an active role in a conflict. I and others cited specific text from Tolkien showing that non of these points were valid, as ReadWryt has graciously agreed. If you wish to give me counter examples that you think refute the quotes I have posted from Tolkien I will consider them.

There is no "obvious fact that that Arwen does not belong doing what she is doing ..."

"It doesn't belong...period." is not an argument.

As I have said before, it is obvious you do not like Arwen's changed role in the movie. I have no problem with that, as long as you make it clear it is your opinion.

[Greenwood]

"The root word is of course Latin for "sacred," but the actual word sacrosant differs in meaning. Its definition is close to the other word used in the definition I referenced: inviolable. For many people (including myself), the Lord of the Rings is very special and precsious (no bad jokes, Foe-Hammer! :P). It is important to us, and has a sancity to it not unlike what some people may feel for a religious text. For these reasons, many people do consider LotR something "sacrosanct" and "inviolable." Blasphemy can be defined as "an irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct." Therefore, some people may legitimately consider the movie adaptations "blasphemous." It's perfectly logical." -- Greymantle

"Funny, few of us have signature lines that even relate to the movie or this debate... mine and Mike's are the only ones that immeidately come to mind. And mine is a direct quote from Tolkien itself; how can this be objectionable?" -- Greymantle


Greymantle

It is not perfectly logical. You continue to use the words like "sanctity" and "sacrosanct" in reference to LOTR which is a fictional work, not a religious text. You then cite defintions that use words like "irreverent" and "impious", all words connected to religious beliefs. LOTR is not a religious text and neither it nor any character in it can be blasphemed.

As to your signature, my statement was: "One of the main things that stimulated me to join this forum only a few days ago was my annoyance at the attitude of righteous superiority displayed by the self-proclaimed purists that they have a corner on Tolkien's work and thoughts. Your signature lines are a case in point and I expressed my objections to them on one of the threads in an exchange with ReadWryt." I did not say that your siganture in the sense of being offensive, I said I objected to it because of its implications. Since you evidently did not bother to look up the post I mentioned I will briefly repeat my objections. The Tolkien quotation you use was in regard to a screenplay prepared for a proposed movie of LOTR by the Disney studios. Since it was aimed at a specific screenplay that Tolkien had read, it is at best misleading to cite it as showing Tolkien's objections to a screenplay written for entirely different movie nearly thirty years after Tolkien's death.

[Greymantle]

"It is not perfectly logical. You continue to use the words like "sanctity" and "sacrosanct" in reference to LOTR which is a fictional work, not a religious text. You then cite defintions that use words like "irreverent" and "impious", all words connected to religious beliefs. LOTR is not a religious text and neither it nor any character in it can be blasphemed."

This is the English language. Words change. All these words were certainly originally connected with religion; however, they have developed so that they are no longer specific to it. One can say that flag-burning is "irreverent," but there is no connection to religion there. Similarly, the usage of the word "dumb" is not resticted to lack of speech ability.
Words such as "blasphemy" and "sacrosant" are not restricted to religous use! Their origins are there, certainly, but words change. Now they can apply to other things people consider precious and valuable, such as The Lord of the Rings.

"I did not say that your siganture in the sense of being offensive, I said I objected to it because of its implications."

I did not claim that you thought my sig was offensive; rather, I asked why you found it "objectionable." That was your word.

"Since you evidently did not bother to look up the post I mentioned I will briefly repeat my objections."

You didn't exactly give me much to go on. "One of the threads in an exchange with ReadWryt." I'm not going to bother to spend an hour and a half coming through each thread on this board to find out why you don't like my sig. If it's so important to you, just tell me.

"Since it was aimed at a specific screenplay that Tolkien had read, it is at best misleading to cite it as showing Tolkien's objections to a screenplay written for entirely different movie..."

If you'll take a look at the quote...
"I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent perversions of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it apears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the Plot and Scenery."
The "should resent" language bears a heavy implication that this is his opinion regarding any sort of representation of his work. The fact that he then directly states the movie as a parenthetical backs up my reasoning.

[Greenwood]

Words do indeed change, but only over a long period of time and when the overwheming majority of speakers of the language and scjolars of the language have accepted that the words have changed. The generally accepted usage of words like sanctity, blasphemy, impious, etc is with a religious connotation. Tolkien is not a religion.

I should resent perversions of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it apears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the Plot and Scenery."
The "should resent" language bears a heavy implication that this is his opinion regarding any sort of representation of his work. The fact that he then directly states the movie as a parenthetical backs up my reasoning.


Tolkien's parenthetical in fact proves how false your reasoning is. He is clearly referring to a particular "sketch" (screenplay) he had seen. You cannot apply it to a screenplay or movie that was made nearly thirty years after his death. This is exactly the problem that many of us have with you self-styled "purists". You claim some sort of divine knowledge (the religious connotation is intended) of Tolkien and that all views that differed from yours are wrong and "blasphemous". State that the views are your opinions and there is no problem. You, however, refuse to do this as evidenced by your repeated violations of the stated rules of Ancalogons thread "Your Honest Opinion."

[Thrakerzog]

Thorin,
Your self righteous puristism is exceeded only by Greymantle.

Thraker, I am so amazed that you and others are so hell bent on defending this movie that you can't see the Tolkien forest through the trees.
We are not "hell bent" on defending the movie or Peter Jackson, in fact, I have criticized parts of the movie.

But that's not what we are debating here. We are debating your unwavering belief that because PJ didn't create a movie that EXACTLY TO THE LETTER conforms with Tolkiens book, that PJ has somehow taken (Quote from Talierin) something that you love very deeply and distorts it like this movie did...

To think this way is foolish. Foolish beyond belief. When will you realize your precious book is still there to comfort you any time you wish to pick it up and read it. It will never be taken or tarnished by others, nor re-written to tell the story as the movie does nor altered in any way.

And oh yes, I am sure you are totally passionately unreasonable about this as only someone who is blind to all but their own belief in a debate would ask "Where does your allegiance lie??"

I'll tell you where my allegiance lies - with those that accept this movie as a movie based on the books of The Lord of the Rings.
Tolkien did not write a holy script, and Peter Jackson has desecrated nothing.

So why please tell me WHY are you SO offended by this movie?!?!?!

All I do is present reasons why Peter Jackson has done what he did. Am I sure I am accurate? Nope. But that I leave freely up to debate.
Why do I present these arguments? So that you might realize THIS IS A MOVIE, Peter Jackson CHANGED THINGS because THIS IS A MOVIE.
Get over it.

[ReadWryt]

Readwryt,
Please answer me this:
Where did you get this fact from, as I have no doubt I'm not as versed in all of Tolkiens works as many here:
The fact is that Orcs reproduce the same way as the Elves that they were created from.


"And ere long the evil creatures came even to Beleriand, over passes in the mountains , or up from the south through the dark forests. Wolves were there, or creatures that walked in wolf-shapes, and other fell beings of shadow; and among them were the Orcs, who afterwards wrought ruin in Beleriand: but they were yet few and wary, and did but smell out the ways of the land, awaiting the return of their lord. Whence they came or what they were the ELves knew not then, thinking them perhaps to be Avari who had become evil and savage in the wild; in which they guessed all too near, it is said." Silmarillion: Of the Sindar Page 93-94 Houghton Mifflin Hardbound

The Avari were the Elves who refused to join the Westward Marches from Cuivienen.

"Now the Orcs that multiplied in the darkness of the earth grew strong and fell, and their dark lord filled them with a lust of ruin and death;..." Silmarillion: Of the Sindar Page 96 Houghton Mifflin Hardbound

Goodness, why even in the Hobbit there is an entire civilization of Orcs in the Misty Mountains. Now you could, even though the Silmarillion mentions time and time again that they were "Mockeries of the Elves" attempt to say that "Well, what if they just multiply like the Gremlins in the movie by the same name? Just add water and POOF!", which would still not be in line with the footage in the movie of Uruks rising from Uruk-Soup, but in the Silmarillion it also states that...

"...and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs..", the word "breed" explicitly implying that there was some form of intercourse between genetically different individuals, but then it goes on to state that "For the Orcs had life and multiplied in the manner of the Children of Iluvatar...".

I hope that this clears up my previous statement.

[ReadWryt]

Greenwood,

So if I were to state that "I should resent you misinterpreting Tolkien's writings, (and do resent it, so far as it apears in this post)..." It would only apply to the post that brought about the comment?

If one said "I should not like to die, (And in the case of that gun pointed at my head, I really DO not want to die)..." then I suppose that as soon as the gun points elsewhere their desire to remain living can be in question once more.


Please...:rolleyes:

Or maybe what you are suggesting is that an Exeter Educated, Oxford Employed Professor of English was incapable of knowing when to simply say "I resent" and instead said "I should resent" and then made specific the remark because he was in the habbit of filling out business corespondence with flowery superfluous language? I don't know, you might be right, the author of the single most popular piece of English Literature of the past Millenium might not have all that great a grasp on expressing himself...

The problem I have with the people who claim that this quote only applies to the specifics in the parenthisis is that they ignore everything OUTSIDE of the parentisis by doing so. Here, lets remove the parenthisis and their content and see what the quote says...Oh gosh, it says that Tolkien "... should resent perversions of the characters even more than the spoiling of the Plot and Scenery." . I wish to know by what means of Divination you know that such a general concept was only meant as a specific comment, and how you have stripped from the invisible subtext of so openly baldfaced a statement the hidden truth you cling so tenaciously to in your argument about the specificity of that remark...

[Greenwood]

ReadWryt

The emphasis on the word should was Greymantle's not mine. I have pointed out, repeatedly, that it is quite clear from the quote that Tolkien was responding to a specific screenplay he had read. I repeat you cannot apply it to a screen adaptation done nearly thirty years after his death that he never had the slightest contact with. You and Greymantle are the ones guilty of "divination" by your insistence that Tolkien would consider this adaptation as "perverting" his characters the same way the screenplay he read did. There is no way you can know this. I am well aware that you feel it does. Many of us, just as loyal fans of Tolkien who love the LOTR as much as you, feel it does not. I have already demonstrated in a series of posts why your contention that Arwen's role in the movie violated some basic principles of Tolkien's could not be defended. You are free to have your opinions, just state that they are your opinions and do not tell the rest of us that your opinions are right and ours are wrong because Tolkien is on your side. Tolkien has been dead for nearly thirty years and you have not supplied a single statement of his that directly supports your position unless one accepts the view that this movie is equivalent to some adaptation that placed feathers and beaks on orcs.

[markrob]

Thrak and Greenwood, thank you for continueing to fight the good cause. My time is getting limited lately and it is good to know there is hope out there to keep a certain few in "check".

I think it is safe to say their (NPW'S) biggest fear is that people will believe the movies interpretation and forget about the book, that could not be any further from the truth. They also can not stand the unnecessary changes, well we cant either, but we realize it is a MOVIE. Our biggest problem with them is the excessive nit picking and "holier than thou attitude". The exact knowledge of Tolkiens thoughts are also disturbing.

Regardless, none of this will change and constant bickering will prevail. The veteran FAD's will eventually spend less time on this site because we actually have a life other than our love for Tolkiens work. The extreme purists will have the last word due to their obsessive passion for defending any alteration of JRRT's work. Fellow FAD's we have stood proud, never give up on realizing reality and basic common sense.

[orion]

I have to agree with Aragil. The characters of Merry and Pippin in Tolkien are portrayed as, although close friends to Frodo, young mischevious hobbits not yet of age. The two scenes with the fireworks and beer (like you said) were hilarious! When they first meet Frodo and Sam, although not in character with the book just makes it better.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by markrob
They also can not stand the unnecessary changes, well we cant either, but we realize it is a MOVIE. Our biggest problem with them is the excessive nit picking and "holier than thou attitude". The exact knowledge of Tolkiens thoughts are also disturbing.

Regardless, none of this will change and constant bickering will prevail. The veteran FAD's will eventually spend less time on this site because we actually have a life other than our love for Tolkiens work. The extreme purists will have the last word due to their obsessive passion for defending any alteration of JRRT's work. Fellow FAD's we have stood proud, never give up on realizing reality and basic common sense.


(FAD backslapping and rousing cheers and tears all around after markrob's pompous rant)

markrob, you among all the FADs are the most superfluous to not recognize that our nit picking comments aren't about obsessive fundamentalism. We do have lives! You don't seem to understand the concept of principle. All of us understand that the movie could never be like the book, nor have we ever expected a word for word translation. The majority of your retorts constantly seem to emphasise that we are fanatics because that is what we expect. That is a very shallow interpetation of what we are saying. We do not "defend every alteration of Tolkien's work". Some of the changes that occured were being accepted and justified by the purists long before you or the movie came out. So stop being so sanctimonious and stereotypical in your categorizations.

We do hold JRR Tolkien's works quite in honor, as should you being a fan. I hate seeing movie's butcher books, but I can live with them. LoTR, is different than your average book and in my opinion has earned the respect and honor it deserves to show a little sacredness when you are bringing such an epic to the screen that folks have been waiting for for long, long years. I dislike change for no decent reason. I dislike a director who claims to be a fan and tells the public that he is making a rendition as true to the book (after all, they read the chapters before they filmed), and then proceeds to not only butcher important scenes and characters, but adds in his own fabricated clap-trap all the while justifying his cuts claiming that he is strapped for time. To me that is unecessary. I know that not all of this can be laid at PJ's feet. NLC has much of the blame to share.

I dislike it when posters like yourself mock and ridicule those that stand up for Tolkien's work, even when they are trying to find some good scenes in the movie that did bring out the genius of Tolkien. I have done that many times yet you seem to overlook that because instead of seeing critical analysis of a movie claiming to be true to the book that spawned it, you see rabid fundamentalism. Your opinions, IMO have placed you as a NPW of the NPWs more than a rational defender of PJ's movies like some here (whose opinions I respect) are.

With all that in mind, you will get the opinion of this avid purist who will defend the book over the movie anyday, of the good things of this movie. Please do not consider me as one of your rabid fundamentalists who "defend any alteration of Tolkien's work"...

Good things that this NPW liked about the movie:

1) Makes more people read Tolkien
2) Moria was well potrayed
3) First Shire scenes, even though fabricated were well done and ambiguous enough for director interpetation
4) Legolas and fight scenes were well acted out
5) Sean Bean as Boromir did a fantastic job of his character
6) Amon Hen well done despite little changes
7) Black Riders
8) Casting for the most part was done well
9) Scenery and backdrop was authentic
10) Attention to detail (costume, weapons) was well done.
11) Soundtrack is excellent

[markrob]

Well said Thorin, there is hope for you yet. I will pay more attention to your positive observations when time allows. By the way, have you seen it a second time? Just curious. Have a Happy New Year. :D

[stevehope]

It's pretty clear to me that JRRT was addressing the screenplay he was reading, but that he had a general abhorrence of his characters being "perverted" which applied to all possible adaptations in any media and was more important to him than scenery or other changes.

I also think (my opinion) that JRRT would be pretty unhappy with the movie's characterization of many of his characters. That doesn't really bother me too much--if he didn't want someone to make a movie, he shouldn't have sold the rights. I enjoy the movie.

[Foe-Hammer]

Well, since we all know that some changes would have to be made in a movie, your interpretation of that quote would eliminate ANY movie made by anyone.

Look, there's a big difference between reading a story and watching it unfold.
IE, the scene where Bilbo get all wierded out. EVERYONE in the theater jumped. I never once jumped while reading the book. I cried. I laughed. I was concerned. But I never jumped.

[DGoeij]

Happy New-Year!

Great to see the majority of memebers posting on this thread, actually backing up their thougths with serious arguments. It took me a while to read trough all the posts.

I really liked the view on the 'Arwen incident' by considering her descendance from Luthien. Good thinking, it didn't totally convinced me, but still....

I wish to remind everyone that a short remark, just to insult someone, not paying any real attention to anything that person said is in no way convincing me to look at you as a true fan. NPW or FAD, I only see a big-mouth, compensating lack of social intelligence and knowledge of LOTR, with shouting insults.

I guess that nobody does have any supportive argument concerning the interference of Saruman with the Caradras? That was in my opinion a very wrong change, nothing to do with the original story and no addition to the story on screen. But, who am I?;)

[Greenwood]

DGoeij

Just to play the devil's advocate, as I said in a post on another thread, I think Jackson had a huge problem in making a cinematic adaptation of LOTR in that his main villain/protagonist, Sauron, is never seen. (Before anyone jumps on me, yes I saw Sauron in the film's prologue, but this too is not in the book and had to be added for the same reason as above besides giving the history of the Ring.) I think that is why he beefed up Saruman's role, to give the audience a concrete villain. The wizards duel, the creation of the Uruk-hai, etc., all flow from this one decision. I believe the scenes on Caradhras were also part of this. In the book the members of the Fellowship debate each other (with no resolution) over whether the snow storm is specifically aimed at them or is merely the ill will of the mountain. The movie merely comes down on one side of that argument. I think minor details like who comments on "fell voices" in the air, Boromir (book) or Legolas (movie), do not matter to the basic story or its spirit.

All that said, I will say I didn't particularly like the film version of this scene, but as I have also said I did not agree with all of Jackson's choices in adapting the book to the screen. Stepping back from it, the scene works reasonably well cinematically and I do not think it does any irreparable harm to the book's plot or spirit.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Greenwood
DGoeij

Just to play the devil's advocate, as I said in a post on another thread, I think Jackson had a huge problem in making a cinematic adaptation of LOTR in that his main villain/protagonist, Sauron, is never seen. (Before anyone jumps on me, yes I saw Sauron in the film's prologue, but this too is not in the book and had to be added for the same reason as above besides giving the history of the Ring.) I think that is why he beefed up Saruman's role, to give the audience a concrete villain. The wizards duel, the creation of the Uruk-hai, etc., all flow from this one decision. I believe the scenes on Caradhras were also part of this. In the book the members of the Fellowship debate each other (with no resolution) over whether the snow storm is specifically aimed at them or is merely the ill will of the mountain. The movie merely comes down on one side of that argument. I think minor details like who comments on "fell voices" in the air, Boromir (book) or Legolas (movie), do not matter to the basic story or its spirit.


I would have to disagree with you. The audience aren't impatient, naive, people who've never been used to not having a tangible villain in a movie. Every mystery story and serial killer show have a villain who never shows themself until the end. To me that is kind of dumbing down the audience. Especially when there is enough in the movie to show that Sauron is the true villain.

1) Intro to movie
2) His gates, MT. Doom and Ringwraiths scattered across the whole show
3) Poor Gollum being tortured in Mordor (I actually felt sorry for the little critter)
4) His name and location being mentioned constantly


Good grief! If that doesn't show you a tangible evil that the Fellowship faces something's wrong. I think it would have been more effective to show Sauron on his dark throne raising his arm as Caradhras falls around the fellowship. I just don't see justifying Saruman's move with that argument.

[Greenwood]

Every mystery story and serial killer show have a villain who never shows themself until the end.

Thorin

If you change the quote above to a villain doesn't reveal themselves to the end I will agree with you. A mystery that brings in a new character at the end to pin every thing on is a failure as a mystery. But I digress.

As I said I was palying the devil's advocate. I didn't say that Jackson was necessarily right, just what I thought his reasoning was.

[Foe-Hammer]

There has to be answers in a movie or people walk away bored.

Everyone who watches movies know that it is rare to put a scene in a movie that doesn't mean something. To leave the question of the mountain just hanging like in the book would be boring. That question is never answered in the book, except by the reader. The reader has other writings to refer to to see what the author meant then he can go back to the story and pick it up right where he left off. The movie goer cannot do that and for the movie to leave that question unanswered would deminish the quality of the movie.

See, a movie requires you to be able to follow along without having to analize a bunch of stuff, otherwise you miss the next scenes and then you're lost.
In a book the reader has the time to stop and go over info etc to make sure he understands. (And I'b bet a dollar to a donut that everyone of us have had to go back and re-read parts of this book, if not more than once)

This is the main challenge in making an entertaining movie.

[markrob]

Good analysis Foe. :cool:

[DGoeij]

Ok, in the case of the Caradhras you couldn't leave questions standing. Not every movie needs answers to everything, but in this case I agree it had to be a 'closed chapter'.

If it had to be kept simple in order not to bore the viewer, why not just let Aragorn make a remark about the bad weather in this time of the year and let the fellowship be defeated by serious bad weather, not anything very strange in mountain passes?

And even then, I think a short explanation of Gandalf, about the Caradhras being an old might in itself (doesn't need that much screen time) was more than enough for a moderatly interested film audience. If you're looking to a fantasy story, what's wrong with mistical mountains? It means something allright, it means the fellowship cannot pass over the mountains, so they have no other choice than to find their way into Khazad-dum.

I mean, if they expect a movie-audience to be so silly, how will they explain the presence of Shelob? A complete breeding program of hideous spiders in the dungeons of Barad-dur? Making absolutely clear where they came from, how they were brought into Middle Earth and why they're guarding the pass?

Middle Earth is old, very old. There is more in this world than just the forces of good and evil, why not show a little of this? No need for complex explanations of every detail, that is true. It's a movie, it needs progression in its story. But IMHO the dumbing down is overdone.

[lilhobo]

what are you people on anyways :D

you worry about whether Arwen should incant some spells or if she is non-Christain in a fantasy movie/book???? ARE you on drugs???

She could easily close her eyes and the water could coming rushing, BUT how cimenatic would that have been??? Why can she call on nature to her aid?? just seeing her "recant" ancient language gives her greater visual power. Just coz Tolkien says that elven princesses shouldnt recant spells, doesnt mean Arwen shouldnt.....This is a elven princess who is rejecting immortality for love so she is a bit of a rebel :D


and on the visual sense of power, seeing Sauron swiping away at men and elves like Arnie the Babarian would dont give the cinematic sense of fear or suspense




PS. and you cant have extras like Glorfindel and Radagast coming in and out of a scene unexplained.....not very cinematic, hence Arwen and the moth...although it would have been easier to hear Gandalf cry out for help and the Eagle heard him...and we see a bird's eye view of the Eagle coming to Orthanc to rescue Gandalf

[B Proudfoot]

I'm new here and am a tad sad at the amount of bickering on the majority of threads, so this one is a real site for sore eyes.

Call me stupid, but any modern movie is going to rely heavily on suggestive methods to get the message across. Spell casting....for the readers of the books, we know the elves are part of middle earth, not just inhabitors, but for the general public who want to see effects more than content, leaving a woman on horseback, blinking her eyes aint that dramatic!

I'm using this film to heighten my enjoyment of the world created by Tolkien. The film has introduced visuals that will aid my imagination when next I turn the page and read "Concerning Hobbits." I know things are slightly amiss in the film, but does it really matter to any real amount. Dissecting it to the nth degree really only shows the anal quality that is associated with this type of lit.

Enjoy it, we know what's right and wrong with it!

[DGoeij]

Thanks Proudfeet, sorry foot.;)

That's the reason why I started this thread, all the heated arguing about te movie-book differences was not something I enjoyed, so I turned the question around.

[Ged]

Here's a polite and friendly dig at the "purists" - meant to be a bit of fun and no offense intended:

When the Two Towers comes out, would you like :

90 minutes of the 3 hunters, Fangorn, Helm's Deep, The voice of Saruman, The Palantir,

then followed by...

a further 90 minutes showing the journey of Frodo and Sam to Mordor.

It would be true to the book after all!

Or do you think it would be better to mix scenes in "real time"?

[Grond]

Ged..... that is too nit-picky of a question for me. I just can't/won't respond.:)

[DGoeij]

Of course a movie is not an instrument to use the same way of bringing a story like it was done in a book like TTT. Besides, TTT is actually made up of two boooks, one telling the story of the events of the part of te Fellowship in Rohan, the other one telling the story of Frodo and Sam.
So if I have to consider myself a purist (dunno, don't care:) ), a change like that would be completely acceptable to say the least. I'd say it would be inevitable if one wished to keep a viewable movie, changing between the relatively calm, but nevertheless heavy journey of Frodo and Sam and the action filled, chaotic events concernig the rest of the Fellowship.

[Ged]

DGoeij,

I agree completely. Books and films are two different mediums. Having TTT as two separate parts works well in the book, but could not possibly work in the film. So PJ will mix and match the chapters, and good luck to him.

I suppose the reason I raised this question is that in FoTR some scenes also appeared in different order than in the book, particularly the ones with Saruman. But they do occur as far I can tell in correct chronological order - e.g. Gandalf trapped on the summit of Orthanc whilst the party are around or just approaching Bree, rather than Gandalf telling the tale as a flashback. It was this which had a somewhat disorienting effect on me when I first saw the film, because you naturally expect certain scenes to follow others. But it is still true to the book, nevertheless.

[DGoeij]

Apart from the fact that the film hurried up a lot more than the book, I'd say the chronological order was true to the original story. Indeed the scenes passed somewhat differently than in the book, but that wasn't much of a bother to me. I was there for the visual spectacle and wasn't dissapointed much. The meddling with the original stroy was what bothered me more, like Saruman interfering with the Caradhras and the 'Arwen incident'. But nothing more than fronzing my eyebrows and a prod to my girlfriend. ;)

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by DGoeij
than fronzing my eyebrows:D I like that one. As far as I know: fronsen=to frown

[baraka]

There is no reason in earth to change the name of Bilbo´s book name to There and Back Again: A Hobbit´s Holiday to There and Back Again: A Hobbit´s Tale.
Why o god Why?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Ged
Here's a polite and friendly dig at the "purists" - meant to be a bit of fun and no offense intended:

When the Two Towers comes out, would you like :

90 minutes of the 3 hunters, Fangorn, Helm's Deep, The voice of Saruman, The Palantir,

then followed by...

a further 90 minutes showing the journey of Frodo and Sam to Mordor.

It would be true to the book after all!

Or do you think it would be better to mix scenes in "real time"?

Not to nit-picky for me! :D

Definitely have the events go back and forth between S&F and the rest of them. It adds variety and most TV shows (not just soap operas) do it regularily. Many successful movies have done things that way as well. I have no problem with PJ showing events in real time rather than flashback....As long as he can stick with the story and not botch the characters and dialogue, I will be happy with that.

[DGoeij]

Yes I meant frowning.:p
Darn, what a dumb mistake. Thanks Bill.