You look like a hobbit but you are no expert.

[Jamesy]

I subscribe to the theory postulated by some members of this board that the major crime committed by the unholy Peter Jackson was not the butcher-like excision of an unwitting and innocent Bombadil; nor was it the sacrilegious truncation of the excellent Council of Elrond - though I will gripe at these monstrosities at great length, and not without some pleasure, if it is required of me. No, even these great maculations of my pure Tolkien soul are overshadowed by the swarm of minor alterations which destroys utterly the noble spirit of The Lord of the Rings.

Where is the intrigue? Where is the sense of mystery that draws us back to the books again and again? Where is the wisdom of Gandalf? Where is the veiled nobility of Aragorn? Where the hell is the developed friendship between Legolas and Gimli?

Even to mention such specific flaws is to defeat the intention of this Rant. The Purpose is to describe the general effect that these films will have on the world. Has Peter Jackson destroyed the magic of the Lord of the Rings for the uneducated masses? He has taken the beautiful nuances of the books and kicked them to the Hollywood kerb.

When I first read the books I was enthralled by the beautifully descriptive classical language; I was almost lost in the interplay between the vivid and much varied characters. I was mesmerised by the world that was begun to be revealed to me. I reread the books. Still unsatisfied I gobbled up The Hobbit which had remained unvisited since early childhood. Hungry for more I delved The Silmarilion and found great riches. Thanks to the efforts of Christopher Tolkien (and my own obsession) the list goes on.

Peter Jackson (who shall henceforward be referred to as The Chump) does not understand The Lord of the Rings. He has read the books. He knows the basic story line. Yet he doesn’t ‘get’ that the small details and subtleties are what produce the magical effect on all readers of the books. He has casually tossed one of the great works of the English language into that great dustbin called Americana.

I shall play advocatus diaboli for a while. The Chump is actually a Tolkien purist. He is disgusted by the limitations of time, money and the attention span of the average American that have forced him to oversee such a shoddy adaptation of the books.
Unfortunately we know this is rubbish. Although it can conceivably be argued that the axing of Bombadil and the episode from the Old Forest to the Barrow Downs is excusable insomuch as they are digressions from the main plot. However the malicious Americanism is indefensible. I was disgusted by the dude ranch-like "Lets hunt some orc" and I share Mr MickyPlum’s horror. The melodramatic drowning scene was simply inexplicable. Inexplicable as it is both contrary to the mood of the episode in the book and entirely superfluous to the drama of the motion picture.

What kind of a person is The Chump? Does he get sadistic pleasures from befouling the great man? JRR Tolkien must be turning in his grave while The Chump relieves himself, giggling, on his headstone. I believe the master must be looking down on us from his lofty position in the afterlife in horror - "Oh, why is Gandalf a bumbling idiot? Why is Aragorn whinging that his daddy didn’t give him enough attention as a child? Why are Merry and Pippin a pair of precocious picaroons? What have I done to deserve this?"

The only solution I can see to this crisis we are facing is an International War on The Chump. In the words of that great contemporary luminary of ours George W. Bush, "There’s a poster out west that says wanted: dead or alive."

[lilhobo]

hehehehe, i think i will have to defend the Chump on this ocassion


1) the Chump made a great effort to appease the purists: hence the prologue, straight out of Tolkien's mouth, plus all the splendour, history, maps to make purists smile with glee. Even made a point to highlight the other "rings" as if to say "Hey i am as Tolkienistic as the rest of ya, even if i have to confuse the rest of the population with mysterious rings(what do they do again)"

2) Shire and bag end, yeah why not spend an hour there with frivoulous niceties such sam and his missus. Heck if George Lucas can have his Ewok celebration so can JP. Lets all have a victory celebration since we aint gonna have one in the shire in ROTK

3) PJ is saying heck the purists will love sam and his missus, so surely they will cut me some slack on Arwen for christ sakes. we need a love story here this is almost 2002

4) In the "other" words of that great contemporary luminary of ours George W. Bush, "WE got them on the run, we ll keep them running and running, they aint got no souls, just run them and run them"

[Greenwood]

Well, Jamesy, I compliment you on honestly calling your post a rant. (From my Random House Webster's: rant -- to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave.)

One of my great objections to your viewpoint is that you seem to be unable to see the forest for the trees: "My God! Every one of the trees in this forest has a defect (broken branch, tree gall, mis-shapen look, etc.). This is not a real forest. Let us destroy it and hope that a perfect forest will someday grow here instead!"

OK, Jackson did not do every detail from the book. That does not mean that the movie (read forest) is not faithful to the spirit of LOTR. Many of us disagree with you and feel it is.

You are, of course, entitled to you opinion, I am entitled to disagree. On one point, however, I wish you would get your facts straight. That is your use of the word "Americana" in your little diatribe. Peter Jackson is a New Zealander. The movie was filmed and produced in New Zealand.

[lilhobo]

yeah but what he is saying is The Arwen love story is the Americanisation of an English fairy tale :D

[markrob]

I was so hoping no one would post a reply to this blind keeper of The Precioussssssssss. Nonetheless, well put both lilhobo and Greenwood.

[lilhobo]

if you must , yes by a new zealander :D

after all, PJ loves more than the greenness of the shire and those luuuuuuuuuuuuuvly naked gold statues..........

come on, commercial success is still king

[Greenwood]

yeah but what he is saying is The Arwen love story is the Americanisation of an English fairy tale

No. That should be New Zealandization. Still the Commonwealth, I believe. :) :)

[Jamesy]

I know the Chump is a NZer, but just as there is a McDonald's in France, so there is a disgusting Americanising, Hollywoodising film director in New Zealand.
Americana is not just limited to America as i'm sure you know my friends.

What great effort has he made to please the purists? I am a realist i understand that the movie couldnt possibly cover all the sumptuous material of the books. Would it have cost so much more above $270M to employ someone who had read the books to tell him where he is out of line?

Why not make Glamdring glow blue? Why not make the scene where Sam flounders in the River the comic relief it is in the book? Why not let Galadriel gently mock Frodo in a sad mood as she contemplates her own demise? Why not just leave out this Lurtz joker? OK. leave out Glorfindel, but dont cast Liv Tyler as the return of Luthien the Fair and dont make Arwen Evenstar John Wayne. You have cut Tom Bombadil. I cry, but I understand.

The scenery? beautiful, outstanding.
The costumes? Can't say a bad word.
Soundrack? Perfectly acceptable.

The much abused animated adaptation of the books is indeed awful and we could all nit-pick about it with our heads up our respective Tolkien asses; but the fact remains that with respect to the dialogue and the film's portrayal of the characters it remains more true than the modern equivalent, be it from NZ or the USA.

Im afraid i can only stick to my original conclusion that the Chump is a malignant anti-Tolkien threat and i will stick by this creed until someone can prove the error of my ways. And I will happily argue with anyone who dares to challenge me.

Join with me my brothers!! We shall overcome this Menace!!

[markrob]

Hey Thorin, Grey,

Compared to this cat, Jamesy, you guys are somewhat tolorable. Dont give him a membership badge without some more investigating. IMHO :p

[Haven]

All I have to say is that it's gotta be really hard to make a 527 page book into a movie. (It lasts for 3 hours) I saw the movie, personally I loved it. There are only a few things that kind of angered me- the main thing being that Aragorn doesn't seem to be half-elfin. Like, no where do they mention it...and on the official movie site they say Aragorn was a human RAISED by elves...I was like Hell no. But what can you do? There are some things a movie will never be able to provide us with, like insight into characters. I feel that the casting was wonderful ... I mean, who else would play Gandalf?

[Greenwood]

but dont cast Liv Tyler [Arwen] as the return of Luthien the Fair

Sorry Jamesy, but it was Tolkien who said that Arwen was Luthien Tinuviel come again. Try borrowing a copy of The Fellowship of the Ring and reading it. Pay particular attention to the chapter "Many Meetings." However, I do appreciate that you recognized the similarities between the two without someone pointing it out.

As for "Lurtz", as I have said many times over on that thread I am still waiting for someone (anyone?) to tell me in which scene in the movie anybody (thing?) is called "Lurtz".

Sorry you didn't like the film. Please avoid any further assaults on your blood pressure by passing up seeing the next two.

[ReadWryt]

It's in that "scene" at the end...the one with the scrolling words...I think they call it The Credits.

[Greenwood]

It's in that "scene" at the end...the one with the scrolling words...I think they call it The Credits.

ReadWryt

Gee, I never heard anyone call the credits a scene before. Must be a tough one to direct and shoot.

I was wondering since you purists are so furious about made up characters in the movie why you haven't complained about the character "Cute Hobbit Children". He/she is in that same credits scene you mention. Unlike the unnamed Uruk-hai you love to hate, the character Cute Hobbit Children may have had some actual spoken lines.

BTW How is your rereading of LOTR going? Found any quotations from the book yet to back up your claims on the Orcs out of Pods thread as I requested. I guess I will duck over to that thread and see if you have responded there yet.

[aragil]

Greenwood- congrats on attaining Senior Memborship.

Jamesy- I have the perfect spot for you and your brothers to champion your anti-PJ cause! For all that hate the characterization in the movie, I give you:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1531
I eagerly await reading your criticisms of PJ and the cast's portrayals.

[Greymantle]

I just want to say, Jamesy, that I very much agree with your every word. You have expressed eloquently precisely what I have been trying unsuccessfully to say since I saw the movie.
And welcome to the Forum!

[Greenwood]

You have expressed eloquently

Since when can a self-described rant be called eloquent? That sound you hear in the background is poor Prof. Tolkien twirling in his grave over the misuse and butchery of the English language by a self-proclaimed purist.

[Haven]

Thanks for the correction on my typo. ;) I didn't mean it to sound like that haha. ::slaps self::

[Greymantle]

I was using "eloquent" in the sense of well-put and clearly stated. But since I already know that you're someone who will only accept words in their most narrow possible definition, I don't expect you to buy that.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
Aragorn was 100% man...But from the pure line back thru the Kings of Numenor.



Actually Harad, even though the race of Elven was very weak in Aragorn he did have elven in him. Elros, Elrond's brother who was the first Numenorean king was half-elven just like Elrond. Just because he chose mortality doesn't mean that he was transformed into a human.


Jamesy,

You are dead right and are stating well what we purists have been ranting about for awhile. I am pleased that you are stating good things about the movie. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to mean anything to the movie defenders who will brand you a fundamentalist, nit-picking weenie, and fanatic anyways, despite your efforts to be fair. To most of them, you must accept the movie for what it is and be thankful someone brought it to the screen, or for heaven's sake, at least don't complain about it!

[geekpolice]

you are a sad *person* (for this is a more suitable term to use on the forum).

[geekpolice]

Not only a *sad person* but a grandiloquent *person* at that.

[markrob]

AMEN HARAD, AMEN.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
Thorin,

IMO choosing to be mortal, being mortal, living a mortal life makes you 100% human. I'm sure Elrond thought so.

For you (and Gray) to align yourself with a spiteful flamer like Jamesy who not only chose to malign the movie (fair) but also America (unfair)lowers my estimation of you guys. I thought you were debating the merits of a movie. Instead I find you to be in bed with a someone whose fundamentalism reaches beyond the Tolkien Forum. Shame.


Harad,

Following your logic then, means that Elrond is not half-elven, for Luthien Tunuviel chose what Elros chose. By choosing the fate of man, are you telling me that Luthien became human? Obviously not because Elrond and Elwing his mother, and Dior his grandfather are elven. The choice is immortality or mortality, the fate of elves, or the fate of man, not to become human or remain elven. Both Luthien and Elros as well as Arwen all chose the same fate. The only difference between the three is that Luthien was not half-elven. She was half-Maia. Regardless, her fate was the same.


I in know way am aligning myself with whatever political views Jamesy might be spouting (though if you look closely at what he is saying, I wouldn't call his rants anti-American). And I will admit that after "From here on Jackson will be referred to as "The Chump", he was getting a bit squirrely. However, his points before all the ranting were well met and agreeable. That was what I was commenting on.

[Ciryaher]

About the pods...

In LotR, it Gandalf comments in Moria that he must rest even if "all the orcs ever spawned" were behind him.

Spawn n. 1. The eggs of aquatic animals such as fishes, oysters, or frogs. 2. Offspring, esp. when produced in large numbers ---v. 1. To produce offspring. 2. To produce offspring in large numbers. 3. To give rise to; engender

So, as you can see, orcs could quite possibly have been created in a "pod" of some sorts, there is no evidence to my knowledge in any of Tolkien's works that contradicts or even elaborates further on the topic of Orkish reproduction.

[aragil]

All right, this is my favorite 'Elven Mortality' question. We seem to be leading up to it, and I've brought it up twice before (once in the book section, once on the old old old boards last summer):

Why did the children of Elrond get to choose between mortality/immortality, while the children of Elros did not?

I like the thinking that Elrond did not choose to be Elven, but chose to be immortal. Still, that would mean that Elros did not choose to be human, but instead just a mortal half-elf. That should have left his descendants with the same choice, which would have been very pleasing to some of the later Kings of Numenor. But that clearly is not what happened. Was Tolkien just making Mortality a one-way street?

[Foe-Hammer]

Harad,

I think they'd just compliment themselves for not stepping in the dogdoo.

(For a background to that statement, one must have heard the Cheech and Chong LP bit about the 2 eskimo's who happen upon a pile that looks like dog ****. It's pretty funny)

[Greymantle]

Looking through references in the Sil to the Peredhil...
Nowhere, now that I look, does it say that Elros became a Man nor that Elrond became an Elf. Rather, in the case of Elrond, it says things such as "Elrond chose to remain (or belong -G)with the Firstborn, or that he was "numbered with the Eldar." "To him the life of the Firstborn was granted." Elrond and Elros remained ever half-Elven, and did not develop entirely into a member of the races of Men or Elves. Presumably each of them came to appear as a member of their respective races, but were not genetically changed. Therefore all of their descendents, and all the race of the kings of Numenor had the blood of Men, Eldar and Maiar running through their veins, however faintly.
I'm also wondering about Aragil's question... if the half-Elves were not genetically changed, why are only Elrond's children counted among the Peredhil and given the choice of their father? I can basically see two ansers to this: first, Arwen and the guys were all 3/4s Elvish from Elrond and Celebrian. The children of Elros were only 1/4 Elvish, because (I think) their mother was of the race of Men. Perhaps, because they have little immortal blood, the Valar did not see fit to give them the choice. Or secondly, perhaps the choice of Elros was far more absolute than that of Elrond. Immortality, we know, can easily be taken away, but Iluvatar's gift to Men can never, ever be retracted. Perhaps, because of their father's choice, the children of Elros were not allowed the choice of the Peredhil. This second option seems more likely to me...

[ReadWryt]

Cir,

So you are saying that the REST of "The Children of Illuvatar" popped out of eggs as well? There is something grossly undignified about the mental image of Luthien sitting on her "Nest" of "Children".

I was wondering since you purists are so furious about made up characters in the movie why you haven't complained about the character "Cute Hobbit Children". He/she is in that same credits scene you mention. Unlike the unnamed Uruk-hai you love to hate, the character Cute Hobbit Children may have had some actual spoken lines.

No, and actually I have no problem with the myriad Orcs credited at the end of the movie. I have a problem with the fact that some character who's scenes obviously got editited out (An argument that I'm certain will only be answered when at last the DVD is released and we get to see scenes of Saruman addressing Lurtz by name, unfortunately). Even if this is never borne out as true, we obviously have something more then an extra here, as their character has a name and scenes which set them so strongly apart from the rest of the run of the mill Uruk-hai. But by your reasoning the character of Mace Windu in The Phantom Menace is not really a character in the film because nobody calls Samuel L. Jackson's character by name...

[aragil]

My response on Lurtz has always been: 'What does he do in the movie which is not attributed to Saruman's orcs in the books?' The only thing that I can think of off-hand is getting killed by Aragorn. We know that Saruman talks to his orcs- they give him the affectionate nick-name 'Sharkey'.
Is that really such a problem for people?

Greymantle- I like your answer to the Peredhil question. Still, I bet the Numenorean Kings would have claimed that it wasn't fair. Of course, they never thought of mortality as a gift, either.

[stevehope]

ReadWryt, let it go. Please. There's a character who is clearly the leader of the Uruk-hai, to whom Saruman gives instructions. Is this so ridiculous? Maybe his name IS Lurtz--can't Orcs have names? They made up a name to sell an action figure. So what--it's not in the movie, I don't have to care about it. The only reason YOU care about it is because of what you've read OUTSIDE of the movie. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to come into a thread about the movie and criticize the moviemakers for naming a character whose name only appears in the credits. Please specify to me what part of "Lurtz"'s character you found unbelievable.

To Jamesy (and a lot of the other NPWs): Believe it or not, I'm quite positive that PJ and his writing staff could beat you in a LotR trivia contest. With that budget and the attention to detail that they DID deliver, do you really think that they didn't have every iota of Middle Earth information at their disposal when they wrote this screenplay? If you didn't get everything you wanted in the movie, I'm sorry. I'm sure PJ didn't get everything in it that HE wanted. But it's silly to think that either PJ (and his group) don't know as much about LotR as you do, or that they don't "get" it.

The difference is that PJ was hired to make a successful commercial production of LotR, and made some sacrifices and took some shortcuts to do it. You might have made different choices, but the idea that he doesn't "get it" is insulting to a man who I'm sure has spent FAR more of his time and energy in tribute to the world of Middle Earth than you ever have or will.

[Grond]

Okay. Grond will respond. First I'm not sure I want to agree that PJ deserves a Wanted - Dead or Alive poster. I feel that he made a film that must feel right to him. It doesn't sit well with me or other purists but he most likely did the best he could given that he had to satisfy the money hounds from New Line.

He still doesn't get a pass though, because he continued to maintain that he was a purist and that the changes he was making were for time and overall ease of understanding. Then, he proceeded to change plot, substance and intent. The changes disappoint me greatly.

The following summary of dialogue should clear up much concerning the Orc question. First off, this (according to Christopher Tolkien) is his best guess as to his father's final words on the origins of the orcs. From Morgoth's Ring, Chapter Myth's Transformed,

...They bred and mutiplied rapidly whenever left undisturbed. So far as can be gleaned from the legends that have come down to us from our earliest days, it would seem that the Quendi had never yet encountered any Orcs of this kind before the coming of Orome to Cuivienen. "

and

"...the theory (that orcs originate from Man) remains nonetheless the most probable. It accords all that is known of Melkor, and of the nature and behaviour of Orcs - and of Men. Melkor was impotent to produce any living thing, but skilled in the corruption of things that did not proceed from himself, if he could dominate them. But if he had indeed attempted to make creatures of his own...he would, like Aule, only have succeeded in producing puppets...They hated one another and often fought...they had languages of their own, and spoke among themselves in various tongues...They could be slain, and they were subject to disease; but apart from these ills they died and were not immortal, even according to the manner of the Quendi; indeed they appear to have been by nature short-lived compared with the span of Men of higher race, such as the Edain."

and

"...was my father's final view of the question: Orcs were bred from Men, and if 'the conception in mind of the Orcs may go far back into the night of Melkor's thought' it was Sauron who, during the ages of Melkor's captivity in Aman, brought into being the black armies that were available to his Master whe he returned."

This is much debate and contradiction by the author with himself in this ten page summation by Christopher. But they are all based on passages written by JRRT's own hand. It appears that his final word was that Orcs reproduced like man and were of man stock.

[Grond]

Originally posted by stevehope
1) ReadWryt, let it go. Please. There's a character who is clearly the leader of the Uruk-hai, to whom Saruman gives instructions. Is this so ridiculous? Maybe his name IS Lurtz--can't Orcs have names? They made up a name to sell an action figure. So what--it's not in the movie, I don't have to care about it. The only reason YOU care about it is because of what you've read OUTSIDE of the movie. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to come into a thread about the movie and criticize the moviemakers for naming a character whose name only appears in the credits. Please specify to me what part of "Lurtz"'s character you found unbelievable.

2) To Jamesy (and a lot of the other NPWs): Believe it or not, I'm quite positive that PJ and his writing staff could beat you in a LotR trivia contest. With that budget and the attention to detail that they DID deliver, do you really think that they didn't have every iota of Middle Earth information at their disposal when they wrote this screenplay? If you didn't get everything you wanted in the movie, I'm sorry. I'm sure PJ didn't get everything in it that HE wanted. But it's silly to think that either PJ (and his group) don't know as much about LotR as you do, or that they don't "get" it.

3) The difference is that PJ was hired to make a successful commercial production of LotR, and made some sacrifices and took some shortcuts to do it. You might have made different choices, but the idea that he doesn't "get it" is insulting to a man who I'm sure has spent FAR more of his time and energy in tribute to the world of Middle Earth than you ever have or will. SteveHope,

I'll give you 1. Lurtz has never really bothered me. I have just posted quotes from the other that would make Lurtz's origins a bit shaky (the pod thing), but even that didn't bother me. Call him Lurtz or Moe or Curly for all I care. His part was not a detraction to me as a purist. (The detraction were changes in plot and characterizations which I object to... mainly the change of plot in having anyone at the Fords, except for Frodo and the Ringwraiths...and their horses of course.)

On 2, I'm quite positive no one on the set nor anyone in the world can beat me in a Tolkien trivia quiz (they may can beat Jonesy, I don't know him ), but that's just my opinion. And if PJ had every Middle-earth resource known to man available on the set, the movie, most certainly, doesn't reflect it. Yes it gives great visualizations of ME. Yes, the casting does justice to the characters to me. Yes, he captures much of ME. But he has changed the story and that small thing makes it a different story than the one I've come to love over the years. You may not mind. You may be upset that I mind. But, this nitpickingweenie (that's what you call me) is entitled to his opinion. I haven't attacked unless provoked and many of you movie supporters were Attack Dogs early on. But things are more civil now and I hope they remain that way.

On 3, I understand that PJ had others to please (NLC execs, money backers...). Okay...then he shouldn't have portrayed himself as a purist, he should have just said that he had to do the best with what he had. For him to continue to assert that he was making "JRRT's Lord of the Rings" from a purist's view, without seeking input from the purist community, was bad judgement. He did not check here or any of the other Tolkien forums I frequent, so he gets no pass there. He didn't receive the endorsement of the Tolkien estate, so he gets no pass there.

I will give him a pass if I start seeing more and more people interested in the book part of our forum. I don't care about movie fans. The movie is but a pale imitator of the work, no matter how well made. If that happens, then this purist/ nitpickingweenie/a**hole/ignorant/lover of Tolkien will give him a pass.

[stevehope]

(Oops--this is for Grond's top post)

I think that's a very fair summary of the unhappiness of the purist/NPW camp. I can understand it, though I think that the extent to which PJ deliberately misled the purists and the extent to which they misled themselves based on PJ's statements is debatable.

But I can definitely agree that I also don't understand why he felt the need to make some of the changes he made, and although I quite like the movie it certainly could have been better FOR ME if some things had been changed.

[Grond]

Originally posted by stevehope
(Oops--this is for Grond's top post)

I think that's a very fair summary of the unhappiness of the purist/NPW camp. I can understand it, though I think that the extent to which PJ deliberately misled the purists and the extent to which they misled themselves based on PJ's statements is debatable.

But I can definitely agree that I also don't understand why he felt the need to make some of the changes he made, and although I quite like the movie it certainly could have been better FOR ME if some things had been changed.
SteveHope If everyone on both sides of this issue was a fair and openminded as you appear to be, the Forum would be a much easier place to visit. I appreciate your response and FYI, I thought it was one hell of a movie. I just thought it could have been so much more!:)

[stevehope]

Hmmm. "sama-sama", as they say in Indonesia. Again, that's fair. I wasn't broken-hearted to have Arwen at the ford--it would have been fine to have Frodo standing off the Riders by himself, but it isn't critical to my enjoyment of the story to have him try to banish them back to Mordor in his little voice (though it is a very moving part of the book). I guess it was to yours.

I don't want to get into an argument as a proxy for PJ and his staff's Tolkien knowledge. I would just say that to the extent that he didn't do what you wanted with the movie, I don't think it was for a lack of awareness of some aspect of Tolkien's work.

I don't know about how much PJ promoted the movie as a purist's dream--I know I read a number of things to that effect, but you probably followed news releases much more closely than I did. I am just suggesting that perhaps your hopes ran ahead of his promises. I am also saying that I would not deny someone who made that movie the mantle of "purist".

I think you'll ultimately want to give him a passing grade--LotR books are selling better than they have in a long while, and I (at least) have gone to a couple of other threads here at the site. As well as which, I've gone back to reread the books, something I haven't done in 15 years and really never thought I would do again.

[stevehope]

[from Grond] FYI, I thought it was one hell of a movie. I just thought it could have been so much more!


Right! I was hoping to sit through the entire thing in rapture, and ended up walking out thinking, "Wow, that was great! But X and Y and Z and etc."

I just wish more of the discussion in the forum was about things we WISH had been in the movie and/or reliving great moments of the book and how they could have been portrayed or how they would have made (or did make) great film moments rather than fighting about the personal qualities of Peter Jackson.

(edit) Which is why perhaps my favorite thread in here is the Council of Elrond rewrite.

[fantasydude]

orcs could theoretically come from a pod of some sort because often in the trilogy jrrt often refers to how sauron ( and saruman i suppose) were increasingly "breeding" orcs for the coming war.
when someone breeds something it is by his exterior work that causes the reproduction, and since they are creatures created by black magic, then they were indeed bred by someone, not the way humans reproduce. orcs were evil incarnations of the elves by the way, not humans.
as for lurtz, and the whole uruk-hai thing depicted at isengard was strange because i thought most of that went down in the two towers, i guess he just wanted to get the evil saruman thing going a little early.

[Greymantle]

Fantasydude, have you read this thread? Just scroll up to Grond's post, and see that A. Orcs reproduced in the manner of Elves and Men, and that B. Orcs, in all likelyhood, were bred from Men.

[Grond]

Originally posted by fantasydude
orcs could theoretically come from a pod of some sort because often in the trilogy jrrt often refers to how sauron ( and saruman i suppose) were increasingly "breeding" orcs for the coming war.
when someone breeds something it is by his exterior work that causes the reproduction, and since they are creatures created by black magic, then they were indeed bred by someone, not the way humans reproduce. orcs were evil incarnations of the elves by the way, not humans.
as for lurtz, and the whole uruk-hai thing depicted at isengard was strange because i thought most of that went down in the two towers, i guess he just wanted to get the evil saruman thing going a little early. Six posts up, I wrote a long..........................post explaining the author's last thoughts on the orc issue. He thought they were of man and that they bred the same as Elves and Man (that would be the good old fashioned way). It also speaks of how the multiply profusely if left alone (keyword here alone). So, they don't need any help from Melkor (who corrupted them) or Sauron (who bred them into an army) or to Saruman (who most likely cross-bred them with more men to overcome their fear of light).

If the words of the author, in my prior post, don't convince you.....well then have it your own way then. I'm too tired of defending what I know to be correct. (And I don't mean the movie items..... I mean what is actually in the works).:)

[aragil]

I had this really good reply to Tolkien's last thought on Orcs, but we lost network connections here so it never got posted. I know that nobody will be able to sleep tonight without hearing my thoughts on the matter, so here's the outline:
Tolkien was becoming repulsed by the idea of Orcs having anything to do with Elves, so he probably decided that they should be derived from us more disgusting men-folk. That being said, the good professor passed on before he could go back to the Silmarillion (among other narratives) and re-write them. As it stands now in the published version of the Sil, Orcs appear long before the second-born. With this in mind, the only consistent way to think of Orcs is as they were published in the Sil, perversions/mockeries of the Elves.
That being said, I'm sure the Orcs reproduced in the manner of the Children of Illuvatar, as is stated in the Silmarillion. I'm sure what they were thinking in the movie is that normally reproduced orcs would not have given Saruman an army fast enough, so he had their development accelerated via the magical pods, after they were conceived in the normal manner.

[Greymantle]

I don't know precisely how far back the treason of Isengard runs... but Saruman lusted after the Ring at since before the fall of Dol Goldur, at the least. I'd have to look it up. Presumably he could have been conducting his experiments in secret for many, many years before the War of the Ring.

[aragil]

But in the movie Saruman only had from the time he imprisoned Gandalf (that is when he received the orders to build an army) until the time the fellowship left Lorien. So it is consistent within the movie.

[Grond]

First off Aragil, I agree with you about time frame of the movie. That's all PJ had to work with was that time frame, so that has to stand from a movie standpoint.

And, Thorin and Greymantle....fasten your seat belts, I don't really have a problem with the pods. They don't necessarily have to be interpreted as pods. They could be embryonic sacs that were once in a she-orc that were harvested and raised outside the womb. We do that now and wouldn't be above Saruman or Sauron's capabilities. I don't have a problem with Lurtz for the same reason. He could have been there and his being there did not alter perceptions of Tolkien's Middle-earth.

As far as your comments about JRRT changing his mind... I also think your partially correct. I don't think it was because he was repulsed by their relationship to elves but was more in a quandary as to how they could be portrayed as mockerys of Elves and not have immortality. They were portrayed as being murderous and thieving and short-lived. That just doesn't jive with being a distorted view of an elf.

Tolkien goes into a long explanation to explain the difference of timing you speak of and it is very logical... but I won't bore you with it here (besides my fingers are still tired from posting that last long quote). It lies in the HoMe and is there for all to read and believe or not believe. Something everyone needs to realize.... Tolkien was constantly refining Middle-earth. There were and still are many inconsistencies in his writings. He spent the last 10 or 15 years of his life trying to reconcile those very problems. And he did for the most part to the betterment of the tale in general. Aragil, I don't think for a minute he changed something on a whim or without giving it long and hard thought.... but I could be wrong. As it is, I always felt orcs, while made in mockery of Elves, were much more man-like in their behavior so it isn't a stretch for me to believe. :)

[ReadWryt]

It's not so much the existence of an Orc named Lurtz, it's that there is now a completely invented character of dubious origin in context of the story who is attributed as being the killer of Boromir, Captain of the Uruk-hai and is being marketed by name with the Boromir Action Figure, while so many characters from the book were either left out or glazed over due to the "constraints of time and the limitations of the cinematic medium".

The "Pod Thing" is ok though, I couldn't expect a more inventive and logical reaction when writing a screenplay and confronted with explaining the origins of a fantasy race from a guy with a background in cheap horror movies. When in doubt fall back on what you know, gore and the "Yuck" factor...

Aside from that, I suspect from what has been shown about the nature of Orcs in the writings of the professor that the life expectancy of an Orc was much shorter then that of an Elf, which I imagine would go a long way toward making them much less Elf-like and more Human in their attitudes and actions.

[Greenwood]

I have a problem with the fact that some character who's scenes obviously got editited out (An argument that I'm certain will only be answered when at last the DVD is released and we get to see scenes of Saruman addressing Lurtz by name, unfortunately). Even if this is never borne out as true, we obviously have something more then an extra here, as their character has a name and scenes which set them so strongly apart from the rest of the run of the mill Uruk-hai.

ReadWryt

In other words, you have no idea whether the name "Lurtz" is ever used and even if it is never used you will continue to rail against it! Who cares about action figures. In six months to a year, such things will be gathering dust or in a landfill somewhere. After that they will be forgotten and Tolkien's LOTR will live on with millions of new fans.

In the spirit of your sentiment: "even if this is never borne out", I will say that even if the DVD or a reissue of the movie should have Saruman in a scene saying; "Lurtz, my dear boy, bring me the halflings!" my response will be "Big deal. So what?" We know from LOTR that individual orcs had names. Jackson chose to personify a Uruk-hai for cinematic effect. If he had named this Uruk-hai, Ugluk and then killed him at the end of FOTR, you would have howled even louder than you are over "Lurtz". I repeat my opinion that some purists have spent so much time and energy railing against things that were rumored to be in the film before its release that they seem unable to give up on them, even when the rumors prove to be not accurate since the stuff isn't really in the film or the stuff is so extraneous to the story that it is meaningless. [My God! What a run-on sentence! I have to do a better job editing these posts. -- Greenwood :eek:] It reminds me of being told in another thread regarding Arwen at the Ford, something along the lines of: "Mark my words! They will not stop at this. They will have Arwen fighting at Helm's Deep or in front of Minas Tirith!" I have even seen absurd rumors that she will replace Eowyn in the next two films, despite the fact that it has already been announced who plays Eowyn in those films.

[Grond]

Greenwood. I personally don't give a rat's patootie whether things are added... even if they detract from the time in which real characters could have portrayed. I don't like it... but I'll let it fly.

As far as the Arwen issue, it matters none at all whether she wields a sword or carries a banner. We already know that she will appear in The Two Towers and The Return of the King with an expanded role which is non-existent in the book. And that is my main gripe. As a purist, I've stated over and over, "cut where you want, add non-existent characters and scenes that don't effect the plot as you will, but keep the characterizations true to the book". And no NitPickingWeenie or NewLineCinemaGeek can convince me that the basic characterization of Arwen hasn't been changed in the movies. Argue about other issues but anyone arguing that the Arwen character is intact and true to the Tolkien characterization is either on drugs or doesn't understand the English language.

And, I apologize if my words offend anyone; but, that is how strongly I feel about changing the actual spirit of JRRT. I can understand arguing that you like PJ's Arwen better than JRRT's Arwen, but don't say that there isn't any real difference in the two. If just isn't so.:)

[lilhobo]

so thats what NPW is ??? whats FAD???? NLCG lol


"Argue about other issues but anyone arguing that the Arwen character is intact and true to the Tolkien characterization is either on drugs or doesn't understand the English language.

And, I apologize if my words offend anyone; but, that is how strongly I feel about changing the actual spirit of JRRT. I can understand arguing that you like PJ's Arwen better than JRRT's Arwen, but don't say that there isn't any real difference in the two. If just isn't so."



well lets see , here is an elven princess who is willing to give up her immortality for love, not an all powerful Galadriel mind you, but, pretty old and wise as well..........bit of a rebel you might say in 90210 language.....well why not have her sit on her fat @ss in Rivendell and send her beloved on a suicide mission.......thats riverting TV not to mention cinema !!!!!

lets have aragon meet up with a Xena, who does the bravest thing in ME third Age, and then we can have fat-@ssed Arwen become Queen of men.


yeah right :D

[Jamesy]

This is from a while back from stevehope:

To Jamesy (and a lot of the other NPWs): Believe it or not, I'm quite positive that PJ and his writing staff could beat you in a LotR trivia contest. With that budget and the attention to detail that they DID deliver, do you really think that they didn't have every iota of Middle Earth information at their disposal when they wrote this screenplay? If you didn't get everything you wanted in the movie, I'm sorry. I'm sure PJ didn't get everything in it that HE wanted. But it's silly to think that either PJ (and his group) don't know as much about LotR as you do, or that they don't "get" it.

Don't be absurd. I understand that you are upset that I am picking on The Chump, but dont let the argument decend into the ridiculous. I won't claim to be the biggest expert on Tolkien on this board but I doubt anyone has a greater mastery of the three books than I.
You may feel that I am being a little harsh, but my vituperation hasn't been aimed anyone on this board and I never intend for it to be. Each of my comments has been backed up by argument, whereas that comment above is both presumptuous and insulting.

You counter-arguments consist of calling all 'purists' nit-pickers. Will you not give me some reasons for the following?

Why doesn't Glamdring glow blue?
Surely the cost of a blue light-bulb wouldn't be too much over and above $270M

Why does Aragorn say "Lets hunt some orc?"
A quotation from the book would much better suffice.

Why is Saruman made responsible for the snows of Caradhras?
This makes a mockery of the relative powers of the istari, especially when compared to the comical duel scene at Isengard

And could someone please give me a good reason for making Arwen a gung ho heroine?
I mean it, a real, solid reason. Even the atrocious animated film did a better job than this modern effort. Glorfindel was replaced by Legolas that time, yet he played out the same role as Glorfindel had. This meant that the excellent confrontation between Frodo and the Nazgul was retained. It also meant that we didn't have that farce of: "Let some of the grace that has been granted to me pass to him." What the f*ck?? Surely even the most liberal of you on this board must have shuddered at that one!

Come on people! There are things about this film I like. But for this man to say that he is a real fan of the books is just wrong. For anyone to read the battle at the Ford and have a desire to change it is, for me, unthinkable. The Chump has created a visually beautiful film but the dialogue stinks. Just as unprovoked violence sickens me, so the needless, utterly needless, Americanisation of the books made me nauseous.
I am currently on an intense reread of the books to purge myself of this malaise.

[Retrovertigo]

This forum is getting harder and harder to read as time marches on. Why is Greenwood being so antagonistic? Grond apologized for a post that wasn't even remotley like that. Why does Foe-Hammer post replies with no arguement but ridicule? Why do others just say "The movie was great! shut up! You're all stupid!"
If the movie had never come out this forum would be great, as it was before. And just when I'd got all settled in :/

Harad: I think what Jamesy is refering to when he says Americanization, is popular culture. Not everyone is a part of popular culture. And if I had a choice between American or Japanese popular culture.. well lets hope it doesn't boil down to that.. because I might have to choose Steven Spielburg over buying womens underwear out of dispenser machines.

[lilhobo]

"It also meant that we didn't have that farce of: "Let some of the grace that has been granted to me pass to him." What the f*ck?? Surely even the most liberal of you on this board must have shuddered at that one! "


man, half the adult audience snickered at that one, but PJ did give us a good horse chase beforehand (zorro like but still)....You didnt hold out for a grest script in this one did you??? Even i wanted all visual, we can always have the book for script


PS. americanisation means "bad' american culture, its a stereotype but its a difference we should applaud really....too much globalisation methinks :D

[lilhobo]

and harad, dont give in to the power of the dark side my son

fear and anger will consume you! :D

[Grond]

Calm down people. I have but one thing to say to all of you. It is a prevelant quote in all religious writings whether you be Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu or any of the thousands I'm leaving out.

Treat others as you would like them to treat you!!

C'mon people..... LET'S GET ALONG!! Disagree in a civil manner. I've learned in the last two weeks that arguing isn't the answer to resolving disagreements. To quote from the Godfather, all of us should try to "reason with one another".

[Retrovertigo]

Harad: I don't think you saw me defending every last word they said, did you? Just specific points.I won't deny selective reading, because I do. Sometimes people just go on and on..
And thats Elwood with one l.
Plus, I must know.. why are you censoring moron with *?

[Retrovertigo]

I probably wouldn't get far without jumping to conclusions.. If I didn't take what I hear and say and assume, then I'd probably just lay still all day.
I couldn't think of any other word that would fit. Except for maron. Or does tht have two rs?
Calling someone a moron, however, is much more insulting than calling them a type of delish crsutacian.

[Retrovertigo]

I don't get it..

[lilhobo]

americanisation ;)

s NOT z

[Retrovertigo]

Well you'll have to take that up with my primary and high school teachers, as well as my sisters University lecturers, lilhobo.

[Jamesy]

Harad I dont know what I have done to deserve this.

I wasn't insulting America. I am against the Americanisation of the books. Geddit? This means that the dialogue has become Americanised. This means that the plot has been mutated to the typical Hollywood formulaic rubbish, so that there is a central female character, a big 'bad-guy' to die at the end.

Shall I go on?
"Let's go hunt some orc!" - you talk the talk pilgrim

"No one tosses this dwarf!" - obvious reference to the sport popular in america. Cheap.

"So where are we going then?" - f*ck up.

I like American cinema. I don't like Americanisation. Did American prisoners escape from Colditz? Did they capture the enigma machine? No. But according to Hollywood they did.

Again Harad you have chosen to be offensive rather than try to refute me with reasonable arguments. Lets not lower the tone of the board. You can defend this American film but tell how you can do it while claiming to be a true fan of the books.

[lilhobo]

hey whats wrong with "Noone tosses this dwarf"??? hehehehe shows flair in script writing :eek:

you may thank god that you didnt hear Sean Bean say "Aint got time to bleed" or "I ll be back" :D

[Retrovertigo]

Now look here, lilhobo! Jesse Ventura worked *hard* for years and years to get where he is today, and it's negative disparaging comments like that, that will drag his good and honest reputation down! Predator was a very well done movie, with a strong performance by Jesse and I won't hear a word against him ;)

P.S Watch "The Running Man". Jesse yet again upstages Arnie, on the strength of his wig alone. I mean.. really. Those two quotes you gave.. Jesses is best, right? Hands down..

[stevehope]

[from Jamesy]I won't claim to be the biggest expert on Tolkien on this board but I doubt anyone has a greater mastery of the three books than I.

What humility! :rolleyes:

Unless you're an editor who did one of the editions of LotR, I imagine you're wrong. But without getting into a silly argument with a pompous jerk, I was just making the point with that comment that PJ and his staff were probably aware of anything you felt was an oversight/change. E.G. I'll bet they know that Glamdring glowed and that Aragorn doesn't say, "Let's hunt some Orc!" when he follows after Merry and Pippin.

I wrote a VERY long post without realizing I hadn't logged in which has therefore gotten lost, but basically broke down the scene at the ford in FotR and tried to figure out whether it was good cinema or not. I think they probably retained the part of it that IS good cinema, and eliminated parts that would have had to be explained afterwards (by having Arwen bring the flood, they didn't need Gandalf to explain it after the fact; same thing for eliminating Glorfindel and Aragorn driving the Riders into the flood), or were otherwise somewhat out of place (this is the only part of FotR where the Wraiths say something lengthy, and to many moviegoers that might seem odd).

They made a number of decisions that I wouldn't have made when they made the movie. The difference between the NPWs and the FADs, by and large, is that the NPWs blame PJ for defiling the memory of JRRT and the meaning of his work. I'd rather celebrate how much he got right than criticize him for the things he got wrong. And without having been in his shoes I find it hard to criticize him for not being a "purist". I don't know the pressure he was under or the craft of filmmaking as well as he does, and I doubt anyone posting here does (with the obvious exception of Jamesy, the ultimate authority on LotR and I'm sure a number of other things besides). Let's keep in mind that PJ PITCHED the idea and spent a lot of his time and energy trying to get LotR off the ground--I doubt very much he went INTO the project thinking, "I want to exploit the appeal of JRR Tolkien to make millions off a commercialized ripoff." I, for one, don't think that is how the movie comes across, either.

As to whether PJ has forsaken the mantle of "true fan" or "purist" or whatever, I'm just not willing to concede to anyone on this forum the right to declare someone who has put so much energy into the project to be less of a fan than themselves.

It's the personal attacks on PJ (well, and the personal attacks on other posters!) which I find the most distasteful part of the discussions on this site. If you didn't like the movie, talk about how it could have been different and what you would have liked to see. Wonder along with the rest of us at why some decisions were made the way they were. But don't turn on someone who has done a marvellous job of bringing lots of the aspects of ME to life and introduced millions of people to the work of JRR Tolkien.

[Grond]

stevehope. My first post after the movie, made the same point you made in your last post. I agreed that I enjoyed the movie and then pointed out areas that I felt PJ had fallen short. Nitpicking is the nicest comment I received from your group. And no, I'm not trying to stir up more trouble. I am trying to get the forum to return to what it once was, intelligent dialogue and debate about Tolkien. That includes all of Tolkien... from Ralph's animation to the Hobbit cartoon to PJ's great epic. It also includes our feelings of how the adaptation relates and doesn't relate to the book. It also may include why we feel PJ betrayed the heart of the book. stevehope, we are entitled to our opinion about that and you are free to disagree. It certainly isn't unreasonble for me to feel that way. That doesn't mean he did, just that we feel he did.

I truly believe we can continue this debate in a constructive and meaningful way, if players on both sides will be nice.

That's what I think and hope, but I could be wrong.:)

PS. It appears my quote of
Treat others as you would like them to treat you!!! has fallen on deaf ears as the fight continued well on past my post.

[stevehope]

Grond--you're certainly entitled to your opinion about it. I'm just trying to point out why your opinion, in this case, may be unfair to PJ. As far as calling people names goes, I agree it's generally out of place. However, I'm going to reserve the right to call anyone who says nobody in the world knows more about the LotR books than they do a pompous jerk.

:D

Anyway...Let's talk about the scene at the ford, then. As I mentioned above, a large part of the scene doesn't really work for me onscreen. How would you have reworked it? Assuming that Glorfindel is in the movie, and packs Frodo on his horse and sends him on his way, what happens after the chase? Remember that you want this scene to be self-contained, more or less, with little or no explanation needed during or after what you hope will be one of the main visual events of the movie.

[Tar-Palantir]

Stevehope........I think you're making the scene at the Ford harder than it has to be. Why not show it the way it was written? Frodo doesn't have to be conscious for the cameras to keep rolling. Why can't Aragorn and Glorfindel (or Arwen, for that matter) be shown coming down the other bank as they were in the book?

For the record, I don't have nearly the problem with this scene that others do.

[Greenwood]

Where to begin?

And, I apologize if my words offend anyone; but, that is how strongly I feel about changing the actual spirit of JRRT. I can understand arguing that you like PJ's Arwen better than JRRT's Arwen, but don't say that there isn't any real difference in the two.

Grond

I do not remember that anything you have said on the forum has offended me. :) (unlike others)

I have never said that Arwen's role in the movie wasn't a change from the book or that I liked it better than the version in the book. I have said that the flight to the Ford is one of my favorite scenes in the book. What I have also said is that I understand the reasons, cinematically, for the changes in the movie. I have also said, that in my opinion, they do not do any real harm to the spirit of the book, and I have defended that viewpoint. I have also said that I am not going to waste my time worrying about toy action figures, things that were rumored to be in this movie and were not, and things that may be in the next two movies. If you have access to a finished print of the next two films I am impressed. I guess I just think that the LOTR is a lot stronger than some purists seem to think. I also think that it is much greater than merely the sum of its parts and to me all the small changes in the movie, even cumulativley, did not do violence to Tolkien's work. I have no problem with you having a different viewpoint.

I have no personal connection with Peter Jackson. I never even heard of the man until a few weeks before the film opened. I do think that calling him The Chump (-- Jamesy), a liar (-- ReadWryt, one of the moderater guys) and calling for him to be tortured to death (as I have seen some purists post on this forum) hardly constitutes civil discourse.

Why is Greenwood being so antagonistic?

Elwood

I read posts on this forum for a week or so before joining. During that time I saw various pleas by purists asking people to engage in honest debate. If you will scroll through my posts from the beginning (you can do this by going to my member profile and asking for a listing of all my posts) you will see that I have attempted to do this. I have taken the time to find and type out numerous quotes from the LOTR to support my positions. I have, repeatedly, said that I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have asked, however, that when people make a pronouncement that they attempt to back it up with specifics. I have gotten peeved when I am challenged to provide material to back up my position (see the orcs from pods thread), I take the time to do it, and my posts are ignored or people like Greymantle and ReadWryt say that their views, which they cannot defend with anything from LOTR, have greater weight than Tolkien's own words. They then continue to call themselves purists and attack any interpretation of Tolkien that does not agree with them. If you feel that my repeated attempts to make them either be the purists they claim to be or to acknowledge their hypocrisy is antagonistic, I will accept the charge.

[Grond]

Frodo would have awoken in Rivendell and there would have been dialogue explaining it, just as it was in the book. Frodo could say, "What happened?" and Gandalf would have given a brief explanation. "When the Nazgul stepped into the water, Master Elrond unloosed the waters of Bruinen and I even added a few touches of my own".

I just don't see where that would have added any significant amount of time. It is the director's job to work that out. I'm not dissatisfied with the way the film is directed, I am unhappy with the screenplay.

I keep returning to the movie/book "The Godfather". That was absolutely the best adaptation of a book to a movie ever. Whole segments of plot were deleted for time but the essence of the characters was kept. To this day when I see James Cann, I see Sonny Corleone. Same for Al Pacino (Michael), Marlon (Don Vito), and on and on. The essence of the characters was kept and I didn't find criticism with any single actor's portrayal.

I just don't see Liv Tyler and go "Arwen". She is not the embodiment of what I feel is "Arwen". (Even though I love her as an actress and think she's really hot.) I liked the characterization of Elrond through the actor, but didn't like the words and tone the screenplay had him utter. I liked Gandalf and Frodo and Samwise and Legolas and Strider and Gimli. I will look at Ian McKellan in the future and think "Gandalf". It's just a shame that he couldn't have done better with all the characters.... especially one as important (or unimportant) as Arwen.

But that's just the way I see it, and I could be wrong.
:)

[Retrovertigo]

Greenwood: When I said antagonistic, I meant the tone and manner in which you were saying things. If, as you said, you attempted to make them be the purists that they claimed or acknowledge their hypocrisy, it is neither here no there.
You could have said that and kept your temper.
There's no excuse for lashing out at people, even if you do think they're idiots.
If you find yourself getting involved to the point of writing an angry post just leave it, and play tennis or something.
This is what I was saying.

[stevehope]

I just wrote ANOTHER really long post about this that was negated b/c I wasn't logged in.

To make it brief: Grond/Tar-P, the problem with what you two have written in these last posts is that it doesn't go far enough. How is the cleaving of Frodo's tongue to the roof of his mouth going to be portrayed? What about the fact that the Riders suddenly speak in fairly normal voices and sentences and that might seem odd to moviegoers (it's a bit odd in the book, truth to tell)? What about Frodo invoking the name of the Elf Lords, which moviegoers will be confused by?

Maybe that is NPWness of my own--I'm sure there is a very workable version of the film that portrays this scene just as it is in the book, and doesn't take too much time.

I agree about Liv Tyler as an Elf, but I have more or less that problem with anyone portraying one of the Elven women (for some reason, not so much with the men)--I can't think of who I would cast that would have the right mix of being ethereal yet regal and filled with otherworldly beauty. For some reason I keep coming back to Michelle Pfeiffer as the person I would have liked to see in one of the two female Elf roles--something about the angular nature of her face? I don't know...

[ReadWryt]

Greenleaf friend, how is it that you seem to allways manage to take some little aspect of a posting of mine and ignore the meat of the thing? I suspect from such actions, such as completely ignoring the point of my last post, which was that if Jackson had not spent so much time inventing characters and events more of the original characters and events could have been in the film, that by attacking with your hackneyed argument about the character of Lurtz's name never being spoken on screen, you are practicing at the very same "hunt and peck" assessment of posts that Jackson used when he decided to treat The Lord of the Rings like some literary Chinese Menu, picking one from collumn A and two from collumn B and ignoring anything else.

If Jackson had not placed a great deal of effort in creating garbage that only existed in that barely used gray matter that keeps his ears from meeting in the middle of his head to put in the movie, he could have been as true to the books as he constantly claimed he was being before anyone got a look at this thing. Instead he mounted a campaign to delude the media into calling him some sort of "Uber Fan", when the guy admitted on several occasions that he had read the book last a good many years before starting on the project, and he was crafting some whacked out inventions to insert into his script, probably because he was too lazy to start from scratch after having originally written a Two Movie adaptation.

"Oh gee, I'm sure I can come up with SOMETHING to fill the rest of the time...I know, we can invent this scene where Frodo doesn't just ride across the ford, but we will make it a big chase scene...add excitment! No, that isn't enough...We can make Arwen snatch him up and take him on Glorfindel's horse...no..strike that, forget Glorfindel...We have Arwen grabbing Frodo and ..wait, what if we make Frodo UNCONSCIOUS! Genius, boy...this is BETTER then the book! Frodo is unconscious..because...er, screw it, I'll come up with some reason later, and Arwen is being chased by the Nazgul across this HUGE expanse of land. Oh yeah, the guys at the New Zealand tourism board will love this! Finally they reach the Ford and um...Damn! The book says that there is just this flood and a bunch of narative about what is going on in Frodo's head. Well, what the heck, Frodo is unconscious anyways, so we can have Arwen stand up to the Nazgul! Yeah...we can make her order them to stop, ..no...not ballsy enough..I know, she can challenge them! Yeah, we can give her a sword and have her wave it around...everyone else has swords and stuff, why wouldn't an Elf Maiden? Ok..so she challenges them and then there is a flood that her dad makes. Great...Um...heh. I don't understand that though. I mean, we can't SEE him make the flood, so how are the audience gonna know who made it? Oh man, I don't wanna hafta write lines for Elrond or Gandalf...I allready have the scene where Frodo wakes up written! I know, ARWEN makes the Flood! Yeah...Arwen makes the flood and then does some magic to heal Frodo...Wow! This is great stuff...I almost wish Tolkien had written it in the first place, it would have saved me a lot of hassle!"

[Grond]

Geez Steve, I just said I loved Liv as Arwen, I just thought she should have played the part she portrayed in the book. BTW, I didn't mind the love scene in Rivendell. It mirrored what happened in Of Arwen and Aragorn and gave viewers a perspective without having to do a flashback, so that I could accept.

I don't know how you could have portrayed the emotions and fear Frodo felt at the Ford. That is the actor and director's job, not mine. Mine is to watch, and I can't help but think it could have been done. I also don't have to put up ways to have done it, again... not my job. Again, I thought the movie was great, it just could have been so much greater.

But that's just me.;)

[Foe-Hammer]

Those that have complained ad nauseum about how much better the screenplay should have been have been duely challenged to back up their complaints in the "serious challenge" thread. As yet only one person has done that. And he (Thorin) did a pretty good job. The rest have continued to wail about how they could have done better, yet offer nothing except an unashamed word for word plagerism of Tolkiens work and pass it off as a better screenplay. This is nothing short of wishful thinking. The movie is already a success, much to their chagrin, and added to that is the embarassment they have had to endure in the "Orcs" thread. They appear to be passing themselves off as purists, yet hold to their stubborn beliefs in the face of overwhelming proof that they are dead wrong.

This concludes this rant.
Sorry.:rolleyes:

[Tar-Palantir]

I agree with Grond that it's not my job to write the scene at the Ford better, but how about this :) :

You make the Riders at the Ford look more visible to Frodo - as they were at Weathertop. Then when Frodo wakes up in Rivendell and is talking to Gandalf:

Frodo: 'but why could I see them and understand their cries?"
Gandalf: "because, my dear Frodo, you were half in the wraith world yourself from your wound."
(not very good maybe, but you get the idea)

As for Frodo invoking the names of Elbereth and Luthien, leave 'em in. Everyone's gonna go out and buy the book anyway, right? :)

As I said before, the scene as shot in the movie didn't make me want to jump off of a bridge (I have a bigger problem with some of the others) and I understand why PJ introduced Arwen earlier than in the book. But I did think this was one case where he didn't need to stray so far from the book.

[Grond]

Foe, I have been posting even-thinking and even-tempered posts. No attacks, just opinions about the movie, which you have acknowledged all along is my right. I don't have to offer a better screenplay, I wouldn't know how. Is that what you wanted to hear? Let me say it again.... I DON'T KNOW HOW! I am a reader and not a writer. I know what I read and wanted to see it on the big screen. If PJ or any other director can't bring my dream to the screen, then, damn!!!, I'm going to be disappointed and let you and every other member of this forum know about it. If you don't like it, hit the ingore key so you don't have to listen to my ravings.

I have repeatedly said I enjoyed the movie immensely and will see it again but it is my right to have expected and wanted more than was delivered.

BTW, to add my name to your ignore list, click on my name... when my profile comes up there is a "add to my ignore list" on the bottom right of the screen. Click that and you won't have to listen. As to everyone else..... be nice or I will leave. Maybe some of you would like that, some might not. I won't continue to listen to childish and immature arguments on both sides of these issues. So make your choices and let's have at it.

[mickyplums]

Really and truly Harad, this is getting beyond a joke. Either you are messing and this is all a clever charade or you have not the wit to understand the vocabulary and syntax used in Jamesy's posts.

Would you like me to explain it Fone-et-ick-ally

Wee th-ink that PJ Am-eric-an-ise-d the dia-log and plot of the fil-um. We doo knot thi-nk all Am-eric-an-s are eve-ill.

Perhaps Harad, you believe that everything in the World should be Americanised. As you claim, it's where everyone in the World wants to live.

We could make fims in that mould. Perhaps featuring Winston Churchill, but we can't have him smoking a cigar, no,no, our audience couldn't relate to that, give him a marlboro red.

Or instead of Graham Bell inventing the telephone, we could have him invent coca cola.

We could have Shakespeare making sarcastic, flippant Hans Solo like remarks (Oh, actually, I think someone's already made that)

Your childish comment: well if you don't like America then stop using everything American, we won't miss you, is exactly the type of arrogant mentality that PJ and New-line undoubtedly subscribe to.


It is you who needs to learn tolerance. Diversity of culture is a beautiful thing, it is Hollywood and New-line cinema who want to stamp it out.

[Greenwood]

Greenleaf friend, how is it that you seem to allways manage to take some little aspect of a posting of mine and ignore the meat of the thing?

ReadWryt

Please stop picking on poor Greenleaf when your beef is with me. -- GreenWOOD :) :)

The meat of your last tirade is that you don't like the choices Jackson made in adapting LOTR to the cinema. That's fine. No one said you have to. You think he violated Tolkien's LOTR. Once again, your opinion is your own. I think he did a hell of a job translating a long, complex book to the screen and I don't think any of his choices/changes violated the spirit of the book, though I personally don't agree with all of them. Did Jackson lie -- nonsense; you would never get a court in the country to sustain the charge (IMO). Nobody but a fan of Tolkien could have made this movie.


Elwood

I am not going to repeat ReadWryt's little tirade here, but what was that about my being antagonistic?

[Greenwood]

"No one tosses this dwarf!" - obvious reference to the sport popular in america.

Jamesy, mickyplums

Check out Elwood's dwarf-tossing thread. It is an Australian sport, apparently also popular in New Zealand. As I said earlier Jackson is from New Zealand and the film was made and produced there, not in America. :)

[Bombadillodillo]

I must preface my comments by saying that I am usually an extremely harsh critic, that I didn't enjoy the movie the first time, and have yet to see it again in order to, I hope, to appreciate it more.

At best the movie was a good adapation. I do not think it is possible to make a movie equal to the grandeur of the book because of the rich and long narrative used and the length of the book itself. (How impossible this is I fully realized only while I was watching the movie.)

My greatest disappointment, however (perhaps along with the mediocre dialogue when it was not direct use of Tolkien's words), is the loss of mystery. Everything is immediately revealed or cut out altogether, nothing left to wonder: Gandalf's origin, the palantir, the footsteps following them in Moria, the source of the storm at the pass, Gandalf's disappearance, the nature of Frodo's coat, the lights on Weathertop, the origin of the orcs, the verses concerning Aragorn, the dream of Faramir and Boromir, (most mysterious of all) Tom Bombadil, and the cause of the Flood.

My disappointment in the role of Arwen (recall that Luthien saved Beren) was not that she took Glorifindel's place, nor that she saved Frodo, but what seem rather minor points. First was her kinky first appearance, surprising of all people Aragorn, master in the wilds. By this she diminished his still hidden ability and diminished herself, an extremely agewise elf turned kinky trickster, sneaking up on Aragorn putting her knife to his throat. This is by far the greatest inconsistancy in her character (although it wouldn't have hurt if PJ correctly portrayed Aragorn's stake in the result of the quest: Arwen would not marry Aragorn until the success of the company and his return; she would not become mortal for anyone less and Aragorn has yet to prove himself worthy of her choice).

I didn't like the scene at the flood because it left nothing to our wonder or guessing. The way Tolkien tells it, Frodo sees the flood, he sees the Nazgul leap in, he sees the horses on the waves and then he passes out. Neither he nor the reader know what caused it or whether Frodo lived. It is not for several pages later that we learn how the flood occurred. Perhaps, it would make the movie too difficult to follow to try to retain this and other mysteries. But PJ removes them all, or at least I can think of none that he leaves in.

Everyone seems to admit that Bombadil was a necessary sacrifice. Tolkien thought that he was a necessary part of his story. Why? he is an enigma. He is perhaps the greatest mystery in a story full of mystery and wonder. I am pretty confident in saying that Tolkien saw and regretted that in the modern world with the aid of science we have lost our sense of mystery. And the more we advance in science, the more we lose of mystery. Some think that is good. In my opinion it is good only if science truly is knowledge but I think I am more kindred in spirit to Tolkien in my opinion that science blinds us to and makes it difficult, for some impossible, to ever understand the most important things. Science destroys our ability to see our own ignorance: that we know, and perhaps only can know, so little.

Sorry this was so long. But I really think PJ doesn't "get it". He doesn't seem to understand the depths of Tolkien's work or his spirit. But I shall have to see the movie again.

[Foe-Hammer]

Grond,

My apologies. I was not directing that at anyone specific. It was a childish rant, in support of those who are trying to support the movie.
I had a headache, but I'm over it now.

[Bombadillodillo]

I see most of my post doesn't make my point regarding the scene at the Ford. To elaborate and perhaps preempt criticism, my point is that we are not left to wonder at the cause of the flood, just as we are not left to wonder at the cause of the footsteps in Moria until they are boating down river (or at least until Lorien) when Strider reveals that he knew it was Gollum all along.

Instead PJ shows us the cause of the flood immediately. It's Arwen who has the proper words of command. Tolkien, to contrast, leaves us in suspense as to the state of Frodo and makes us wait for an explanation even longer, until Frodo successfully begs Gandalf into giving him an explanation. Even then it is not clear how Elrond is able to govern the river. That is left to our wonder and imagination.

What struck me most throughout the movie was how PJ stripped the story of Tolkien's masterful way of keeping the audience in suspense and wonder. A pity.

[Grond]

mickeyplums, lose the sarcasm. If you don't like or agree with something that is posted, say so in an intelligent and civil manner. There is enough dissention on the board without egging it on.

Foe, apology accepted. I, too, am a fan of the movie. I am a greater fan of the book. I think the movie could have been better. Let's get this forum back to being a nice place to visit where we can exchange ideas and opinions without switch-blades and uzis.

[Foe-Hammer]

someone has probably already made this point, but bombadilloioidilliodillio's last post, reminded me that had frodo spoken the line he did in the book, the viewer would wonder where frodo got the power to command elven rivers.

[Grond]

Ahhh Foe..... it would had to have been elaborated on in a conversation with Gandalf when Frodo woke up, just as in the book. I can't remember what I thought the first time I read the book, but I'll bet I wondered how Frodo was able to cause the river to flood. Just like someone in the movie might have.

[CRAIG]

ALLOW IT MAY BE A PART OF THE PLOT AS U SAY...BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE RING DID NOT WORK ON HIM..DOES THIS NOT TELL U THAT THE RING ALLOW ALL POWER FULL WAS NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO CORRUPT EVERYONE ..EVEN GANDALF AND ELROND WAS AFRAID OF THE RING..EVERY EVIL PERSON WANTED IT BUT TOM BOMBADIL COULD NOT BE SWAYED BY IT ..MAKES U THINK

[lilhobo]

PJ wanted a powerful elf and only Arwen could have given him that right from the beginning....NOT galadriel and certainly not pretty boy legolas........

i have no problems with the portrayal of Arwen as the more more powerful of the union with Aragon initially. Aragon was being built up in stature by the end of the film evidenced by the infamous "lets hunt us some orcs" :D

If they had cut all the **** from the shire maybe Bombadil could have been squished in

If Only had Gandalf sauid "Even the hands of evil can reach far and wide" on Calandras

BUt they had to introduce gollum in this movie, and the Gandlaf line about not quick to hand out judgement of death made this movie

[ReadWryt]

I see, so simply portraying the two most powerfull elves in the story, Elrond and Galadriel, as the powerfull characters that they are was not sufficient to the confines of the Cinematic Medium? I mean, gee...they seemed pretty darned powerfull in the book! No, it required taking the LEAST POWERFULL Elvish character and blowing her part all out of proportion to really convey the power of the Elves. That makes perfect sense...

If they had cut all that **** from the Shire maybe Glrofindel and Radagast could have been squeezed in. Now THERE is a capitol idea for you...Then they could have forgone the whole Ford Fiasco and the "Secret Heroics of Insects" scene at Orthanc...

[lilhobo]

Problem is all we saw was elrond waving a sword around, and galadriel went Xray for a bit dont make cinematic experience!!

the book only alluded to their power, they didnt bring fire and ice on their opponents, even the work of elrond at the ford was alluded to in the book

they need a elven "presence" in the "human" struggle against Suaron


PS. What else was Glorfindel and Radagast gonna do in the film??? bad choice

[Alys]

Woo hoo - you guys sure like to quarrell! As much as I have enjoyed listening to you all bicker (with the occasional Tolkien reference lol) I think I need to find somewhere a little more conjenial.

You are obviously all real fans of the books (and some, of the films) - indeed some of you (well one) have the greatest mastery of the books known to man lololol - going a little to far IMHO

I think if read back over your recent posts in a month or so, when you have all cooled down, you will feel a certain degree of sheepishness (and for a few of you shame) over the tone of some comments.

Play nice and leave some of your toys in the cot for later! :D


P.S Grond although I disagree with a lot of your opinions I admire the way you've 'got over it' quicker than the rest. Keep up the good work!!

[Foe-Hammer]

RW,

It makes perfect sense to those educated in film making. If all these super elves were running around ME, yet Arwen never did anything, the viewer would be very confused as to why.

The problem is not that you have a different opinion, the problem is you refuse to remove yourself from your own experiences and look at this from someone else's POV. You know who Arwen is related to and subconsiously add that to her character that the movie could never portray.
It is disengenious.

[Greenwood]

Bombadillodillo

Welcome to the forum. Great posts. I fully agree with with your analysis of Tolkien and his ability to create a sense of wonder and mystery. But I also think some of the problem here is going from the medium of the written word to a film. Films can never be as rich as a good book. Films by their very nature have to be quicker and more immediate than a book. Jackson had a herculean task translating a book this long and complex to the screen. If he had taken the time to convey all the mystery you miss from the book, I fear the movie would have been more than twice as long or he would have to have cut savagely from the story line. I think some of the criticisms of Jackson are really unfair because people are comparing him to someone they consider a genius, discovering he is not and then damning him for not being one. To me it seems like comparing a highly talented and intelligent physicist to Newton or Einstein and then saying: "My God, what a hack! He's no Einstein!" No, he isn't, but the comparison is still unfair.

I also think that one of the great problems here is that you have to make some attempt to distance yourself from your knowledge of the book. (I am using "you" and "your" in a general sense, not meaning you personally.) I have seen the movie twice now. I found that the first time I was spending a huge amount of my time anticipating what I knew should be coming (because of my familiarity with the book) and comparing it to the book; sitting there saying: "Oh, there's a change. I recognize that line. No, that's not quite right." etc. I still enjoyed the film and thought the spirit of the book was there, but I was distracted. The second time I made the conscious effort to try and watch the film without all of my Tolkien knowledge getting in the way. When the film ended, all I could say was: "Wow! That was great." I fear that some of the purists are incapable of taking that step back and are holding the film to an impossible standard. (I am not saying that you are among them.)

[ReadWryt]

No Foe,

The problem is that Jackson is not a man for Subtlties. He has shown this time and again in his films. Even in Heavenly Creatures his characters are all larger then life in some way and over the top in some other. I would never have expected the guy to make a word for word transcription, or to include every scene, but would it have killed him to have shot the damned love scene between Arwen and Aragorn, and them maybe jump to Elrond telling him that he is below her as it is in the Appendix while they walk off to the Council? Would the audience have been so damned confused as to why Elrond, who thinks THAT highly of his youngest daughter, would not let her far from his sight with such dangers arising, and would the audience have been able to rub two thoughts together and make a conclusion that "OH, gee...those kids are really in love!" ? Call me crazy, but it seems like that would have been easier then that rediculous "Jane Wayne" routine on the horse, and taking what was supposed to be a moment of triumph for Frodo and turning it into an embarasing scene where he is unconscious and has to be revived by a frail beauty.

As to "who Arwen is related to", I suppose you are right...I remember half a dozen people in the theater watching the chase and saying, "Wow! That must be Elrond's daughter!".

[Grond]

You're absolutely correct Harad. She played well to an audience (I think she's hot) and there is consistency in her role. Everything about the Ford scene and the later romance scene was well done. It just wasn't written by J. R. R. Tolkien and can't be found anywhere in the works.. Therein lies the rub.:(

[Foe-Hammer]

RW,

There isn't a lot of time to rub two thoughts together. While you're rubbing, the movie moves on. If you slow it down to allow the audience to rub thoughts together, then there's a lot of rubbing and the movie is borrrrrringgggggg.

[Grond]

Harad, you've hit the nail on the head. I do see with Eowyn that Tolkien could have been given a more active role by the author. But we have no history of elf maidens as warriors in any of the works. The text makes it easier to accept Eowyn. She is described as a shield maiden and it is apparent in the Two Towers that the woman of Rohan know how to fight.

I will concede that Grond would have no complaint what so ever, had Arwen simply given Asfaloth to Frodo as Glorfindel did. That would have been a change that had no effect on characterization. As stated before, I had no problem with the love scene in Rivendell as it covered material in the book, just in a different time frame. So, as you can see, all my arguments have diminished to basically the one of Arwen stealing what I consider to be an important turning point for Frodo. But, it appears that many have no problem with that either.

It was still a great movie. I'll see it again.

[Grond]

Another thought Harad. I would not even be upset if Arwen showed up in all three movies to develop the love story. As long as she doesn't replace other characterizations that are important in the book. I don't like that Aragorn left Rivendell without Narsil/Anduril, so I don't like the idea of her brininging that to him in TT, he should already have it. But, she could bring accompany the Rangers and hand deliver the standard to Aragorn.

So I'm not against making some changes to the book as long as they don't effect plot or continuity.

[Greenwood]

But we have no history of elf maidens as warriors in any of the works.

Grond

I must disagree. In the Defendable Changes thread I cite many passages from The Silmarillion in which Luthien Tinuviel is quite "active". She vanquished Sauron and destroyed his stronghold, rescuing Beren. It is only with her aid that Beren is able to take a Silmaril from Morgoth's crown. Arwen is Luthien's direct descendent and in the chapter "Many Meetings" she is described as Luthien come to Middle Earth again. I appreciate you do not like the change in the movie, but there is precedent for her role in the works of Tolkien.

[Grond]

Greenwood, I disagree. Luthien used guile, beauty and elven magic to overcome not only Sauron but Morgoth as well. But she never wielded a sword and she was also half Maia which might have explained her magic ability to weave a coat of hair that put people to sleep and her ability to transform herself and her love into other forms.

[Grond]

Greenwood, please note that I have edited out the first paragraph of my previous post. I had that discussion with BluestEyes and not you. When you argue with everyone in the forum... it's hard to keep up with who's who.

Sorry.:o

[Greenwood]

Grond

You have fast fingers on your edit button!! I was in the Post Reply window composing my devastating riposte when I scolled down to do a cut-and-paste and you had completed an edit. Now you and the world will never know the extent of my rapier wit. Alas!
:( :(

[ReadWryt]

Foe,

Nobody EVER begrudges a pause for a love scene...it happens in all manner of adventure films, and when done well by a good Director like Spielburg or Di Palma it actually makes the following scenes seem bigger and more exciting. Besides, we are talking about the lead in to the Council, what's the big burning action that drives THAT scene along?

[Foe-Hammer]

RW,

You just can't cut and paste whatever scenes in and out of a movie and expect to be justified. These guys must be doing something right if they get nominated for 4 golden globes and win three AFI awards including best picture.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know....
All those people are idiots and if they had only listened to you it would have been a better movie.

[Greenwood]

Harad

I cannot remember an elf woman specifically depicted as wielding a sword, though as I have pointed out, Luthein Tinuviel does vanquish Sauron, rescue Beren, and help throw down Morgoth which allows Bern to wrest a Silmaril form Morgoth's crown. As for Arwen wielding a sword in the movie, to be specifc, she draws a sword and challenges the Nazgul to cross the river where they are then overwhelmed by the flood and swept away. She never engages in combat, unlike Eowyn in the LOTR. (Just thought I would throw Eowyn in there in case some ultra-purist is tempted to make a pronouncement about Tolkien being unalterably opposed to showing a female character in a combat situation. :) )

[Grond]

I've rethought this issue and really don't find it out of character for JRRT to have had an elf-maid wielding a sword. I just don't find it in this book or any of the others he wrote.

I am not being sarcastic. Greenwood makes a very good point that Luthien was indeed a heroine of old and no one can doubt her skill or her valor; although she did it for love and not for the glory as so many male heroes do. I am in the process of reading UT, Of Galadriel and Celeborn which tells the old tale of Amroth and I will get back to you here. Maybe something in it will show Galadriel herself as a elf-warrior maiden. I don't know and haven't read it in 10 years. I'll get back........

[Greenwood]

Grond

To quote an old saying: "You are a gentlemen and a scholar."

I hope some of the ultras do not come down on you too hard. :)

I also disassociate myself from extremists of either camp. While I have descended into sarcasm at times, I have tried to avoid outright nastiness. I confess to having slipped once or twice, but I believe I have apologized on those occassions.

[Bombadillodillo]

Greenwood,

I think I must disagree with your attitude of complacency. As I have written above, I said I am a harsh critic of movies in general. But the cause of my criticism is the general mediocrity of screenwriting. I know little of the screen writing of this film, but if it is true, as others seem to suggest, that PJ hired an amateur, it is only symptomatic of the problem Hollywood currently has. Any good movie begins with good writing and currently Hollywood cannot find good writers nor recognize good writing -- not that they have a track record for recognizing good literature and good writers, but the last few years have been especially lack lustre. Screenwriting in general has become atrocious. I need only sight "Titantic" which was really shoddy work. The real problem is of course that the American public eats this filth.

I find it a shame that writing good stories has become almost impossible to find in Hollywood. It is even more shameful that they cannot adapt a well written piece of literature -- which I admit is a difficult task, but not as difficult as coming up with an entirely original script. PJ like most in the movie making business do not seem to realize that the most important part of any movie is the script and they cannot recognize good script writing. I'm afraid I disagree with you, Greenwood and others. LOTR might have been a great film (granted it could never have been as great as the novel) but now it is only just another blockbuster.

The book is among my favorites. I'm afraid that the movie will not be. Still I hold out hope that I will like it more on the second viewing once my wife and I have finished her first read through LOTR. I will say this concerning the movie: I shall never enjoy it as I enjoy the book. My great concern is not a nitpicky one.

It is simply this: Would Tolkien have enjoyed the movie or would he have thought it a bastardization of his work? or worse, would he have thought that it actually undid what he was trying to accomplish in his work?

This of course presumes that we know the answers to these two questions. And with that I think I shall no longer debate questions concerning the movie since questions concerning the book are much more interesting.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
To expand on what Greenwood says about Arwen:

She sneaks up quietly on a Ranger in the woods. She vigorously rides a horse. Finally she waves a sword at the Nazgul. But what in fact is she doing at this point? She is luring the Nazgul into the water so that the flood brought on by her spell will wipe them out. A ploy in the tradition of Luthien. Alas, dear Harad, you will never convince Grond that it was a necessary change. You may convince me that her role wasn't out of character for an elf-maid but you will never convince me it was out of the book.

[Foe-Hammer]

I always thought this discussion was about the movie being made in the spirit of the book?

[chrome_rocknave]

Hmmm.....and here I just thought that the only reason Arwen lured them into the water and said "if you want him come and claim him" was so that everyone would think "YAY--Arwen to the rescue--hoorah--hoorah" :rolleyes:

[Foe-Hammer]

I've always felt that keeping the defiance scene in would have led people to believe that Frodo controlled the water somehow. Then we're into adding more boring dialogue to explain something that should have been obvious.

[Foe-Hammer]

Yeah, I see. Maybe even Arwen asking her father to command the waters.

[Grond]

Holy S**t!! Do you realize that both Harad and Foe have agreed that Arwen might have still had a great role and not had to steal Frodo's. I know other purists will not like it, but I think the idea of a flash to Arwen beseeching Elrond to release the flood is fine. The book said Elrond released. I've said time and time again I don't mind added material that could have happened.

And I will concede that might not have worked but at least we are all opening up to the fact that the movie could have been made truer to the book and remained an entertaining endeavor. After reading some other posts recently, it also appears that PJ did in fact make it closer to the book, but the editors at NLC got ahold of it and had to edit 4 1/2 hours to 3. Maybe we'll see the whole thing on a director's cut and be able to have this discussion again later.:)

And Foe... I take back my dork comment.:D

[Greenwood]

Is it impossible to make a great movie out of such a book?

Bombadillodillo

I don't think I have ever said anything like the above. I hardily agree with you on the overall level of screenwriting. As someone once said 90% of everything is garbage. I also agree with you on "Titanic" which I have never seen. When I saw previews of the movie showing people on the sinking Titanic shooting at each other and heard that there is no mention of the Californian nearby I said: "This is a load of bull. I will stick with "A Night to Remember." (Please note before anyone tells me that I am less forgiving on changes in the Titanic story than on changes in LOTR that the Titanic is an historical event and when you make changes there you are distorting the truth and portraying a false history. LOTR is fiction and greater latitude is allowed.) Where we disagree is on the LOTR film. I think it was great. Sure it could have been better, but nothing is perfect. You think it wasn't great. That's fine. As another old saying goes: "Differences of opinion are what makes horseracing."

Harad

I am concerned that any sort of quick "face over" of Elrond invoking the flood in some way would have left much of the audience who are unfamilar with Tolkien saying: "Who is this dude?" I am afraid most would not have recognized him from the quick shot of him in the front rank of the elves during the battle scene in the prologue and even if they did, at that point I think they would have said: "Hey, wasn't that 3000 years ago? What gives." As I have said before I think it is very hard for most of us here on this forum to forget our intimate knowledge of the book, but in looking at the film we must always try to look at it from the eyes of someone who has never read the books.

To all

Let me also repeat here. I have never defended the Arwen change in the movie and I completely understand Tolkien fans not liking it. What I have said is that it doesn't bother me and that I can see Jackson's reasons for it. I have also said that I don't think it violates the spirit of anything in Tolkien. None of that means that I necessarily think that Tolkien would have approved. He may well not have, but I don't think there is any way for us to know what his thoughts would be and it is highly presumptious for anyone to say that they do know.

[Jamesy]

Good point, Harad. I agree with you there.

[Greenwood]

Harad

Yup. A legitimate difference of opinion and hence unresolvable. :)

[Grond]

Greenwood, everyone would have immediately recognized Elrond in a screen over. They would have said....."Look!!! It's that guy from the Matrix!!":D

[stevehope]

They could have cut to Gandalf, which would have been not totally out of line with the book (he DID assist Elrond). Then when Frodo comes to in Rivendell he could have mentioned it to Gandalf and G would have said, "That was Elrond's doing, though I added a few touches of my own. He is the master of Bethuin (is that the name of the river? I don't remember...)"

Or something like that. I agree with Greenwood that I think a superimposition of a basically unknown character would have been confusing for newbies--the last thing you want at one of the more climactic moments of the movie.

[Greenwood]

Greenwood, everyone would have immediately recognized Elrond in a screen over. They would have said....."Look!!! It's that guy from the Matrix!!"

Grond

I never saw The Matrix. Still haven't. :D :D

[lilhobo]

what kinda fools are you people??? she did psychically called to her father to release the water...in elvish lol

you people worry about the chase and the water while Liv Tyler mumbled her way through the movie????

and the **** about " may the grace bestowed upon me be passed on to you"????


and why was she crying anyways???? she only knew frodo for 2 minutes and he as in la la land at the time

you wanted her to say " forgive them father for they not know what theyre doing?" heheheh

[Greenwood]

she did psychically called to her father to release the water...in elvish

Though I have defended Arwen in the movie, I never thought of that one! Anyone know enough elvish to translate what she said in the movie? :) :D

Thorin may have heart failure at the mere suggestion. :)

[Jamesy]

Good point, Harad. I agree with you there.

[Haven]

Harad- I like that one. :D

Lilhobo- I dunno about the Arwen crying thing, but all I know is that if I saw someone in that state, I'd probably cry too. I think it was in her "movie character" to do that.

Arwen's changes really did not bother me that much just because...well...I personally think it really did not change the spirit of the book because she was probably still in the movie for like, 15 min. We'll see how she is portrayed in the other two. (I don't wanna get shot here...but also...Arwen's not doing anything in the book. We don't know about her...except that she's not THAT like, active. At least here it'll give people who don't know the books a better reason to why Aragorn is in love with her.)

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Harad
I think the translation was:

"You can go jump purists, AT least Germaine Greer will be on my side, so you all can go to hell"

[markrob]

Originally posted by Harad
I think the translation was:

"Forgive me purists (specifically Thorin) for what I do now, aint in the book."

Just saw that one, put that one in the classic archives. Kudos to Harad. :D

[chrome_rocknave]

LOL----they should have had that translation in subscripts :D Very funny!

[mickyplums]

Well I translated it and to me it was "Lets kick some butt, goddamm it and gimme a coke, and a burger and a marlboro red and a monster truck to drive in......cool

[mickyplums]

Except that she's not THAT like,active

What does this mean, like? is "like" a new form of punctuation "like"? are you, like,"Chandler" from "Friends"? "like"

[DGoeij]

Maybe she said something in the like of: "Did I just waved a sword at the Nazgul? Daaaaad!" :D

But the face over of Elrond is a great idea. Too bad they didn't use it, it would have worked.

[Haven]

Mickyplums-
I'm sorry I accidentally stuck in a "like". But while we're on the subject here...sometimes people make mistakes in their wording. I think you can just let it go and not comment on it. I don't appreciate being treated like I am stupid.

[chrome_rocknave]

Get off it Mickyplums... There is no need for you to mock Haven! I'm sure it's not as if you've never made a grammar mistake before.... Can't we all just get along? :rolleyes:

[mickyplums]

Sorry chaps, I'm just trying to "improve" you. By the way Harad: "his own self" is bad grammar and tautology. You can say himself but not "his self", "own self" or "his own self" And I think you mean, "grammatical mistake" Chrome.

Haven I dispute the fact that you just "stuck it in". Its part of the way you speak wouldn't you agree? I'm not correcting typos, everyone makes them, I'm correcting bad grammar and misspelt words.

[Haven]

MickyPlums-
No, I'm pretty sure I just "stuck it in" b/c if you want me to go into specifics...then I'll have to tell you at the time I was looking for the right words, so I think I just put it there. But I think I know what you are saying, and no, I'm not one of those "like" people. (That's actually something I try to avoid)

On the subject of correcting people however, fine do what you want, but you don't have to mock them about it. I don't think it's necessary.

[cjs]

I knoww this has been said before, but the major crime is misrepresentation of hobbits.
Hobbits come across as children who need the big brave men and wizards to take care of them
Frodo is not achild -- his coming of age is at Bilbo's party...
Merry and Pippin do not set off fireworks, they are good friends of Frodo who, knowing of the ring and the risks, decide not to let Frodo go alone any further.
Same with Sam

The journey from Bagend in the book shows their ability to move quietly and survive in the woods -- essential characteristics of hobbits that do not come through in the film.
Frodo only trusts Strider after a letter with a riddle from Gandalf, not on a whim
The hobbits DO NOT LIGHT A FIRE ATTRACTING THE NIGHT RIDERS on Amon Sul -- that is NOT in the book and really makes the hobbits look stupid.

The film is good fun -- a good film and great action etc. My only complaint is that Frodo, Merry , Pippin and Sam get no respect!!!