What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Grond]

Tom ain't in da movie....... Sorry bout dat.

[ReadWryt]

Maclock,

I take it you have not read this thread else you would have seen the list of myriad additions that have been made, Lurtz...Uruk-Hai emerging from Pods...a Wizard Duel between Gandalf and Saruman, things that were never in the book and quite honestly not needed beyond that which Tolkien created in the first place which do not make any clearer the Intentions, Fears, Desires or Strengths and Weaknesses of the Characters, nor do they make any easier to understand the Plot. These things are all verified from Photographs which have been published, not the least of which in the "Fellowship of the Ring(TM)" Desk Calendar from Cedco. Every third day listed is a Photo from the film (121 of them to be exact), with the other two thirds being taken up by Quotes, many of which are quite concise and accurate, and Trivia Questions, including one about what kind of creature does Gandalf convince to help him escape Orthanc? (The answer not being an Eagle, or that Radigast, who is not in any credit listing and therefor apparently not in the film) These are all events invented for the movie by the writer/director and add nothing that makes for any better film making, but rather simply detract in many ways from the completeness of the Middle-earth mythology.

As for Gandalf_00_00's fear, I state again...under other circumstances, assuming that time was really a concern and pretending that the film was not being lengthened by the addition of useless and stupid footage of events that never happened in the books, Tom Bombadil would be on my list of things to cut. Aside from providing some short arms and indirectly demonstrating the power of Sauron (Elrond saying that the Ring would not even be safe with he and Goldberry) Bombadil really adds nothing to the story that would be noticed if cut out. The BBC felt this to be true when bringing the story to Radio, and I see the wisdom in it myself. It would be nice if they had left him in and left out all the invented garbage, but alas we have THIS...

[Dagorlad]

Wryt, in your second post pack we have another rare occassion where you and I are actually in total agreement.

But in your last post I must disagree, I thing Bombadil had more importance that you state. But I would definately Have left them out of the movie for a different reason. I think the whole feeling of Tom and Goldberry and everything about them would have been very hard to properly portray. A tremendous chunck went in to giving us the idea of them, and Tom's significance as a power even still inferior to Sauron. And more difficulty would arise due to Goldberry's unique sort of beauty, and her singing. Bad enough he has to strugle with adequately representing the other beautiful and marvelously gifted Elf-Women.

[Grond]

Dag, goin' back a few posts, you stated that Interview sucked. I assume you mean Interview with the Vampire. I agree with you in this instance. That one, I read first and then went to the movie. The biggest problem with it was giving way to much emphasis on Lestat instead of waiting for his book. The other movies I cited, however, were true to the plot and more importantly true to the "spirit" of the book. Peter Jackson could have been true to the "spirit" to the works of JRRT with minimal effort and still had a movie for the ages.

That's just my humble opinion.

[ReadWryt]

In the case of Inverview with a Vampire, if you think back on the book it was mostly Louis looking back and seeing the monster that Lestat was. The next book, and all the others for that matter, are mostly from Lestat's point of view and looked more kindly on him because of it. Anne Rice, who wrote both the book and the movie, realized that making The Vempire Lestat into a movie would be problematic and that she wanted to soften Interview up so that the next film could jump to Queen of the Damned, which is in Post Production now. I have no problems when the Author makes changes in the Movie adaptation of their own Book though, just so long as, as was the case with Ms. Rice, they admit to having made changes before the film hits the screen.

[Dagorlad]

Grond, I agree w/ you on the issue of the ability to make a great a great film from LoTR (a true film, not a plaigurized fantasy film of the director's imaginings).
But, I not only thought that interview (movie) sucked for a number of reasons, but the video I saw showed Ms. Rice at the outset stating that it was a good film and true to the book. My subsequent viewing of the movie made that appear to be a desperate effort to leave a good starting impression on the minds of the viewers (if she said it's good, it must be).
I was utterly disgusted with that insane butchery of that book. Worst of all for me was the casting of Tom Cruise. I couldn't believe they used him.

[Maclock]

Steady on Wryt, I have read this thread and contributed to it (perhaps not as much as you) on numerous occasions. I may be guilty of obscuring my point in too much rhetoric, but let's keep things civil.

Essentially, my point is that I believe it to be a little premature to denounce a film as a travesty or a bastardisation before the film has actually been seen by anyone. Comment upon the copious evidence provided by members of this forum is obviously not a bad thing. Personally, however, I consider photographs (however numerous) to be an ill representation of a film. Questionnaires on the film, however much they may highlight changes, are clearly not enough to allow one that much insight in to the forthcoming film. Even the footage provided in the trailers is insufficient to justify condemnation of an entire 8hour trilogy. With regard to your previous comment

"These are all events invented for the movie by the writer/director and add nothing that makes for any better film making, but rather simply detract in many ways from the completeness of the Middle-earth mythology."

I may ultimately agree with you, as I do find the changes puzzling, but I shall gauge their whole effect whilst watching the film - and not make speculative denunciations beforehand.

One thing I cannot disagree with is that PJ + New line do seem to be promoting this as a very accurate version. Changes have been made, this is clear, and so it cannot be truly accurate. However, that does not necessarily mean that LOTR will be a bad, nor unenjoyable to the Tolkien fan. It's just that logically the judgement of the Tolkien fan should be more restrained until after they see the film.

[Grond]

Mac, we (the purists on the forum) don't doubt that the film will be bang up....probably one of the best films of all time with the visual effects, action sequences et. al. What we are the most upset about are the changes that have already been acknowledged. You can't judge a book by its cover but you can gauge a film by its press. PJ and the cast have already confirmed most, if not all, the changes we have cited... and we are not happy with the changes.

Deleting certain aspects of the book (Tom Bombadil for example) would be acceptable as directorial decision for time constraints. Changing the plot in the screenplay while all the time stating that it is true to the book, is unforgivable and a lie. One that many of us here are unwilling to forgive PJ for.

Having said all that... I don't know of one purist who won't be at the movie. I know that I will. But for you to insinuate that we have no right to form an opinion whthout having seen the movie or are jumping the gun in condemning admitted changes, isn't fair. PJ has been weighed and measured and has been found lacking (to quote a knight from another recent release).

[Greymantle]

"You have been weighed..."
"You have been measured..."
"And you have been found lacking!"

I so expected to hate that movie, but I actually ended up quite liking it. It actually constructed a somewhat believable and relatively accurate medieval atmosphere...language, cleanliness (or, more to the point, lack thereof), and the relative climes of France and England. :) Though it did sort of mess up Edward the Black and the battle of Poitiers...

[MuffinMan]

Ok....yeah I am really quite worried about the Lurtz/Pod direction of the story but I am willing to accept it if the movie is good.

I am just going to clarify a couple things as well.....Arwen has not become ZenArwen. She says the come and claim him line for effect and then runs away. She is drawing them to the Ford so they can be cast down by the tides.

As for Gandalf's sputtering....I'm not liking that aspect very much either. However, I've been told that this is a dream sequence. I don't know if there is truth to this but I really hope it is true.

I also hope that they don't mess around with the growing relationship between Gimli and Legolas....I hope it reigns as true as possible to the book because that was one of my favorite aspects of it. However, they will probably treat it carelessly and use it for humour.

Anyway, although I say this, I am completely willing to take in this movie as an adaptation and as a movie. There is no way it will live up to the books and I have accepted that. The book and the movie are two different medians and I just hope the movie is good and does well. I'm most looking forward to the Two Towers.

[Grond]

Welcome, Oh MuffinMan. I, too, had your same attitude a month ago but have dwelt since in this humble forum and am now ready to tar and feather director Peter Jackson. But, I, too, hope that the movie is good; however, I know it will never, ever, ever live up to my expectations and this was the only chance for this to happen. Never again will this movie be made. Drats.....

[Elendil]

[Hi folks, I'm new to the forum]

I admit that the changes often seem unnecessary to the plot and action, but perhaps the attempt is to make an exciting story more so. This can lose much of the subtilty in the book however.

Playing devil's advocate, I have to bring up this point. If you read the History of Middle Earth volumes (especially those on LOTR), you'll see that the characters were quite fluid and many of the concepts such as Orcs and Rangers developed during the writing over many years. In the Hobbit we had Goblins, etc. The whole orc thing developed during the writing of LOTR and concurrent development of the Silmarilion.
Characters developed, were tossed, changed names, and merged several times. Frodo was originally "Bingo". Pippin was Fredegar, and before that Folco, from a combination of an earlier "Frodo" character and Odo. Odo was a clown and gives Pippin his humorous character. Sam also got a bit of Odo. Strider was originally a hobbit known as "Trotter" and was for a time Peregrin Took (Pippin)! Frodo was Bilbo's cousin, his son, then a cousin again. Etc, etc.
So the idea of a Glorfindel-Arwen is not so preposterous with all this in mind (except that Tolkien isn't making the changes).

Orcs raised by Saruman? Where *do* they come from? Orcs are an abomination and mockery of the work of Eru Iluvatar. Maybe they do come from pods or something. They are certainly created and bred somehow by Melkor and Sauron for their dark purposes.

Still, artistic license can only be allowed so much slack. Let's hope they haven't gone over the edge.
.

[Grond]

Elendil, my main man..... Look back upon this thread in its entirety and you will see that Peter Jackson has, indeed, made a mockery of that which we hold so dear. Yes, we can say this without even having seen the movie.

Your argument of Tolkien's own fluidity lacks validity (I'm such a good poet) because the works were finally put in order and haven't been changed since. The works I know and love as The Lord of the Rings is exactly the same as the one you know and love. Tolkien's inconsistencies in originally putting it together, in no way give Peter Jackson an excuse to change basic principles and precepts in the plot.

I will again restate that all the purists on this forum will be going to the movie. Heck! We'll be first in line... but that will not temper our bitterness nor our resentment that an opportunity for a truly great re-creation of one of the finest works of fiction in our history... has been wasted!

[Talierin]

Welcome Elf-friend!:D

[Thorin]

Originally posted by MuffinMan
[BI am just going to clarify a couple things as well.....Arwen has not become ZenArwen. She says the come and claim him line for effect and then runs away. She is drawing them to the Ford so they can be cast down by the tides.

Anyway, although I say this, I am completely willing to take in this movie as an adaptation and as a movie. There is no way it will live up to the books and I have accepted that. The book and the movie are two different medians and I just hope the movie is good and does well. I'm most looking forward to the Two Towers. [/B]

Regardless of what Arwen's purpose is...she is not supposed to be there anyway. Who cares if she was there to give Glorfindel a hand, or offer the riders a lollipop. PJ's change of Arwen's character is ridiculous and unacceptable..

You know what, even if the movie was EXACTLY like the book, it would not measure up to the book. Nothing can replace the imagination and the satifaction of losing one's self in it...the point of the whole matter is that PJ, though claiming to try, is falling short in being true to LoTR...that too is unacceptable..

Let me loosely quote a movie magazine comment from Chris Columbus who directed Harry Potter, concerning making HP movie true to the book..

"If the book is so popular, why would I want to change anything about it?"

PJ could learn a thing or two from someone who has stayed true to the book and been praised for it...HP raked in over $53 million over the weekend.

[theGrenadier]

hi...I'll keep this short.
Please refer to my first post,"Has anyone else decided not to see it."

And I just want to mention that this is one of the most open forums I have ever taken part in. Everyone has been very friendly (and well-behaved!) Thanks alot everybody.

[Maclock]

Originally posted by Thorin


You know what, even if the movie was EXACTLY like the book, it would not measure up to the book. Nothing can replace the imagination and the satifaction of losing one's self in it...



Here Thorin, I totally agree with you. No matter what the Hollywood budget, a person's imagination will always be superior.

[Telchar]

Welcome to the Tolkien Forum Elendil! :)

[Scooter]

Originally posted by Maclock
Here Thorin, I totally agree with you. No matter what the Hollywood budget, a person's imagination will always be superior.
Even Peter Jackson's?
:D :D :D

[Scooter]

Originally posted by Thorin
Sigh...I think the worst part is that LoTR will never again be the same, people. All the marketing, all the merchandise, all the misconceptions. PJ's movie has changed the dynamics of what LoTR was to society. Imagination will, to some extent, be replaced with different images and some of those images are horribly skewed and distorted. Newbies after PJ will not see the LoTR that we all grew up with.
This is probably the truest post of the thread. Tolkien will be lost for a generation but fear not -- I expect the books will out-live the movies by many lifetimes!

[Elendil]

Originally posted by Grond
Your argument of Tolkien's own fluidity lacks validity (I'm such a good poet) because the works were finally put in order and haven't been changed since. The works I know and love as The Lord of the Rings is exactly the same as the one you know and love.


Actually Grond, Tolkien did change the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit after they were published -- several times in fact. Sometimes they were corrections, like when the publisher replaced "elven" with "elfin", but there were also changes in the story. This is especially true of geography. The largest changes seem to have been made to the Hobbit to bring it in line with LOTR. This is interesting as Tolkien started LOTR with the intention of writing a Hobbit sequel. Later the Hobbit was viewed as a prequel to LOTR.

The paper editions also differed from the hardbound ones as they were published by different companies.

All of this is documented by Christopher Tolkien and can be found also in the forwards to the newer editions to LOTR.
My point is that the LOTR (and Hobbit) that some people grew up with actually is different from what people read today.

The only reason there is any stasis now, is because Professor Tolkien died in the '70s.

[Grond]

Elendil, O learned master of Tolkien Lore (I mean this sincerely), we do not disagree except maybe to degree. In my opinion, the major changes JRRT made effected The Hobbit, particularly the account of Bilbo's acquisition of the ring and as you say, editing the geography to maintain consistencies within the works. I originally read a 1965 copyright of TLOTR in 1973 and was so enthralled that I went to my local library and, behold, they had the original work published in 1955, which I also read. To this day, I can recall no changes whatsoever in the works. This isn't to say there weren't any, they just weren't significant enough for me to recall.

Having said all that, this thread is about The New Line Cinema trilogy of TLOTR. I just can't find anywhere in the book where Strider (Aragorn) roamed the wilderness packing extra blades of Westernesse to equip wayward Hobbits. I always thought that Gandalf was a wise and, more importantly, coordinated wizard who didn't stumble around places with panic in his voice and fear in his eyes. No where in the book did I read about a guy named Lurtz, no matter what race I looked into. Frodo displaying the ring at The Council of Elrond.... didn't happen; Frodo, passed out and draped over Arwen's steed at the Fords of Bruienen, just didn't happen.(Heck, if I was draped over Liv Tyler's steed and in her lap, I'd be awake, wounded or no.)

You get my drift....

[Gloer]

I found this really interesting point of view from the Catholic.net.

http://www.catholic.net/beauty_and_truth/template_channel.phtml?channel_id=4

I am not a religious person but interested in how a religious person would view a book that has a semi-religious following:

Quote:
>> In order to understand Tolkien´s "philosophy of myth" it is useful to commence with a maxim of G.K. Chesterton: "not facts first, truth first." Tolkien and Chesterton were both intent on differentiating between facts, which are purely physical, and truth, which is metaphysical.

Thus a myth or a fairy story can convey love and hate, selfishness and self-sacrifice, loyalty and betrayal, good and evil -- all of which are metaphysical realities, that is, true, even if conveyed in a mythological or fairyland setting. >>

Doesn't this quite simply say that it's quite irrelevant how things were descibed happening by the books?

I my self believe that books are the coffins of myths. A book gives fariseans false sense of security and understanding since everything can be checked from the Book.

On the otherhand: God is in the detail. And so is the devil. If PJ has any understanding of Tolkien's stories, he will tell them very well. Not factually correct - but then who cares if the story is good!
And the message and the atmosphere is there...

[Greymantle]

I agree, but something I've noticed is when the facts are altered enough while trying to portray the same Truth (i.e. a movie trying to capture the spirit of LotR), the very truth itself is lost! Mr. Jackson's a bit too foolish to understand this.

[ReadWryt]

>> In order to understand Tolkien´s "philosophy of myth" it is useful to commence with a maxim of G.K. Chesterton: "not facts first, truth first." Tolkien and Chesterton were both intent on differentiating between facts, which are purely physical, and truth, which is metaphysical.

Thus a myth or a fairy story can convey love and hate, selfishness and self-sacrifice, loyalty and betrayal, good and evil -- all of which are metaphysical realities, that is, true, even if conveyed in a mythological or fairyland setting. >>


Doesn't this quite simply say that it's quite irrelevant how things were descibed happening by the books?

No, it says nothing of the sort. It says that Truths, which are metaphysical constants, can be told in any story...be it Historical, contemporary or Mythological. Facts can be told, a Biography can convey the Facts of events in a person's life, but the Truths, according to your quote, go beyond mere physical actions that can be recorded in a simple account of some person's life, and would include their Loves and Hates, selfishness and self-sacrifice, loyalty and betrayal, good and evil...

Confuse this not, For if Obi Wan had simply told Luke "Your father was my friend till was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force and he begame Darth Vader, an evil bastard lap dog to the Emperor" which would be the FACTS it would deny the story the chance to examine the TRUTH in what he DID say, that Luke's father was "killed" by Darth Vader.

[Elendil]

Grond,

You've done better than I in reading different editions. Bravo!

As I said, I was playing devil's advocate. I actually don't see why all the changes need to be made. Only cutting and smoothing can really be justified for the sake of time. [Still FOTR is 3 hours long!] I really don't see the need to cut Glorfindel except possibly to avoid the time needed to introduce another character. Major un-Tolkien dialog and events seem unnecessary. After all, the work is being pared, not expanded. There's plenty of dialog and action to fit a film.

I just saw Harry Potter last week and I have to say that they did a damn good job of sticking to the important events from the book. The scenes were much as I pictured them mentally... and that's a great job as far as I'm concerned.

I will still watch the New Line film and buy the DVD. I also have the Bakshi version, which was really monumental as far as animation is concerned, even if it wasn't 100% faithful to the story. I'm sure there will be other versions of LOTR just as there have been dozens of Robin Hood movies.

I also think some of the individual stories from the Sil, like Beren and Luthien, would make good films.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Gloer
On the otherhand: God is in the detail. And so is the devil. If PJ has any understanding of Tolkien's stories, he will tell them very well. Not factually correct - but then who cares if the story is good!

Who cares??? I, for one, care very much. I have been looking forward to seeing TLOTR, that is, the book I have read and reread over the years. I don't want to see someone elses interpretation of it. If you feel everyone's interpretatation is different, you only need to read a little in this forum to see how wrong you are. Some of us may view different themes, plots and sub-plots with a different perspective due to age, upbringing or other factors.... but, most of us here, view the story with a similarly surprising clarity... and most are agreed.... THIS IS AT VARIANCE WITH THE VISION OF PETER JACKSON. That doesn't make his story bad... just different and one that I wish had remained true to the work.

Originally posted by Elendil
Grond, You've done better than I in reading different editions. Bravo!

Not really, that was just happenstance, but I will say that you have piqued my interest again and I will immediately go to my public library and see if they have an older edition. If that doesn't pan out... maybe ebay.

[Gloer]

Very good point ReadWryt:

Quote:
>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't this quite simply say that it's quite irrelevant how things were descibed happening by the books?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it says nothing of the sort. It says that Truths, which are metaphysical constants, can be told in any story...be it Historical, contemporary or Mythological. Facts can be told, a Biography can convey the Facts of events in a person's life, but the Truths, according to your quote, go beyond mere physical actions that can be recorded in a simple account of some person's life, and would include their Loves and Hates, selfishness and self-sacrifice, loyalty and betrayal, good and evil...

Confuse this not, For if Obi Wan had simply told Luke "Your father was my friend till was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force and he begame Darth Vader, an evil bastard lap dog to the Emperor" which would be the FACTS it would deny the story the chance to examine the TRUTH in what he DID say, that Luke's father was "killed" by Darth Vader. >>

I place my words carefully. I feel that there are some readers that feel PJ:s (supposed) Arwen portrayal denies the myth.

1. The myth of Frodo facing and fighting fear alone? But he was rescued finally by Elrond who rose the river. They might well have Frodo correctly portrayed in the movie.

2. The myth of Arwen and Aragorn. Now I do not know how you feel it should or could be portrayed.

Many say Tolkien put her women on a pedestal. They were the source ofinspiration for him and for Aragorn. That's Arwens role? And is PJ spoiling it? Is he? Can you really say that honestly without seeing the movie. Unless of course one feels he has to stick with the text.

[ReadWryt]

I feel that you are half right, and at that only the half dealing with Facts as your previous quote described them. By changing the Events they have not indeed altered the rest of the events which bring about the greater ending, but you DO destroy what your quote refered to as TRUTHS.

The Truth of a young man (hobbit) who had never faced any real danger reaching deep inside and holding the gravity of the trust placed in him to protect the Ring above the mind numbing fear that the Nazgul inflict on those who see them, and in the end defying them with his own utterence.

The Truth of the great and powerfull lord of the region, Elrond, in his ability not only to bring about a flood but to do it with such good timing...

and Glofindel, who is a STRONG WARRIOR WOMAN that wields a SWORD and RIDES A HORSE and happens to set Frodo upon it and send him riding away from danger...making a sacrifice in the face of danger and letting the Ring Bearer flee while she and the others stayed at Weathertop awaiting goodness knows WHAT perils...

So in the end if you are asking is it worth trading the revelation of strengths and powers of three characters for the expedience of letting Arwen have more screen time, then I for one say no...but that's just me.

*****
I'm still laughing over this. I, in my "Trading Sleep time for Rendering Time" idiocy mixed up Glorfindel, the brave and stalwart MALE ELF, with Eyowen, the Female who had nothing to do with Weathertop. It kinda takes all the wind out of my argument in the end, no? Hehehe That's why I left it here and made an addendum, I wanted to share my overblown selfinflated hubris with all of you.
*****

[Gloer]

You are right!

Now I see.
I thought Arwen's new moves intefered somehow with his role in A&A-love story. But if she is the brave one who takes the hapless Frodo across. Then she should take the ring to Mordor too! Very bad. I like Ringwrights and now I have to close my eyes at that part where they chase the ring all out. The Weathertop is a lame attempt.

And I open my eyes ones the flood starts and that poor Liv Tyler stops chanting (elves don't cast spells). Then I hope the rest of the story is ok. Lurtz (?) fits it anyone agree?

DOOOWN WITH PJ!

PS. Liv Tyler is propably behind it. They needed a good looking Arwen. Called her. She said yes and immidiately in New Zealand started to complain that her actors skills are not respected because she has no lines or action seens. Finally PJ put her there. This is speculation of course. MOre likely Tyler read the book only after the filming and realised to her utter shame that while everyone else is acting correctly she is doing all kinds of things that she shouldn't. And nobody told her! Everybody laughs:In the end she can't do a good job acting since the scenes should not be there in the first place!

[Gloer]

I found a site which claims to list ALL changes.
Here it is.

Who click's here may throw away all hope...the gates of Hell?

http://www3.tolkienonline.com/movies/changes_index.cfm

Well: I haven't checked it yet. I am gathering my strength.
AWonder if Frodo was this scared...

[Thorin]

Already checked it out and promoted it to other forum members....It's not a pretty site.

When you check it out you will see why so many of us are very turned off by Peter Jackson's rendition of LoTR.

Good luck! You're not going to like it!

[Gloer]

I did not like it. End.

I am very angry.

I like the elves and like Silmarillion more because of more elves.
They say PJ loves elves and seems he really can't resist avoiding the sad fading of his favourites!

And what is this thing with elves having magical abilities? Middle-Earth elves are like humans only immortal unless slain. Plus of course good looking and intelligent and skillful, but not in different way than men. For example numenorean men appeared almost like elves to ordinary folk I guess.
DWPJ!

Speculation:
Why more elves -> because PJ likes them too much to resist -> why not wait for a success and keep elves in the back ground fading -> AND then film Silmarillion or part of it -> Because Christoffer Tolkien + family owns allthe film rights toanything else than TLOTR-book. Or so I believe.-> so more elves have to be in TLOTR! *?@¤%&
DWPJ!!!!

IsC.Tolkien going to make the Silmarillion - movies with proper control? Hope so, he will make a windfall if he does...
Will PJ and New Line be involved? I think there would be Synergy what comes to appearance, looks etc. But the agreement could be hard to negotiate.

[Grond]

Gloer.... This doesn't appear to be Ms. Tyler's fault. You can lay all the blame directly on the screenwriters. If you'll read last week's issue of People.... in the back there is a short article where Liv explains that she had been waiting for a script with meat and she got it when the LOTR script was presented to her.

What is truly sad.. is that PJ appears to feel his changes are insignificant and shouldn't trouble anyone. Sheesh... what an idiot!

[Gloer]

Grond, you are right and that is what I mean:

Liv Tyler - it is not her fault!

It is the 'meaty' script that fooled her to act a great role, she thinks. That can not be acted well since the script is hollow, flat, bad. I feel a bit sorry for her. Others ruined her chance to get any mature fans (= people who can read and have love affairs of teir own to relate to = people over 12 or so).

The original Arwen role had more meat in it but then it would have required an actress that has the beautiful presence. Look at that girl in Planet of the Apes! She was some really cute model, she had no lines, but gee everyone fell for the ugly ape woman! You can't just make Claudia Schiffer smile in the back ground at Elronds house and Aragorns dreams...or can you?

[Scooter]

I know I'm going to get boo'd again but after reading the changes (and I only read FotR) there's only a few that really bother me:

Arwen at the Ford
The Wizard's Dual (?!? What's up with that?)
Orc Pods
Counsel of Elrond

Many of the other changes (who's wearing armor, scene compression, etc.) might deviate from the facts but I don't think stray from the spirit.

The deal with Aragorn's sword baffles me though -- it would seem a good symbol of a king with no throne and why they didn't use it is odd BUT since we don't see much of it in FotR it won't disturb things too much, I think. Perhaps they started filming thinking that they would not deal with the reforging at all but later changed their minds with many scenes already in the can. What ever . . .

Now: Let the Flaming Begin!

[Elendil]

Originally posted by Grond
Frodo displaying the ring at The Council of Elrond.... didn't happen

Um... didn't Gandalf ask Frodo to show the ring at the Council...or am I confusing a developmental scene from "Return of the Shadow"?

[Grond]

Scooter, I'll give you a pass until I see the movie. We really won't know the final edit and the "real" final changes until then.

As for me, enough "that effects the material outcome" has changed as to totally disappoint me. Arwen's increased role, Lurtz's appearance from PJ's imagination, Boromir's encounter with Frodo on the hill, Wizard's dueling, Saruman dead before he reaches The Shire... yada yada yada....... but I said I'd give you a pass, didn't I???

And, oops, Elendil, you are right that Frodo showed the ring at the Council.... but Gimli didn't try to stike it to prove it couldn't be destroyed. Sorry about that.... drat! and I had just finished reading that chapter on Saturday. Trust me kids when I tell you that at 47 your memory goes straight to Hell!!

[ReadWryt]

I think what you see in the cast list are people who

A) Never read the books

B) Read the books but think that being in the "Most epic film of the decade" would be good for their career...

or

C) Read the book, don't really have a career anymore but are willing to ignore the fact that they are prosituting themselves and Tolkien's writings so long as they get paid...(This is the ONLY thing I can use to describe Christopher Lee, who claims to re-read the books every year)

[Thorin]

When I forced myself to look at the "Visual Companion" to the movie, they talked about each actor and his/her character. The only people I counted that have read the book numerous times well before the idea of making this movie came out (at least mentioned) were:

Sean Astin - Sam
Christopher Lee - Saruman
Ian Holm - Bilbo

That's it! Though I'm sure Ian McKellen (Gandalf) has read it as well.
Viggo (Aragorn), Elijah (Frodo), and many others hadn't even read the book before this whole movie deal...

That is the most pathetic thing. You would think that some actors who truly read and loved the books would have been considered for the parts

[sharkeysmate]

At last, somewhere to vent my spleen. I read with horror that Arwen rescues Frodo at the Ford of Bruinen. NO SHE DOESN'T! Why do directors/financial backers/heretics feel the need to tweak what for most is a perfect story. While I am on the subject, who the f*!* is Lurtz. Honestly, am I alone in wanting to maim the person responsible for altering the plot? If they wanted an evil Orc character, what about Gorbag, Shagrat, Grishnak etc., I have waited years for this film to be made and I can't shake off the feeling of anger and disappointment at the fact that the makers have strayed from the script. IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT! I know I would be alone in my desire to boycott the film, but I feel like I have to express my feelings somehow!

[Greymantle]

No worries. We're pretty much all with you 100%-- you're not alone! :D

[sharkeysmate]

Hey, Grey!

I've just spent the last 1/2 hour scanning through the earlier posts about this issue. It's nice to know people like yourself and Thorin feel the same way. Yes, I'm looking forward to seeing the film, but I have always got pissed off at Hollywood's changes. Remember Manhunter, the 'prequel' to Silence of The Lambs? I don't mind omissions as much as I mind changes. If Frodo is being 'saved' by Arwen at Bruinen, we will be deprived of his struggle against the will of the 9. "Go back to the land of Mordor & follow me no more" etc. Sureley that embodies the spirit and resolve of Frodo and Hobbits in general. If he only manages it with the help of Superwoman then I feel that the strength of his character is diminished. In my humble opinion that is unforgivable, as Frodo's resolve to complete his task is one of the central themes of the book!

[Grond]

Welcome, Sharkeysmate. Yes... most of the members of this forum are with you. Lurtz is some SuperOrc that PJ has come up to be the anti-hero to Aragorn in movie #1. Yes, it sucks and you will see from my prior posts that the change most disturbing to me in movie #1 is the whole Arwen at the Fords of Bruinen. How can Frodo possibly show the character that he is to become without standing up at that time to resist and claim The Ring for his own???

Drat, like you, I was so looking forward to this movie.
***Hangs head down and goes into the corner sulking.***

[Scooter]

Welcome Sharkeysmate!
I'm also disturbed by some of the changes -- this one above all, I think:Originally posted by sharkeysmate
"Go back to the land of Mordor & follow me no more" etc. Sureley that embodies the spirit and resolve of Frodo and Hobbits in general. If he only manages it with the help of Superwoman then I feel that the strength of his character is diminished. In my humble opinion that is unforgivable, as Frodo's resolve to complete his task is one of the central themes of the book!(my emphasis)
but if you check my post back on pg15 I discuss why its unrealistic to expect a book to translate to a movie without changes being made.
Your commentOriginally posted by sharkeysmate
I can't shake off the feeling of anger and disappointment at the fact that the makers have strayed from the script.exemplifies the misunderstandings that I talk about there -- and don't feel bad, I have to remind myself of the difference too: Tolkien didn't write a script.

even if you had said "text", while more correct, it would have been just as unrealistic to expect a visual movie to be EXACTLY like the book (a written medium).

I don't mean to harp but I think it's an important point to keep in mind. The length of deviations listed at the web site referenced by Gloer (http://www3.tolkienonline.com/movies/changes_index.cfm) seems to be an overwhelming condemnation of PJ & Co. but most of the changes listed are perfectly acceptable (if filmed with the book's SPIRIT!) and should be seen as necessary to keep the film from getting bogged down in narration.

Anyway -- my 2 cents . . .

[ReadWryt]

Aaaaah, yeah. All that Naration that fills pages and pages with descriptions of Glorfindel sending the lone Frodo off to the Ford...the reams of boring text that describes how he stands up to them and yells defiantly at them before Elrond causes the flood...I can see where that would bore the audience to tears.

I hope everyone here who can will be watching the Fox Television special tonight. See how many of the changes not seen in the Trailer are shown to the broad audience, and what is said about changes to the characters and stories. It should be interesting to see how they, being dragged into the sunlight, try to spin this simultaneously for the Tolkien Fans as well as the folks who have not read the books so as not to confuse either.

The fact is that Jackson has removed thing he claimed were in the interest of time, and invented things that more then fill the time he saved by doing the cutting. He doesn't know what he is doing and he is doing it all the while claiming he is being true to Tolkien's intent for the Characters and Plot. Lies wrapped in Spin wrapped in Glitz wrapped in Propaganda and Promotions...

[Grond]

Okay, it's 7:38PM CST and the Special on Fox is over. It was marvelously done. Did anyone notice that not one change from the book was mentioned. The only minor discrepancy noted was that they did show Arwen give up her immortality for Aragorn. (This was not in the main part of the book, but in the Appendix.) That didn't bother me though, because it did happen and so, you've got no changes shown on the special. What gives???? The special looked great!!

Like The Church Lady says, "Could it be Satan?" It's very, very bad to show this thirty minute teaser (I call it what it is) and, from the teaser it is very easy to think.... Man!! This is just like the book!! Isn't that just a tad misleading??

Oh Well!! Tonight, I vowed to give PJ a pass until I actually see the movie. I won't post again on any movie threads until 12/19/01. See y'all then.

[Valinorean]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Lies wrapped in Spin wrapped in Glitz wrapped in Propaganda and Promotions...

Is anyone interested in a suicide pact???????????

I also watched the show just now. I think my husband may try to commit me, and I may have broken the chair I was sitting in. If just 30 minutes bothered me this much, maybe I had better not see this at the cinema . . .

There were soooooooooo many things wrong . . .

1 - Arwen in general, who like you know gave up like two whole years of her life for this movie.
2 - Pointed ears are the reason Kate Blanchett wanted to be in the movie????????
3 - Boromir holding the ring by the chain
4 - Frodo placing the ring on a pillar at the Council
5 - J.R.R. Tolkeeeeeeeeeeeeen
6 - "absolute power corrupts absolutely" - such an original line from Christopher Lee

Am I insane? Should I really give this movie a chance? I have waited for it for over two years! But can I enjoy it?






:confused:

[Grond]

Alright Val, you've already got me breaking my promise. I said I wouldn't be back until the movie!! Oh well.....

Val, go to the movie. Forget for 3 hours that you've ever read JRRT and just enjoy it. It is going to be an absolutely gang buster movie. I'm especially impressed with Elijah Wood and Sean Astin and with Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn. (I really liked him and Demi Moore in G I Jane).

If you go into the theatre with no expectations.. then you should have a blast. Afterwards...... we'll have plenty of time to "pick it apart". But, I still hope for the best..... but, then, I don't have my expectations very high.

[Talierin]

Actually Val, Tolkien is supposed to be pronounced Toll-Keen. Tolkien said so himself.

Okay, who thought the Cave Troll was really, really stupid looking?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
The fact is that Jackson has removed thing he claimed were in the interest of time, and invented things that more then fill the time he saved by doing the cutting.

And that just blows all the "you have to make cuts because the movie will be too long and you can't possibly fit it all in." gibberish from sympathizers to PJ, including some on this forum.

PJ cut important stuff and changed stuff just to replace it with invented nonsense. Some cutting for time factor. Take out the scenes that would remain true to the book, and replace them with **** scenes, then tell everyone that you are staying true to the book!

Good ol' PJ! Give that man the thumbs up, eh? I feel so safe knowing that JRR is in his hands! Right...and now I'll say something that will make my nose shrink...

DOWN WITH PJ!!!

[ReadWryt]

Well I just saw that "Quest for the Ring" thingy...I still find it wildly amusing that it aired on Fox instead of the WB.

The first shot in this special, I feel, establishes the entirety of what Peter Jackson has done to what is otherwise a great piece of literature, and demonstrated how much he is, as one person in the show said, "The Lord of the Rings". The first thing we see is that scene from the book where Boromir is in possession of the Ring and comments about how remarkable it is that such a small thing could be the cause of so much trouble....Oh wait, that's right...nobody has posession of the Ring in the books save for Frodo, and he KEEPS Boromir from getting his hands on it...and it's crucial to the plot that that happens because of Boromir's lust for the power of the Ring and because it's power is so seductive. I remember now, I must have been thinking of some OTHER Lord of the Rings book where that happens. *eyeroll*

I hope that millions of Tolkien fans across the US saw that and scratched their heads saying, "What the *&^@!???". That and the footage of the Wizard Duel should get the blood boiling out there in Fandom Land...

But he DID, thankfully, remember to include that humerous interlude with the two Hobbits getting into Gandalf's Fireworks and setting off the "Red Dragon Rocket" that we all remember from the boo...er, ok...maybe that wasn't in the book at all either.

I really liked the High School Stage Production Faux Wood door in Moria. I thought that the painted wood grain really added to the authenticity of the production in general. Of course I guess that is what we expect from Peter Jackson, the "perfectionist" as Kate Blanchett called him...never mind that "To the left of the great arch they found a stone door: it was half closed, but swung back easily to a gentle thrust.". I would have thought that faking a stone door would have been easier and accurate. *Sigh*

[sharkeysmate]

Scooter,

Sorry pal, I just can't agree! I understand fully that certain changes may have to be made. We can't always see in a film what motivates a character or what a character may be thinking like we can in a book thanks to the narrative, but when changes are made that affect the audiences perception of the characters involved I have to object. Surely the bottom line is that Arwen has been given a more 'involved' role to appeal to a broader audience. I would have to counter that by saying that as one of the most popular books of all time the fan base is wide enough for an exact translation of the book to a film to be a huge financial (and that's what it's all about) success? Tolkien developed his characters and showed their strengths and weaknesses in far more subtle ways. Arwens resolve to give up the voyage over sea to stay with Aragorn emphasises her inner qualities in a far more potent way than carrying Frodo to safety. There was a comment made earlier that the reason behind this specific change may be to prevent having to introduce another character, but very little is said of Glorfindel in the book. Aragorn and Legolos' recognition of him is enough of an intro.
I say again, IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!
By the way, I live in Ireland and have not seen the special you are all currently referring to! Any idea where I can get a download.....

[Dagorlad]

Well. That site that I got to from scooter's post last page showed a lot of "pros" and "cons" - each of the described changes had them.
That appeared to be a website mostly dedicated (at least right now) to pointing out how ruined Jackson's film is - there's the petition and all.
Then I found that whoever wrote up all of those "pros" has sure given us a hell of a list of terrible, unacceptable changes. Now why would those be considered pros? What critic in his right mind, that demands integrity in the film, would call those "pros"? Who, other than people with a vested interest in spreading that view, would try to spread those ideas out widely amongst the Tolkien fans that are known to be disgusted with most of those very changes? I'm stumped. I thought of VERY few of those as pros in any way at all. Some, yes. But many were exactly the type of things that ruin what could have been better over and over again. Like - 'wait, we can't have a Ranger hero running about in the wilderness with a broken sword. He needs a real one. Especially since he has to fight those black riders. Sensationalism. We must have frequent action and comedy or our simpleton audience won't understand and pay attention'

[ravenswood]

Scary people, I hope your wrong though, orc pods sound naff, but I don't remember the book elaborating on how the Orcs were bred, although I think I remember the rape of captured women being mentioned ? maybe a little too strong for Hollywood ? who knows

Even though I will not let these changes take my enjoyment away
from what promises to be a good movie, although I won't believe
the anonymous good reviews til I have seen them in newspapers
and more importantly. SEEN the FILM

Dave

Ps The Old Forest is beautiful this time of year
Sarehole, Moseley, Birmingham, England

[Valinorean]

Originally posted by Grond
Val, go to the movie. Forget for 3 hours that you've ever read JRRT and just enjoy it. It is going to be an absolutely gang buster movie. . . If you go into the theatre with no expectations.. then you should have a blast.

I thought about it last night, and you are right, Grond that the movie looks great. If only I had never read the books . . .

As for the "Quest for the Ring" documentary, though, I think it was a big ball of cheese with crackers and nuts . The narration was terrible, and I thought the interviews with the actors were awful, especially considering these actors had two years to think about it.

And Tal, you are right about the troll - it reminded me a little of the troll from Harry Potter, only a little scarier and without the troll-boogers.

[Talierin]

yeah, what is it with the stupid-looking trolls! Two in one year! I finally remembered what the LOTR troll looks like. He/she looks sort of like the alien guys with the copper-colored eyes in Star Wars: The Phantom Mess.....

[Elendil]

Originally posted by Talierin
Actually Val, Tolkien is supposed to be pronounced Toll-Keen. Tolkien said so himself.

Okay, who thought the Cave Troll was really, really stupid looking?

Yeah you're right, it is pronounced Tolkeeen in the documentaries where Tolkien's family is interviewed.

The cave troll sort of looks like Sully (from Monsters, Inc) without the blue hair. Hehe.

[ReadWryt]

Ok, ok...yer pickin on the Troll so I feel I hafta weigh in here as a 3D animator.

Yeah, the character animation of the Troll is a bit weak, mostly because they had too much tension on the "Skin" and it came off looking rubbery. The reflective quality of the skin was adding to the rubber effect as well, the specular reflective quality was set too high. If it had been a bit less reflective it would have looked more like "skin". But I gotta say that the "What the HECK?" look it gets on it's face when it looks down at the arrow that just hit it was precious! It really looks surprised that someone actually hurt it...nice touch. It's motion was pretty well done as it really conveyed weight and bulk. They did a pretty good job of portraying the inertia involved in moving about with that much mass, but anyone with a good mind for scripting Hierarcial Inverse Kinematics can pull that off in a pinch.

The thing that worries me is not the Troll himself but the fact that the same program, modelers and animators will be doing Gollum, and that gives me concerns...

[Radagast]

I was anticipating this movie with caution. After being a devoted Tolkien reader from early on in my life, I realized that whenever someone else tries to interprete his work, instead of just reading what is there, problems arise. The ad-ins will be a disaster because they are not there to improve Tolkiens work (an impossibe task since the works are perfect) but they have been added so the movie can draw a larger audience. It is as simple as that, Hollywood corrupts art to make money. They needed to bring in a charater "politically correct" to have a female role model. Tolkien was not politically correct and that just doesn't sit well with Hollywood so they had double the incentive to change a briilliant classic "money and political agenda".
So will the movie be ruined? I don't know, I will have to see it. The trailer looked awesome, in someways directly copied from Ralph Bakshi's annimated version, which was pretty good, but also deviated from the books, but not as arrogantly.
As a film version of the book I guess us loyalists will have to take away what is accurate from the film and thrown the rest away. Isn't some company coming out with a DVD machine that you can edit at home? That would be ideal for this version.
I hope I'll be able to enjoy the movie anyway. "There's always hope Mr.Frodo."

[Greymantle]

Welcome, Radagast! Let's see.... we just got a Saruman today. We've got a Mithrandir and an Olorin and a The Grey, but I don't think we have an actual Gandalf.... once we've done that, we'll only need Alatar and Pallando and we'll have all the Istari!
:)

[Chippy]

Welcome Radagast

[Grond]

Welcome Radagast. Thou art good. Lo, I am evil.

Hail all of my forum friends!! Many ducks (20) were crushed this weekend (last weekend of this split of duck season in LA) by Grond, Hammer of Melkor.

[Radagast]

Thanks to all for the welcome.

I was debating for a while with how much I really want to see the movie after hearing about all the changes that have been made, and then I remembered what it was that got me to start reading the books in the first place.
I was in elementary school when I first saw the Rankin-Bass version of the Hobbit on tv. I loved it, and it made me buy the books. Then after finishing the books I was totally absorbed by by Tolkien's Middle-Earth (which all of us I'm sure were)and I no longer really paid a lot of attention towards the annimated Hobbit. So in the same line of thinking, there are a lot of elementary kids out there that are going to be exposed to TLoTR for the first time. The movie in the end will end up creating more Tolkien readers who will eventually know first hand what was meant to be.

(OT) Does anyone know about the rift in the Tolkien family because of the movie? I only saw the little flash of news that went bt the screen on either CNN or Fox. Thanks

[ReadWryt]

The Webmaster posted a report about the Family Rift here... http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=17221#post17221 very early this morning.

[Moriarty]

Hmmm just found the forum ....as the movie seems to have hijacked everything to do with The Lord of the Rings on the web.........
I am a bit disturbed to hear of unnecessary ( i think ) changes which just seem to give the big name stars a bigger peice of the action... but i was kinda expecting it ... after all why get Liv Tyler for a 2 second bit part in the movie.

Even some of the sounds files from the movie I have seen on the movie site annoy me Gandalf saying " run you fools" instead of "Fly you fools' ...I mean why ?.... can't the Yanks understand it otherwise ? ( sorry all Americans here but it seems daft to change something like that).
Personally I think the BBC radio play is impossible to beat in terms of interpretations of the books since the characters seemed to re-inforce and portray the books so exactly. I suppose if they start pronouncing names differently as they did with Gandalf's name in "The Hobbit" BBC radio version ( Gan - dalf... like it was two words) I will be even more annoyed.
Also the music for the BBC version was brilliant ( except for one or two bits to do with the elves anyway) and I think the music I have heard for the film is pretty forgettable.

Oh well! I expect it will be ok .... but lets face it the books are impossible to live up to..... it's going to be very hard not to compare a personal image from the books with the one we are going to be presented with in the movies. I is also rare when a movie of a book is better than the book... ( only example I can think of was John Grisham's 'The Firm' where the movie plot was more convincing than the books'.

[Tar-Steve]

I just found the change that pisses me off the most. So far.

The Ringwraiths aren't all riding black horses. They look brown. You guys may think that's minor but I think it's stupid and lazy. All the cash spent on such a production and they couldn't pick up 9 black horses?

[Grond]

Tar... I read that the Black Horses wouldn't show up on camera well given many of the dark and dreary settings in which they appear. The brown ones looked much better and PJ just decided (for the sake of cinema mind you) to change another insignificant tidbit. I guess he doesn't realize that 20 - 30 minor changes equal a different story than the book. Add to that 20 - 30 major changes and we may as well be watching Willow!!

[Greymantle]

You'd think, with all the "amazing" modern technology... PJ is endlessly praised for his talent with "dark" camerawork and settings... and they managed to create one of the characters digitally and insert him into a live action set.... you'd THINK they could do black horses!

[Bandgeek]

I cannot believe some of the stuff that they are changing!!! I mean, that's awful about the orcs, the whole thing is FUBAR. I wish I hadn't read the book, maybe the movie would be good.....Oh well, I AM glad I did, but man...

Bandgeek

[Maclock]

Hi everyone!

I was taking my usual hellish journey on one of london's many knacked buses yesterday. Then I noticed something very interesting, of the 10 or so people reading books, 4 of them were reading LOTR and another was reading The Hobbit! Whatever the impact of the film (whether good or bad) the increase in Tolkien readers (and this is surely evidence of this as I'd never seen it before) that the increased media attention has brought has to be beneficial. Well, at least I think so...

Mac;)

[Grond]

Most of us on this forum, hate what Peter Jacson has done to the script of the movie but hoped the one good that would come out of it would be increased readership. Hopefully, that is what you're seeing and we will get a whole new crop of Tolkien heads.;)

By the way, Maclock, if I haven't said so before, Welcome to the Forum!

[Thorin]

Yes, increased readership is a good thing. I am seeing it in many of my students and they love to talk Tolkien with me....My hope is that people love the books over the movie regardless of how great the movie is...I hope (especially our young people) that many will still rever the text over the visual image...and say, "Yeah, the movie was good, but the book was much better! And they made a lot of changes that didn't fit for the movie." And continue to read Tolkien's books over and over again.

My wish is that this interest in LoTR reading isn't just to hype themselves up for the movie, or that people aren't reading it to see what the Action Arwen they've been hearing about is doing in the book, or whether Lurtz really does fight Aragorn and cause havoc amongst the Fellowship like the previews and pictures they've been seeing...that would be wrong.

[newby]

I spent my lunch hour yesterday readint the entirety of this thread to familiarize myself with some of the changes, whether proposed or actual, from the book version to the film version. My singular question is are there links and or responses that I can read from Christopher Tolkien with regard to his feelings/arguments/thoughts about the film version?

Thanks in advance.

[Greymantle]

Hmm... I don't know too well, though I'm sure somone around here does. I know that the Tolkien family was responsible for getting J.R.R's name off of the project. There's also this.
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=891
Hope that helps some...

[ReadWryt]

Moriarty,

I assure you that, in a country where "Shakespear in Love" could win so many awards and have such success in the box office, there is no problem with Americans and their understanding of language. The Screenplay was written by 3 New Zealanders, and that part of the world seems to have a problem THINKING that Americans can't understand...this is the reason why the US release of Mad Max had all of Mel Gibson's lines dubbed by an American.

As for the other, it's not really the representation of Peoples and Places that are the problem, although through out the books these seem to be quite adequately described, but indeed it's the ACTIONS of the Characters and the invention of previously non-existent scenes that don't seem to have any relevence to the story, and certainly are confusing when one has heard so many people have stated that the scenes that have been cut were removed for the sake of time constraints...

[Moriarty]

ReadWryt,

'Shakespeare in love' is hardly Shakespeare .......isn't this the very point this forum is making?
But I understand what your saying ..... personally if I had a say in these things I would never make allowances for race, culture, or language since these differences are what makes travel so interesting and the reason many people see these things ( and read etc ) is often partially educational (as well as for entertainment of course.
A good example would be a badly subtitled foreign movie where the movie appears naff because of the corny subtitling or dubbing (I am thinking of one version of 'Crouching Womat,Hidden Donkey' I saw)when if the film is seen in it's original language or even with good dubbing the true meaning, intention, and eloquence is understood. (In accordance with the above statement I will not translate 'naff' and 'corny' ... and you will have to ask Brit for the meaning should you not already understand). No insults intended honest .... I am in Singapore and find people always love the colloquialisms of a language - as I do.

Anyway the point is ... why change great lines like 'fly you fools' which roll of the tongue with elegance.

I also think that it will be the representation of the people and places, as well as the actions of those characters, that will jarr with a lot of people who have read the books. Everyone will have built up their own very personal image of what those people and places look like... as well as what they do in terms of actions..... this is unavoidable as your image of any character will slightly differ from mine (and everyone else's). This is why this particular thread exists surely ..... because many people here don't agree with Peter Jacksons' free interpretation of the books .... particulary the obvious commercialism that it involves.

[Greymantle]

Just saw your earlier post, Mor... I, for one, loved the music (what little there was!) for the BBC radio version, even the somewhat weird Elf-music. I thought "Upon Caras Ghaladon," while a little corny, caught the mood of Lothlorien perfectly. The short "Elrond-theme" from the end, I thought was excellent-- the two voices mingling and dancing in a very English style. The one bit of music I didn't really care for was the main theme, it was very bland...

[Moriarty]

Hi Greymantle,

Really !! ? I loved ( and still do )the main theme of the BBC version. I think the Elf stuff I didn't like cos they always chose to get choirboys to sing angelically for it !. I listened to a bit of the new movie music but felt it could be for any movie really. Christ !!I hope they don't re-release some of the truely awful heavy(ish) metal bands Lord of the Rings songs now the movies are coming out.

I really thought the Rohan ballads style ( BBC LOTR Version )( very Nordic) and Treebeards song ( Welsh male voice choir/last night of the promos like ) were great though.

But acting wise ( even only voice ) ....difficult to beat the Shakespearian types like Micheal Horden as Gandalf ... his voice will aways be Gandalf for me now I'm afraid. Ian Holme was Frodo in that. The guy who did Gollum in that though was awesome/brilliant unbeatable. I hope the actor taking on that part in the new movies listened to the tapes and got that right! Still have the tapes and listen to them fairly regularly. Even the BBC radio Hobbit version wasn't bad ( except for that Gandalf pronounciation I mentioned earlier).... The American radio version of the Hobbit was really **** though ..... their idea of a radio play is actors saying the dialog and everything else narrated.

Hmmm you may of guessed I am a big fan of the Beeb Radio version!

[Greymantle]

I have all those on tape... I DETESTED the American Hobbit. I listen to it once and never did again. The dwarf voices are the most disgusting, drawling things...it's terrible!
I, too, quite enjoyed the BBC Hobbit. The music was strange synthetic stuff, but it had a quirky appeal that began to grow on me. And about Gandalf... yes, they say Gan-DALF and raise the inflection, if I remember correctly. It's been a while.
As I was a boy chorisrter for five years I adore that sort of music... so Boromir's dream and Gwahir's song are both great, IMO. The Battle of the Pelennor Fields music was tremendous-- at once exhilirating and immensely maleacholy. I wish Tolkien could have heard it, it's perfect.
I agree about the song of the Ents, too.... so very rousing. Would type more but I'm late for choir. All I'll say is that I wish I could find more of Stephen Oliver's work!

[Elbereth547]

wow! I hadn't even heard about the Orc-pods, but it is definitly not comforting! I was really annoyed with the whole Arwen thing. What about Eowyn? she was so much better! I REALLY hope this movie doesn't turn out so bad!!

[ReadWryt]

Who said "Shakespear in Love" was Shakespear? :confused: I was just saying that the American Audience understood the language well enough is all...

[Moriarty]

Greymantle,

I understand that the CD version of the Beeb's LOTR has the music of Stephen Oliver on an extra CD... but sadly I only have the tapes so haven't heard that .... I would like to convert all my tapes to MP3 but haven't worked out how to do it yet cos tapes tend to deteriorate!
Long ago I was also in the choir Grey... but we all left when they didn't pay us for a wedding ..... we were a mercenary choir ...ever since it has been an all girl choir.

[Thorin]

Shakespeare in Love sucked big time and how it won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan is beyond me to even comprehend....probably voted by the same people in the media who are praising PJ now for making such a true rendition of JRR's LoTR.

Anyway, back on topic now.....Down with PJ! And Down with the ignorant media promoting it and dragging JRR through the mud with their stupid, uninformed comments about ME...

[Reoko]

this is my oppion about the whole thing
May the dreaded swan boat sail over your grave peter jackson
and Glorfindel's white horse personaly pee on it

[Radagast]

First I'd like to thank the person who posted the link on the Tolkien family rift due to the film. I also have to ask Greymantle if his "Ecky ecky ecky pitang..." is from the knights who no longer say "Nee".

Anyway, as for language and dialect, I'm an american from Los Angeles, and somehow I was able to watch and understand Train Spotting, The Full Monty, and Mel Gibson in Hamlet. Although The Full Monty was probably the hardest to hear. It's amazing how they didn't need to "Americanize" these. I wonder if the director of TLoTR ever saw these films.

[Beorn]

Hey, could you get the LA Times from...two days ago...that is wednesday. See if there is an article on LotR in there. I couldn't scan it today; no scanner big enough for newspaper

[ReadWryt]

This isn't so much a "Change" gripe as it is an Interpretation Gripe. What I'm seeing so far of the film is making me realize that it's too damned "Celtic". I was willing to overlook the Enya stuff, as her musical style does, in my mind, evoke certain aspects of the Elven Culture, but the Hobbits are practically a bunch of Leprechans in the film. Dancing jigs at Bilbo's party and generally carrying on as though they were partying in the second class steerage of the Titanic fer chrissake!

If there is one thing I know about Tolkien it's that he had a great distain for Celtic Folk Lore, Celtic culture and most of all the popular version of all things Celtic.

Needless to say they are not Celtic! Neither are the tales. I do know Celtic things (many in their original languages Irish and Welsh), and feel for them a certain distaste; largely for their fundimental unreason. from the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien Yr. 2000 edition Letter # 19

One more example of how P.J. has striven to keep the movies in the spirit that Tolkien would have approved of....

[Radagast]

I think I know which article your talking about. I'll see if I still have it. I think I do, if so, It's at work.

Does anyone know where I can buy the BBC radio version of The Hobbit and TLoTR that everyone was talking about. They sound interesting. Would Borders Books or Barnes&Noble be able to order them? I usually don't shop online. Anyone know off-hand?

Thanks in advance

[Talierin]

I've seen them at every single B & N I've been in recently. They're usually on the aisle table displays.

[Moriarty]

They are in the tape / audio book section of every Borders and most other bookshops I have been in .....especially now the film is out. Online ..... Amazon have them.
Go for the cd's if you can afford to ......sadly the BBC only very slowly puts things out on cd well after tape .... but these are both available on cd.
Just make sure you get the BBC drama versions and not any other or a talking book ( read ) version!
Nobody does radio plays better than the BBC!
The BBC LOTR is brilliant.

[Moriarty]

With regard to the Americanization ( if there is such a word ) or simplifying of any language or dialect for the so called wider audience I think we all hate it and think it unnecessary, but someone out there .... producers etc...... think it is necessary unfortunately! It's a kind of extension of what I liker to call the McDonalds effect ( or if you like the buzzword 'Globalization' )which if were not careful will mean that everywhere will one day be the same.
I don't like hearing fake American accents and don't like to hear fake British accents ( or American accents in Period English drama for that matter ). If it doesn't belong it shouldn't be forced.
I hear people in the states using British slang because of popular British authors books like the Harry Potter series......and American slang is popular in the UK also. If we all spoke the same way wouldn't it be boring!
People generally are interested in finding out what something means .... particularly local phrases.
So I hope not too much of the language has been changed in LOTR ..... because the poetry and language used by the characters and narrative in the books is what conveys the different characters and the entire world that Tolkien created. And that is it's lasting appeal.

[ReadWryt]

Well I will give P.J. credit for ONE thing, he has Elves speaking Elvish with subtitles...that's worth SOME merit!

[Elanor]

It's all too much. My head is spinning and Thorin is scaring me. I want to see the movie first and make any judgements after. After the movie is released the we can lynch P.J. if thats what he deserves.:eek:

[Lord Snotty]

Originally posted by Talierin
Here is picture proof that the orcs are hatching from pods in the movies:

http://www.numenoreen.com/images.php3

This is really disturbing me, because PJ is sick enough to put something like this in LOTR. Tolkien would probably have a heart attack if he could see this stuff being done to his wonderful book.

:confused: i'm gonna throw up

[Lord Snotty]

it is note just Peter Jackson's fault, it is also the script writers fault, which i just realised:D

[Greymantle]

He was one of the three writers, was he not? Or was it two?

[Rosie Cotton]

Yes, PJ was a script writer. It was PJ, Phillipa Boyns (sp?), and some other guy.

[Moonbeams]

Let's see, which of the changes ticks me off the most? Hard to decide, there are sooooo many... Concider me a very conservative person who does not like any changes on her favorite book, EVERYTHING about the movie, every change is very annoying to me. But I'd say, if any roumor about how Gandalf shreiks and yells like a scared boy is true, how he doesn't appear like the Gandalf who is always in control, who always has another solution up his sleeve, if they indeed have changed Gandalf, that will be the thing that will give me a heart attack right there in the movie theatre.

[Elbereth547]

yeah! I was in this LOTR chat room thing and all these people were ganging up on me because I was worried about the movie coming out (because of stuff being changed). but I mean, the books are so awesome how can you not be nervous that they'll screw it up?

[Moriarty]

Moonbeams,
Gandalf seems to shreik and yell even in the trailer which I thought a bit odd when I saw it. He does seem a bit of a scaredy cat in the clips. Well if it's any consolation he will die before the end :) You might be wishing for that bit to come quick though.
I think it will be a great movie .... lets face it it can't fail to be even if you had half the storyline .... BUT it won't be a movie of the book .... well we already know this from scenes missing and added, and characters not acting in the same way.

Peter Jackson has already set himself up as a sort of George Lucas by doing it...... I feel he intends this as his legacy ....... and is milking it for every bit of publicity it's worth.
I mean no-one had heard of him before this! ( how the hell did he manage to get to be the one to do it I wonder )!
I suppose if he deosn't make changes he doesn't put his mark on the movie.
Think maybe he should have made The Hobbit and worked up to the big one ?

[Dain Ironfoot]

Gandalf a shrieking school boy?

NO,NO,NO,NO,NO,And NO!! what the hell is this? I loved gandalf and would hate to see him crushed!!

But i am glad to see tom b. out of the movie.

He was the biggest fag.

[Greymantle]

Watch it, mister.
That isn't going to make you terribly popular around here.

[Dain Ironfoot]

sorry,

[Moonbeams]

Honestly, I've watched the trailer about two times, first time I couldn't belive my eyes, secont time I was just totaly #%@"#$, and so every time after that, I'd just switch to another channel. So, I kind of forgot how it looks like (represion... one day I'll pay my shrink a lot of money because of it... )... I just keep hoping it's a figment of my imagination... or too much beer...

[Dain Ironfoot]

sorry,

In the book I found him to be extremly...um.... different yea, diferent. I mean we have no clue were he came from or what he is. It is not the coolest thing ether when a huge mm... what do ya call em' whiets? well any way this huge monster is going to kill the hobbits and tom starts singing at it. I love all of the songs and poetry, but when i find a person i really like in the begining and then end up not likeing them it gets me mad.


I didn't mean to start calling names :mad: but you have to admit that he is just the slitest bit queer...................

[Moonbeams]

Well, singing has actualy been very important in some mithologies... Orpheus could control wild beasts and the master of darkness, Had himself, with just a song.
And the song of Ainu has been the creation of the whole world. Music and song is a very powerful tool in Tolkiens world.
(pardon my misspeling of words, I've never read the book in english).

[Dain Ironfoot]

Yea thats what i mean.

I love all the songs in mytholagy but for some reason or anouther all or tom's songs just ticked me off. I stoped reading the book, i wouldn't eat, wouldn't sleep, i would just stare at my walls just to realise that sometimes a person like that is needed in a book to lighten the hart and to make all merry. (joke ;) )

[Eomer Dinmention]

I think this whole thing is stupid what there putting in and leaving out but all there trying to do is make it more exciting so the can make more big buck why do you need to make it more exciting when it already is i tell ya i'm going to go an complain and if he doesn't change them i will RIP OF HIS THROAT AND $#!+ DOWN IT AND THEN I SHALL CRUSH HIM WITH MY DRAGON BLUDRAG

[DGoeij]

Tom is weird allright, but cool too. To bad they left him out, but I can handle the truth. Too much time for to little addition to the story.
The Arwen-incident is still the thing I reject at firsthand. But I have to see the movie first.

[blondito]

What the hell is wrong with you blokes ??

you are all full of such anger and hate. If you really dont want to experience any changes in the movie dont go watch it and further more all pool your monies and go make your own movie with all the facts and all the story line in tact , with a running time of 12 hours per book and about as much popularity with the masses (and alot of tolkien fans) as an STD in a whore house.

I love LOTR as a book, but gods help us if they had made the movie exactly like it. You cant directly translate a book like that into film with out handing out toothpicks at the cinemas to prop everyones eyes open. The only important thing for me is that the central themes are kept in tact and from all accounts of the people who have seen the movie PJ does a very bloody good job at it.

so calm down, because stressing ones self about this sort of stuff will give you ulcers. (not to mention makes you look pretty bloody sad in everyone elses eyes :)

[Grond]

The influx has begun. Thank God I didn't win the moderator election. Welcome aboard Blondito. Your name about says it all.:p

[Ancalagon]

Welcome Blondido,

Well, what a refreshing view you have. Personally the STD went down like a '**** in a spacesuit', but what can you do. All these Tolkien fans just have some difficulties with be treated like the sheep who only care for a blockbuster. Yes, we can gripe, but we will all see the movie, probably enjoy it and still find time to grumble. It's the way of the world.

Did I remember to say, welcome?

[Greymantle]

Er....what is it I'm supposed to say here? Welcome?
Such inconsiderate rudeness, ignorance and misunderstanding in a first post. I'll have to agree with Grond here-- it's a good thing we lost the moderator election.

[fantasydude]

my biggest issue at this time is arwen. in the book as others have stated already, she simply sits there looking pretty. I understand that in the interest of taking a 1000 page novel and translating that to 6 hours of film requires simplification so what i dont get is adding all of the time and footage needed to show us arwen doing all of these deeds she never did.
i beleive there are two reasons, one the screenwriter is a woman, and as we all know middle earth is a very sexist planet, so in the interest of pleasing half of the audience of the movie a woman would need to be shown more often and as someone more important, hopefully with galadriel and eowyn coming up in the next two books arwens completely ridiculous character will be reduced.
why feature liv tyler as a star in this movie? there must be some hollywood favoritism going on or something.

[DGoeij]

Welcome Blondito,

if anybody knows what's wrong with too much anger and hate it is a Tolkien-reader. Read around in the forum, find out that al this people around here (ncluding me) are concerned, simply that.
I'm going to see the movie, surely enjoy myself and afterwards I'll be coming here to discuss the value of the changes made.
If you wish to join, no problemo, but cool down a little.

[fantasydude]

hey gang as an older person do you all remember the wonderful ralph bakshi animated feature in 1979 for the LOTR? it was well done i think even though he compressed it down to just 2 hours, but was very careful to follow the book to a tee. i recommend it for everyone to check out if you havent, it uses rotoscope so it is very life like.
tell me what you think

[DGoeij]

welcome fantasydude

Since I was still inside my mother in 1979;) I do not remember that year all to well. I've never seen the animated movie, but I'd like to. However I've heard a lot of serious critique about it as well.
There are numerous threads discussing the female roles in LOTR, so maybe you should join one of those. I'm not going to respond to it here, I wander off topic to often already.

[Moriarty]

Well I can't agree with that Fantasydude.
I mean the animated film (I don't believe there was more than one made - please correct me if i'm wrong - as I'm sure the people here will !) didn't get far past the fellowship of the ring........ they didn't get rid of the ring as I recall. However I remember the images vividly and I suppose that thye have alot do do with how I imagine the characters looking .... in the same way as the BBC radio version is how I expect the characters to act and speak....not to mention how the songs go etc.

Surprise, surprise the animated film has been re-released on VDC .... I saw it in Borders just the other day! So anyone who didn't see it can get to watch it now.

[Dr. Planarian]

I don't know whether this is small or large. I won't be seeing the movie until it opens in Orlando tomorrow and I hope for the best. All I know about it so far is that Arwen has a totally overblown role (in the real story she appears only briefly while the company is at Rivendell), but I can't complain too much about that because I can look at Liv Tyler all day long if somebody forces me to (kicking and screaming, sort of the way I have to be forced to eat chocolate almond ice cream). In fact, she looks very much like how I pictured Arwen in my mind's eye.

I have also heard that they just skipped over Tom Bombadil, which is a DARN shame, particularly in light of recent international events. Bombadil was a wonderful character who was put there to illustrate that, no matter how grave events and dangers may seem, some things will forever remain untouched by them.

Now, I can understand taking some license even with works as exquisite and subtle as those of Tolkein in order to bring them to the screen within the limited boundaries and crass commercialism of that media. But on one of those preview shows that have popped up on various TV stations (this one on SciFi) I saw something disturbing, a pointless departure from the original that seemed not to serve any cinematic purpose.

It is where Pippin gets off his guard at The Prancing Pony, and Frodo gets up and makes a fool of himself to stop him. In the books, of course, Pippin is only beginning to tell the tale of Bilbo's disappearance at the Long Expected Party, and this triggers Strider's concern and Frodo's overreaction.

But in the short clip from movie, it appears as if Pippin is introducing the local worthies to "my friend, Frodo Baggins," which makes Frodo's intervention hardly an overreaction at all. Frodo is also playing openly with the ring instead of fingering it in his pocket -- something Frodo would never have done -- and when he tumbles it flies into the air in slo-mo before settling on his finger and causing all the ensuing commotion.

The change to Pippin's behavior made Frodo's intervention no longer an overreaction, and his cavalier treatment of the ring made Frodo seem utterly careless -- and the subtle lesson of the foolishness of overreaction was lost.

This bodes ill, my friends.

[Aredhel]

When I first found out that Arwen rode with Frodo to the ford, I was kind of mad. I mean, in the book he's supposed to be by himself. And is Glorfinel seen at all in the Fellowship?

[Greymantle]

Hi fantasydude...
Well, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. That movie didn't go beyond Helm's Deep. I don't remember it very well, it's been several years since I've seen it, but I do know they cut the entire Old Forest section out and replaced Glorfindel with Legolas. Even if these were the only changes (and they're not), that's very far from perfection.

[Dain Ironfoot]

I like all the people that are trying to make The movie better and all, BUT COMMON!!!

F****** PODS? they really screwed this movie up if you ask me. But as always I have my ways of getting back. *I have P.J.'s face on my tp.*

[Daerandir]

Okay, my original reply, which was two pages long and stated a comprehensive list of things that the movie got wrong was lost when my computer crashed, so I will have to go with a much shorter post sans list, because of time constraints.
Can't anyone see what we're doing? Every time there is a movie that we have deep forebodings about, we still go to it to "see what it's like". It happened with Aliens III, Alien Resurrection, Episode I, and a dozen others. After we see the movie, we find we hated it after all, yet we still gave them our money! In the end, it doesn't matter to Peter Jackson or New Line Cinemas (curse them both!) if we're happy or smouldering when we come out of the theatre, so long as the movies still draw us in to "see what it's like". We must take a stand now and *all* vow *not* to see *any* of the movies! To quote Captain Picard in First Contact (a movie that could have been a whole lot better) "The line must be drawn *here*. No *further*!". I for one vow not to see any of the trilogy or Episode II, or buy any of the merchandise thereof, and I urge you all to do the same.
Later on I will post the horror I have seen (in the halls of stone). And all that I know comes from actual trailers, previews, teasers, and clips in "making of"s.

P.S. What would you all think of a T-Shirt that shows a movie exec on the front saying,"This Tolkien book is great, but let's broaden the appeal" and Peter Jackson (may all you sons mary camels!) on the back saying,"S'okay". If the man can't even pronounce the names properly, how can he make a good movie. Oh, didn't you know the book was written by Tolkeen, including a guy named Sarun?

[Moonbeams]

Daerandir, I agree with you. Unfortunately, there s even a part of me that wants to go see the movie, just to "see what it's like", although I know that I'm going to hate it, and wish I've never gone to see it...
Why do we need the movie? Is our imagination not strong enough? Can't we all see ME in our mind's eye, don't we all know paths through every part of it by heart? Haven't you seen the leaves of lothlorien in autumn, and the green green grass of Rohan? Didn't you smell the swamp, heard the hordes, looked in the face of Balrog and trembled with fear? Do we realy need the movie to show us what we already know so well?

[fantasydude]

but hey its just entertainment we all know nothing can match a great book anyway
boycotting this movie will matter little i fear
but i feel sorry for all of the nonreaders out there who will never be able to understand what we know.
but as ive said the whole arwen thing bugs me the most
but this is a business you know not pure artistic expression
i say do not expect too much and you will then be pleasantly surprised

[Greymantle]

Um.... Daer... "Tolkeen" is the correct pronunciation. And as for Sauron, there are a whole lot of different ways people pronounce it. "Sah-run," if that's what you were saying, makes perfect sense to me. Don't think I'm defending PJ in any capacity; it's just that I don't think we can criticise him simply for the way he says things, especially when it's correct.

[Grond]

Oh........my..........God!!!:confused: Greymantle is defending PJ. I think I shall go back to my puddle of Balrog ****.:rolleyes:

[Daerandir]

First of all, I agree with Moonbeam totally. In my mind, the novel is the best form of storytelling anyway, so why translate it to a far inferior form?
Next topic. I have always pronounced words in the english way, and I can tell you that I and everyone I have ever talked to pronounce it Tolkien (Tolken). In the english language, the "I" does not modify the "E" in this case. Furthermore, even if it did, it would be Tolkan, not Tolkeen.

[Moriarty]

Oh please !!What rubbish some people are talking about boycotting the movie !!! Of course you're all going to see the movie ..... and overall I'm sure it will be great but of course all those discrepancies and changes are going to annoy also.

On an earlier post - Frodo fingering the highly visible ring a lot ( excuse the phase people ) is understandable ....the ring has to be more visible in the movie .... I mean it going to look very odd if frodo wanders round all the time with his hand in his pocket or 'Napoleon-like' in his shirt and worse if they had to make references to it (or narrate) all the time because it is hidden.... movies are a visual art (sometimes that last bit is debatable though).
See it then decide if you like or don't like the movie.
I can't say I miss Tom Bombadil much mind myself.

Don't worry everyone, In a few years you'll be able to make it yourself at home. the way you like ( and you can probably still use Liv Tyler in it - hey wouldn't her dad make a great Orc). And you can get you're own back and star PJ as a troll as he is.
Or wait a bit for the 3d Holo remake! Ha !

[Daerandir]

First of all, I agree with Moonbeam completly. In my mind, the novel is the best form of storytelling anyway, so why translate it to a far inferior form?
Next topic. I have always pronounced words in the english way, and I can tell you that I and everyone I have ever talked to pronounce it Tolkien (Tolken). In the english language, the "I" does not modify the "E" in this case. Furthermore, even if it did, it would be Tolkan, not Tolkeen. Also, there is only one way to correctly pronounce Sauron (as with all words) actually, which is Souron, but a common shortning, along with accent, is Soron.
Finally, boycotting is our only real option to be heard. Although our paltry amounts of money may mean little in the end, it is the principle of not contributing that counts. Check that; it is more like a vote. That is, a vote that you cast by buying a pass. Just as our votes for the elections may matter little individually, it is the same with our passes. In the end though, the principle still counts, what? Also, if you still want to "see what it's like", watch the trailors. If you train yourself to like for signs in the trailors, then you can start getting a feel as to whether this film or that is any good or not. Or you can at least wait until it comes out on DVD, then by a copy and watch it with as many interested parties as you can find, thus using a carpool principle to deprive them of enough sales as possible. If you do do that, sending negative feedback is also a good idea. If film makers receive enough negative feedback on a movie then the execs may feel that the formula will be less successful in subsequent films, and may alter their film making standards.

[Greymantle]

I think I can safely say that all the Americans I've heard talking about Tolkien have pronounced it "Tolkin" and all the Brits I've heard, with the exception of my dad, have said "Tolkeen." I did a poll on this a while back... I was actually surprised at the number of people who said it neither way.
I'm willing to trust the BBC on this and say "Tolkeen." I have no idea how he actually pronounced it... it's a German name, and I know nothing about German pronunciation.
I, for one, do say Sour-on. Note that this is also the way it is pronounced in the movie, so perhaps Mr. Jackson's pronunciation is just a personal quirk. I don't know whether or not there is a "correct" way to say it. I'm too tired to go searching through a million books to try to figure out what language it's in... you say that "Sour-on" is the absolute correct way to say it, and if so, I'd appreciate it if you could cite your sources...

[Peevan]

I agree that the LOTR Trilogy is among the best yarns out there. BUT, I think one needs to consider the medium that JRRT used to transmit his vision to the rest of us....The Written Word. It may be a surprise to some...but the world captured in LOTR does not really exist...except in each of our minds...however EACH of us has taken the written word and VISUALIZED it for ourselves. And there's the rub!!! We each have images in our minds of how the different characters appear to us, the towns, the country, orcs, other creatures, elves, wizards, etc., etc., etc. True, these images are probably amazingly similar, but I would bet that if it were possible to compare these "images of the mind" directly, differences would be apparent. We have created our images each based on our own life experiences in what we have seen, where we live, other reading we have done, and numerous other factors.

Now comes this latest movie...an attempt by an individual(s) to convert the written word into images. Is it any wonder then that certain looks that we each expect may be somewhat different than what we will soon see on the big screen? Further, how long did it take each of us to read the Fellowship of the Ring? I bet it took more than 3 hours...which is another factor that REQUIRES choices of what there is time to show and what there isn't.

The last point I have to make is that not everyone who sees the movie will have read the book or the trilogy. So we come again to the 3 hour time limit in which the viewer has to be captured. Probably even less if you believe the viewer needs to be captured early or risk this category of people walking out of the theater. Some changes may be necessary when you don't have the weight of words JRRT used to help set the mood and pace to the story in the original work.

My two cents....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :)

[Greymantle]

Welcome Peevan. :)
I agree with you, to a short extent... as a general thory, what you're saying makes sense. And if Mr. Jackson and his cronies had actually stuck to this, most of us wouldn't be so angry (I would, but that's just because I'm a purist). However, if we look at the changes, many of them (I'd venture to say most) cannot be reasonably justified by saying that this is a translation of the book to the movie. Arwen at the fords comes immediately to mind. If anything, the original coming of Glorfindel then Frodo's lonely stand are far more dramatic, decent "movie material" than any "If you want him, come and claim him" ****. Every single bit of dialogue we've seen has been fabricated. Take the scene in which the Ring is thrown into the fire at Bag End. In the book, Gandalf says of his translation of the verses: "But this in the Common Tongue is what is said, close enough." In the movie, the simple sentence structure is altered, running something like this: "In the Common Speech, this is what is says." No big deal, you might say. But why? Why change and twist a literary masterpiece apparently on a whim? Why give Legolas boots, or Gimli a helm, when they have neither? Why have Gimli attack the Ring with his axe at the council of Elrond? Why make Gandalf and Saruman do battle? Why not include Radagast or my favorite character, Glorfindel?
Other changes, such as the cutting of Tom Bombadil, can be recently justified. I, for one, still would not agree. But as for the other perversions... there is no point.

[Peevan]

Greymantle, my point is that you and I would each have made a movie differing in many respects from each other, as would the next two characters down the street, and the next two, and so on. True, some of the changes I have read on this message board are arguably quite drastic (I haven't seen much else than the trailers and I have just now finished the FOTR again in time for when I see the movie on Wednesday).

I personally believe that the movie will play well, as I fall in the camp of those that go to the movies to be entertained. I don't think the changes that I happen to notice will bother my experience. But I won't know for sure until tomorrow. I am just extremely glad that a decent attempt is being made at last.

Thanks for your welcoming me to this board....

[Talierin]

Welcome Peevan and Daerandir.

Umm, it's Toll-keen. Tolkien himself said so. I believe you can find the exact quote in T. Shippey's JRR Tolkien: Author of the Century. It's a German name, so the rules of English don't exactly apply.

[Grond]

Just to put the proper pronunciation of Tolkien to rest. Christopher Tolkien pronounces his name Tol-keene. Since he is the son of JRRT, his word should be authoritative enough. Also, Greymantle.... in the Silmarillion in Note on Pronunciation it states, "AU has the value of English ow in town; thus the first syllable of Aule is like English owl, and the first syllable of Sauron is like English sour and not sore." Nothing more definitive than the text.

BTW, Grond pronounced it Tol-kin for 30 years until he saw the Christopher Tolkien interview recently.:)

[Radagast]

Peevan and Greymantle,

I see both of your points. I will be personally disgusted with changes because we were all led to this movie being lied to about PJ sticking to the text of the books. We all have a right to be disgusted when we are lied to, espescially when it is about something we care dearly about.

On the other hand, it is a movie, and it is made for entertainment. As I stated before, I first saw the Rankin-Bass Hobbit animated film on tv while I was in elementary school and loved it so much it made me read the books, which ironically, caused me not to like the annimated version and love the books. I then went to see the Ralph Bakshi version and viewed it on video countless times as a teenager (literally over 50 times---I know I'm a geek). I liked it, but didn't replace the books. The books are sacred and still will be. I will go and see the movie and then I will read the books again. The only way to cleansed the dirty changes in the movie will be to read the books again. And the best thing that will come about is that thousands of new Tolkien readers will be born, and they will put the movie behind them as well.

PS. thanks for the posts about the BBC version. I will definitely buy them

[theGrenadier]

Achtung Moriarty !

I had a chance to see the sneak preview at midnight last night. At first I was going to renig on my oath not to see it. It was a heat of the moment kind of thing.

But, I didn't go. And I won't go today, either. Or tomorrow.
I choose to keep my integrity, unlike some people who direct block-buster movies.

By the way, I thought Jackson chose to do the films now because he now had the technology to do it 'right'. And from a tech point of view, it is probably an award winner. But, in the end, I don't think that's what the loyalist fans, who would have ably carried this film without non-LoTR fan money, wanted. They, we, want to see the real thing, neccessary visual and dialogue adjustments aside. I also think that has all been forgiven and understood as neccessity.

But, you can't change characters or character motivation. I refer again to how Lynch treated Dune, the second greatest story of our time. It was a great spectacle of visual wonder, but, he changed it beyond neccessary. It was so different that the book was almost lost itself. Characters were left out or amalgamated to allow a simpler film. But all that scripting buried the true plot.
And this movie will too.

[Moriarty]

Ha !
Well I don't say you have to enjoy it but how will you know unless you see it ?

I was not wondering why PJ did it now though but how the hell he got to do it at all.

And well it's no good saying you can't change characters and motivation .... HE HAS! and I don't like it either but I will watch it and be highly annoyed and critical of the bits ( and I hope it's only bits that don't fit in with my idea of things).

I agree about the Dune movie ( hmmmmmmm ...do you mean the latest one or the old one with Sting in it) being another good eg .... but never saw the ltest one ..... but I always thought those medieval space things were a bit daft on film anyway. SciFi like Fantasy is very difficult to do well ..... even as a book ......there is a lot of **** out there that really ought never have gotten written.
Personally I think Iain M. Banks beats Frank Herbert hands down.

[Grond]

Moriarity, Banks over Herbert??!!

Thats like saying Sword of Shannara is better than the LotR.

(Grond is sticken mute by the sheer horror of the thought)

[Daerandir]

German, eh? Well, that could change a lot of things. If Tolkien is a german name, then the "een" way may indeed be the correct one. You see, old english doesn't even use the "een" sound, really. All the "een" words that I know of are originaly from other languages. I will have to look into it further. Oh, and just so you know, critisising a man's speech is ordinarily below me, but Mr. "True to the Book" Jackson is an exception.;)

[Moriarty]

How can you say that Grond!,

Bank is way better than Herbert! I mean, I like the Dune series, but too many flaws! For instance I always hated that bit in Dune where the doctors are supposed to be super-conditioned for loyalty and then a simple kidnapping undoes it all .... big deal on the conditioning..... nah! Banks anyday! Banks just needs to write a few more culture books ..... ( and the way things seem to work - die ) to gain major recognition for his work.
But you're right that no-one matches Tolkien in fantasy ( and I hate using that word especially in relation to LOTR ).
And would someone please tell me why American published SciFi and Fantasy ( cringe ) books always have such naff cover art ..... I am too embarrassed to buy them most of the time......or even pick them up to look at the back ...... even when I know the Author is good writer.

[Greymantle]

Daer.... as much as I despise all this man has done, I still don't think we can critisise him based on the way he says the words. I mean, just look at this Forum. One of the largest online gathering of Tolkien freaks around, and yet the way we pronounce different words totally runs the gamut... I think we should find other ways of proving PJ's ignorance.

Hehe.... I'm walking around school with a shirt with "TOLKIEN PURIST" scrawled messily on it... I'm getting a lot of weird stares. But I still can't go until Friday.....damn......damn.....:rolleyes: