What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[Thorin]

As much as I agree with you on the lack of devotion to Galadriel and the giving of gifts, I must disagree with you on the most raped character:

It definitely was Saruman. Sauron's evil servant, no better than the Mouth of Sauron, bringing down Caradhras on the Fellowship with thunder and lightening because Gandalf didn't want to go along with him to join the forces of Sauron. Give me a HUGE break.

And movie lovers, justify the Caradhras all you want to try and make it make sense. The fact is, is it doesn't. The "arm of Sauron growing long" was written to imply the evil of Sauron and the personal power he had, not to be represented from some crony who wasn't even in direct league with Sauron. And BTW, there is no evidence that it was even Sauron's doing that Caradhras was giving them trouble. Gandalf was stating a confirmation that Sauron's arm was growing long. He did not confirm that that is why Caradhras was throwing snow at them. Read it again.

Some of you justify to the nards what doesn't make sense in terms of some of the parts having any semblance to Tolkien just so you can feel safe within your limited reasoning concerning the movie. Just say that it was a cheesy, un-Tolkien intended scene be done with it. It will not mean that you dislike the movie, just that you can recognize an interpetational flaw and call it for what it is.

[aragil]

No, I agree with people here, most of the gifts were important in the narrative, and some were vital for survival. I think that some, if not most of these gift-givings were filmed. (Disclaimer: Critical comment about the movie to follow) Judging by the choppiness of the film as the fellowship leaves Lorien, and also by the fact that the fellowship is all wearing their cloaks, that the gift-giving happened in some way similar to how it happened in the books.
Someone just decided to chop it, and I won't defend that decision at all. Since it didn't make the cut in FotR, I doubt there will be any flashbacks in further movies.

[LOTRF]

About the mountain

I always thought that the mountain was mean and woudn't let them pass. Thats what I thought when I read the book at least.

[Radagast]

Just wanted to let everyone here know that (for what it's worth) I thought the last bit of discussions were very respectable and enjoyable to read.

[Grond]

Believe it or not, this is how almost all of the threads looked before the invasion of the body snatchers. I guess the movie has brought out the riff-raff as well as those truly interested in the movie and the author.:)

[Bryheinnen]

Don't know where you're from, and don't give a rat's hind end. As I said in my first post on this board, I'm not here to pick fights with anyone, but I don't run away from them either. But I think that if you want to assault Americans, have the cojones to do it in person. Any COWARD can go on line and show their ignorance by shooting off their mouth off about their petty, nasty little prejudices.

FYI, I've got an MA working on a Doctorate. I know from experience there are plenty of venal, banal brain-dead idiots residing in Europe and elsewhere. America has no monopoly on ignorance, stupidity, and banality. Strictly my opinion, understand---but, for example, I worked for a Dutch company for quite a few years, and it was the most miserably managed organization I've ever seen, and the senior management ranks was populated by doofusses whose cluelessness was matched only by their cupidity and total absence of ethics.

You minor-leaguers can carp about what lowbrow types we Americans are if you wish. But everyone knows, whether they like to admit it or not, if you want something GREAT done, you need to go to the Americans. (Just wondering---how many other nations have put a man on the moon? But that's alright---the Germans make great beer, and the French can make a meal out of snails...)

Fact is, when you ask people anywhere in the world where they dream of living, it's America, the land of freedom and opportunity.

[Moriarty]

Well I don't want to live there ! And I don't know many people from Europe that would particularly want to live in the States ............. think your going a bit too far the other way ...... But anyway good that you're proud of where you're from ... everyone should be!
Anyway were not here to talk about that.

In the book the fellowship speculate as to who is blocking their progress on Caradhras ..... it is not resolved, they never know. I didn't particularly mind the fact that the film showed the cause as being Saruman.... Now I did mind that Frodo makes the decision to go to Moria and that they missed the attack of the Wargs which I thought could have been a great scene.
I would have also liked to see the giving of the gifts in Lorien and wonder if it was cut ....certainly everyone had the cloaks and the broaches afterwards. The golden wood did come over a bit too bleak and inhospitable.

Thorin : I think you are also getting overly insulting on the forum with your comments like "limited reasoning" and the like. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them stupid or wrong.

By the way Thorin did I miss something in the movie .....
The Saruman rape scene !
Who did it ?
Was it the evil Lurt ?
Did Gandalf find an alternative use for his staff ?
And I was wondering why they had the parental guidance rating.

[xgothgrrl]

Hello all,

New member here, but loooong time Tolkien fan. I just saw the movie last night and well, I completely enjoyed it from begining to end. I admit it was not 100% percent true to the book, but honestly very few book to movie translations are. Now, having said that I just have to make a comment or two on some of the gripes I've seen on this thread. The first one being from a few pages back where someone made the comment that a line spoken by Gandalf was not verboten as written in the book. The line in question was concerning the translation of the script written on the ring itself. Please take into consideration that these are actors playing these roles and as such I do not know one actors who has ever stuck 100% to the script as written. Once you have your lines down and really start getting into character line sometimes come out a little differently. I really dont think anyone noticed at the time, and honestly it does not really matter. In the same vien, it has also been brought up that the actors were not portraying the characters correctly Ie: Gandalf bumping his head while in Bag end because of course his been there several times or Gandalf sputtering "is it secret? is it safe". Again this may well have been the actors choice as well. Every great character in literary history has many different facets. I mean if they were one dimensional they would hardly be great literary fiqures. Therefore they are open to various interpertations. Just look at how many times Macbeth or Hamlet have been examined and re-examined over the course of history. So therefore did it ever occur to the people making those complaints that the actor playing Gandalf for example wished to show a more emphatic or human side to Gandalf...show off his concern for Frodo- a dear friend- when he knew the Riders were on there way to the Shire to get the ring.

Just my two cents,

Love Always
Xgothgrrl

P.S. Sense everone is up in arms over that "Let hunt some orc" line why is it that none of you seemed to have picked up on the line by Gimmel that went "No one tosses a Dwarf." and the humour in that line. Considering that the movie was flimed in New Zealand where Dwarf tossing is a popular Pub Past time.

:D

[xgothgrrl]

Hey Mate,

'Fraid so, I'm from Aussie Org, so I can tell you yes...They do toss Dwarfs in pubs, or at least use. I have not been to NZ in at least 6 year so I don't know if they still do. Honestly I don't know if it was written in ref to that practice or not. It may just have been a way for Gimmel to express his pride in his own ablities but in light of that Practice which I was aware of...I found it blooming funny as hell.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[ReadWryt]

Oh gawd,

That is straight out of an old TV series here in the states called "L.A. Law". A "little person" was sueing over having lost his job for the same reason. The defence was being handled by a character played by the same actor who played Randal in Time Bandits. It made for amusing television but I never expected it to REALLY happen.

[KidFury]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that some little actors were upset at PJ for the CGing of dwarves and hobbits.

[mickyplums]

"Don't know where you're from, and don't give a rat's hind end."

Nice line Bryhennien perhaps you should phone up Peter |Jackson and ask him if he'll include in The Two Towers. Perhaps Denethor could say it about Aragorn.

"But I think that if you want to assault Americans, have the cojones to do it in person. Any COWARD can go on line and show their ignorance by shooting off their mouth off about their petty, nasty little prejudices."

Have you been reading my posts? Where have I assaulted Americans? How fatuous. I assure you I am no coward.

"FYI, I've got an MA working on a Doctorate. "

Good grief, these days they must be letting anyone do them, it would seem even people without the wit to understand discursive essays. "FYI" what a classy abbbreviation, just in Tolkien's style.

"But that's alright---the Germans make great beer, and the French can make a meal out of snails...) "

Come on Aragil back me up here! He's xenophobe, racist and enemy of the German and French people, isnt he?

"Fact is, when you ask people anywhere in the world where they dream of living, it's America, the land of freedom and opportunity."

If living there means one loses the ability to be self-effacing and admit to one's own faults then I do not want to live there.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Moriarty
In the book the fellowship speculate as to who is blocking their progress on Caradhras ..... it is not resolved, they never know. I didn't particularly mind the fact that the film showed the cause as being Saruman

Thorin : I think you are also getting overly insulting on the forum with your comments like "limited reasoning" and the like. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them stupid or wrong.

To make Gimli's superstitous comment about Caradhras being caused by Sauron to match Gandalf's comment about Sauron's arm growing long is stretching it. To make Gimli's comment to match Gandalf's comment to include Saruman is REALLY stretching it and seems to me to be an effort to make Tolkien match the movie's interpretation which seems to me to be the way a lot of you are going. Many of you are re-interpreting Tolkien's scenes to match what you've seen on the screen. As a Tolkien fan, that is nothing short of travesty.

I, in no way am insulting anyone's opinion by saying, "limited reasoning" but the method and way they go about it. You have to admit that there is a lot of bull headed comments with no basis in Tolkien fact that are belligerent towards Tolkien-based comments. That is reasoning that is not only limited, but pig-headed and ignorant and sometimes downright rude. Have an opinion, but be reasonable as well.

[Thorin]

IMO, the guilty party was the mountain itself. Tolkien was being realistic. The movie showed the fellowship much higher on the mountain than Tolkien did. People who have climbed mountains a quarter of the size of Everest have experienced worse conditions.

The comment about Sauron's arm was a literary device used by Tolkien to show the ominous fear that Sauron could inflict in people (after all, Gimli thought it possible that Sauron could control the elements) and a confirmation in the reader's mind that Sauron was powerful. The fact that Caradhras introduces the conversation in no way confirms that truth of Gimli's speculation.

Before the fellowship embarks up the mountain, Gimli himself states that Caradhras was not a mountain to be reckoned with. As a dwarf from the mountain, he knew it's reputation. When they come down the mountain, it says that Gimli shakes his hand at Caradhras. It does not say that he curses Sauron or Saruman.

It was a hinder of the fellowship from the elements that serve no one, not even Sauron, as Gandalf said about things on the mountain and ME.

[Thorin]

Thank you for your compliment and opinion,

I do feel that the problem with interpreting the "ambiguous" scene from LoTR with Saruman doing it in the movie, is that that presupposes Saruman being in league with Sauron. After all, to say that the "arm of Sauron" could be contributed to Saruman is putting a lot of extra connotations in Gandalf's statement that though the movie makes, the book does not. PJ would have been much more justified by flashing to the dark Lord's throne showing Sauron raising his arm in a telekinetic show as Gandalf and the fellowship are struggling up the mountain.

The movie made Saruman basically a servant of Sauron wanting to join forces with Sauron and cursing Gandalf for not doing so. Therefore, if you wanted to compare the book's scene with Caradhras to the movie, it would be easy to take Gandalf's statment about the "arm of Sauron" and make it be Saruman.

The problem with that is you can't take that scene and try to make LoTR fit it or justify it by the movie scene. Proper hermeneutical interpretation starts at the source and logically must be the other way around. The book makes Saruman greedy to own the ring for himself. He wants it for himself and tries to encourage Gandalf to help him by stating that the wizards should rule ME. From the books standpoint, the episodes on Caradhras are either directly related to Sauron's doing or just from the elements of Caradhras itself. To stretch it to include Saruman is nothing but a gratuitous interpretation with no logical basis from the book.

[ReadWryt]

Oh geez,

Now you have to explain every natural disaster in the film, every event of consequence? "Twas the Beans!" - Gandalf on Breaking Wind at Orthanc.

I can see it now, because some pitifull imbacile decided that the audience needs every last thing explained to them, becuase a snow storm couldn't JUST happen in the mountains..because the Audience is so obviously ignorant that they could not EVER buy the idea that someone didn't cause the snow storm an instigator had to be created for it.

I thought myself that such lunacy went out with the Aboriginal Mindset and the ancient mythologies of mankind which led to such ideas as feeding virgins to volcanoes to stop some god from causing a monsoon.

[theGrenadier]

I thought that Satuman was betrayed to Sauron by the Palantir and Sauron then tried to bend SAruman to his will in the hunt for the Ring. But, then, Saruman eventually tried to betray Sauron and claim the Ring for his own.
Didn't a Ring-Wraith fly to Isengard to get the Ring and find it destroyed by the Ents. I seem to recall Gandalf mentioning that he didn't think Sauron would be very happy when he discovered that he had been betrayed.
I could have my time line confused. But, that's how I remember it.

And, Mickeyplums, I was going to keep my mouth shut, but, I'm really tired of your mouth. Speaking as an American of Irish descent, you and Bono should really pay more attention to cleaning up your own social problems at home instead of pointing your finger at the US. If it wasn't for the US and the British,(I'm sure you' ll appreciate that) most of Europe would be under the Soviet thumb. Deny that if you will, but, it's the truth. And as a people who have been killing each other for hundreds of years simply because they can't agree on how to worship the same God, perhaps the Irish shouldn't throw stones inside their own glass house.
Don't bad-mouth a vet (i.e. Brynheinnen) when I'm around or you'll surely get an earful. If all you've got to respond with are insults, you should really keep it to yourself.
But, in your defense, I think the Irish brew a fine bottle of beer.
Apologies to everyone else who had to listen to that. I'm really just tired of the ignorance and antagonism of some of the posts lately. I've probably been guilty of it myself, but, it's never intentional and I would hope that someone would point it out if I were so that I could make up for it.

[Grond]

theGrenadier, While eloquently put and right on point. This forum would have been better served if you had made this point in a private message to mickeyplums.

We try not to let the forum become a place for political debate and diatribe. (Given that mickeyplums started it and is the source of many negative posts.)

[Courtney]

I thought that Tolkien readers more than anyone else would know not to judge others on things that can't be controlled. You can't hate people or stereotype them just because they happen to be born in a certain place. I am not trying to say that Americans are better than anyone else, I'm just saying that I don't give a f*** were you people are from. It doesn't make me value your opinion any more or less. I don't appreciate being judged by what poeple, who happen to be the same nationality as me, have done.

[Radagast]

To whoever it was that asked why we didn't pick on the dwarf tossing line. It was because I'm sure most of here were trying to exercise it from our memories( by the way, it's Gimli, not Gimmel). Along with plenty of other **** lines thrown in. But by far the most offensive and emphasised was the orc line since it was the last line spoken by the trio in the movie.

We can also go to the Indiana Jones scene of the crumbling rock balancing act in Moria itself as a stupid and useless time-wasting gimmick, that stole real plot time along with Arwen and Lurtz.

As for Saruman, I personally found it weak the way PJ has him drive the fellowship into Moria. To what end would this serve him. It could only have handed the ring to Sauron who's creatures were obviously on control in Moria. Saruman had no Balrog. So his greed for the ring would not have been satisfied. It all makes no sense.

PJ wasted "precious" time from the true plot and ran out of it because he wasted time on his attempt at being original.

For those of you who think myself and others too purist, well I can only speak for myself, but with the things he had to cut or change slightly from the Shire to Weathertop, I think the movie was excellent. If he kept changes to this level the movie would have been very satisfying to me, and maybe other purists here. But once he got to the peoples and characters outside the Shire, he blew it.

I still don't like the way he did Merry and Pippin, but up until Weathertop, I cut them some slack with the hope their movie characters would mature as things got tense. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they became more immature about the whole situation.

[aragil]

Thorin and Harad- very nice debate.
As always, I thought I'd open my big yap in defense of the movie. I don't think that the movie is neccessarily presupposing where Saruman's allegiances lie. Remember, we have a fairly accurate idea of what Saruman's intentions were because we have thoroughly digested the whole of the narrative, from Saruman's first mention in the books right through his demise at bag end (I hope no newbies are reading this). I for one can not recall what my impressions are of Saruman after my first reading of the Fellowship, prior to reading the Two Towers. I think that the film has left itself plenty of wiggle room. A scenario I posted earlier: Saruman has been duped by the Palantir in a similar way to Denethor, and believes that there is no hope outside of allegiance to the dark lord. Gandalf brings him tidings of the exact location of the ring, and then Saruman begins to hatch a plot to get the ring himself, all the while not declaring himself to Mordor in order to avoid confrontation. What we don't know yet is how (or if) the movie plans to portray all the quibbling amongst Grishnak and Ugluk. This could be a very decisive point where we learn that Saruman is in it for himself.
As for whether Saruman could have been using the storm for his own purposes instead of furthering Sauron's- of course he could. The crebain have given him coordinates on where the fellowship is, and we can assume that since Gandalf is with them he expects the ring to be there as well. Saruman has not yet dispatched his orc commandos, and for whatever reason in the film he thinks that Gandalf is terrified of Moria- he says as much. Perhaps his plan was to deny Gandalf the crossing of the Misty Mountains, thereby bringing him down to the Gap of Rohan where he can more easily overcome them with his Uruk-hai, thusly claiming the ring for himself without allowing it to come one foot closer to Mordor.

[ReadWryt]

I would suspect that the Balrog, being a creation of Morgoth, would have recognised Gandalf as being a supernatural being like himself, and so because of his wicked nature would have wanted to screw up his day anyways, no matter where his loyalties lie. *Shrug*

"As the power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to controll it."..."Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us."

If Jackson had spent more time relating the story which is contained in the book he borrowed the name from instead of inventing magical battle scenes, folks would not need to feel compelled to invent rationalizations for the confusion he caused by portraying Saruman as Sauron's lap dog.

[ReadWryt]

What I don't get is that the conversation between Gandalf and Saruman clearly shows that Saruman has aspirations for the Ring himself. This conversation, and the revelation that he desires the Ring for himself, was the whole reason Gandalf went to Orthanc in the first place. Otherwise Tolkien would never have even mentioned it.

I suspect that when Saruman dies in the next film we will finally see why Jackson did it this way...

"Well the choices are, it seems, to submit to Sauron, or to yourself. I will take neither. Have you others to offer?" ...what in THAT line makes you think that Saruman had any intention of working for Sauron? I think that it is very clear that Jackson has made one of the 'major changes in the characters" he claimed he would not...

[aragil]

I really think that people should cut movie Merry and Pippin some slack until we've at least seen the Two Towers, if not the Return of the King. I'd hate to say that they were useless, but in the books they really hadn't accomplished much by the end of fellowship of the ring. Pippin was responsible for the Fellowship's discovery in Moria, after all. Personally I liked Merry's selfless decision to draw the orcs away from Frodo once he understood Frodo's intent to leave the party- perfectly in-line with the noble Merry that Tolkien created, and rather more developed than he was after the first book. One of the great parts of Two Towers is the maturation of the duo- Pippin with all of his cleverness during their captivity with the Orcs, Merry keeping a level head once free and leading them into Fangorn, as well as his curteous treatment of Theoden upon entering Isengard (never mind Pippin almost blowing it with the Palantir). This all sets up the undeniably epic actions of the two in Return of the King: Merry wounding the Witch-King, Pippin wilfully marching to war with no hope of return and single-handedly felling a troll-chief (how will that play in the movie?). This is one of the great parts of The Lord of the Rings- these two rather innocent and naive hobbits getting swept up in epic events, and then maturing and becoming epic heroes themselves. By the end of The Fellowship of the Ring (both book and movie) all they have done is get swept up into larger events- it is in the following chapters that they come into their own.

[Snaga]

I think in the book one of the subleties is that Saruman is building his own strength in imitation of Sauron, while telling Sauron that he is working for him. This is not apparent in the film, but I think this can come through. For example there is the Grishnakh - Ugluk exchanges, and the debate with Saruman after the defeat of his forces.

Same as Aragil, I'll wait and see.

[aragil]

''A new power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Numenor. This then is one choice before you, before us. we may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it."

PJ decided to work off of that quote, rather than the one ReadWryt stated above. If he sticks only with that quote the 3 films and never addresses Saruman's desire for the ring, then he will not have remained true to the books. If instead PJ has been playing that quote up in order to surprise newbies with a double-crossing Saruman in the next movie, then he will have remained true to the books. I'd say it could go either way right now.

Some more quotes to ponder:
Theoden: 'You hold out your hand to me, and I perceive only a finger of the claw of Mordor'
Gandalf: 'When last I visited you, you were the jailor of Mordor, and there I was to be sent.'
Gandalf: 'Your servants are destroyed and scattered; your neighbors you have made your enemies; and you have cheated your new master, or tried to do so. When his eye turns hither, it will be the red eye of wrath.'
Gandalf: 'Easy it is now to guess how quickly the roving eye of Saruman was trapped and held; and how ever since he has been persuaded from afar, and daunted when persuasion would not serve. The biter bit, the hawk under the eagle's foot, the spider in a steel web! How long, I wonder, has he been constrained to come often to his glass for inspection and instruction, and the Orthanc-stone so bent towards Barad-dur that, if any save a will of adament now looks into it, it will bear his mind and sight swiftly thither?'
Gandalf: "So whether he will or no, he (Saruman) will appear a rebel (to Mordor). Yet he rejected us, so as to avoid that very thing!'
Parentheticals were added to the above quote to give context.

[theGrenadier]

Yeah, what Aragil said.

[Grond]

Aragil, all of your quotes are correct, just as ReadWryt's quote is correct. It is very clear from the text that Saruman meant to double cross Sauron. That doesn't mean he would not pretend allegience to the Dark Lord. And it doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a willing servant if Sauron prevailed.

It is also apparent from the conversation with the Mouth of Sauron, that Saruman was to rule the West of Middle-earth if Sauron was successful with Saruman's aid in overthrowing Minis Tirith and Rohan. But, since Saruman betrayed his Master, the Foul Mouth commented that someone more worthy than the traitor Saruman would rule, meaning that Foul Mouth would have been set up in Orthanc.

The movie played Saruman as a total ally to Sauron. No ifs ands or buts. I will concede that PJ may bring the betrayal aspect into TT of RotK but why would you do that? Why not just play it like it is in the book? I guess I just don't understand movie making.:confused:

[Moriarty]

Thorin
Originally posted by Thorin


To make Gimli's superstitous comment about Caradhras being caused by Sauron to match Gandalf's comment about Sauron's arm growing long is stretching it. To make Gimli's comment to match Gandalf's comment to include Saruman is REALLY stretching it and seems to me to be an effort to make Tolkien match the movie's interpretation which seems to me to be the way a lot of you are going. Many of you are re-interpreting Tolkien's scenes to match what you've seen on the screen. As a Tolkien fan, that is nothing short of travesty.

I, in no way am insulting anyone's opinion by saying, "limited reasoning" but the method and way they go about it. You have to admit that there is a lot of bull headed comments with no basis in Tolkien fact that are belligerent towards Tolkien-based comments. That is reasoning that is not only limited, but pig-headed and ignorant and sometimes downright rude. Have an opinion, but be reasonable as well.

Thorin - I have not re-interpreted anything. I simply said that the fellowship speculate as to what is causing them to turn back up on Caradhras. Indeed in the book I thought it was the mountain and was suprised when it was directly linked to Saruman. You have chosen to believe I am justifying the scene in the film...... I'm not ...... I just don't mind it.

And with regards to you second comments ..... now you are implying that people that don't agree with you have not only liimited reasoning but are now ignorant, pig-headed and rude... it is you who are being unreasonable. Oh yeah and nicely done by the way ....get in a few more insults under the guise of asking me to be reasonable. Your debate with Harad was better put. Don't wreck your normally clear and reasonable arguements with insults, it is unnecessary and doesn't help you make your point.

[Moriarty]

Variag of Khand
Originally posted by Variag of Khand
I think in the book one of the subleties is that Saruman is building his own strength in imitation of Sauron, while telling Sauron that he is working for him. This is not apparent in the film, but I think this can come through. For example there is the Grishnakh - Ugluk exchanges, and the debate with Saruman after the defeat of his forces.

Same as Aragil, I'll wait and see.

Interestingly I got the opposite impression.... I thought the Saruman's build up of his forces came across much stronger in the movie than the book with all those shots of the underground workshops and orcs and destuction of the trees ( which will lead nicely into the last march of the Ents ). I felt in the books that Saruman suddenly has all those forces and they never really seem to originate in Isenguard. Well of course a lot were hidden underground as we are told in the book.......but even so.

I was a bit surprised with the palantir being shown so early and wonder how Pippin is going to be able to take it when it is thrown out by Wormtongue when Gandalf already knows about it being in Isengard. We shall have to wait and see!

[Moriarty]

Radagast
Originally posted by Radagast
For those of you who think myself and others too purist, well I can only speak for myself, but with the things he had to cut or change slightly from the Shire to Weathertop, I think the movie was excellent. If he kept changes to this level the movie would have been very satisfying to me, and maybe other purists here. But once he got to the peoples and characters outside the Shire, he blew it.

I still don't like the way he did Merry and Pippin, but up until Weathertop, I cut them some slack with the hope their movie characters would mature as things got tense. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they became more immature about the whole situation.

I was not prepared for the time-line and event changes at the beginning from the Shire to Weathertop ( hell I was even waiting for the bang when Bilbo disappeared ) but by the time Awen came on I was resigned to the fact that there had been some major changes and resoved to enjoy the movie for what it was ..... a movie based upon the book.
As I have said before, I really wished that more of Tolkiens dialogue had been used and that was probably what I missed the most .... the power of his words.

Yes... Merry and Pippin are supposed to be carefree and provide some comic relief in the books but not quite that much! They were the weaker of the characters in the movie but I also hope they will mature a bit (as they do in the book) in the next film.

[Wide Boy]

The palantir being shown early won't be a problem. Pippin got to it first simply because of where he was standing on the steps when Grima threw it out the window and he can easily do so in the movie, despite it being revealed in FOTR. In the book, Gandalf suspected it for what it was almost straight away so him knowing about it in the FOTR movie won't produce any discontinuities for TTT.

As far as Merry's and Pippin's characters are concerned, I always thought they were a bit immature for a long while. It wasn't until Return of the King that they really grew up. All the stuff up till then was them enduring horrible and painful lessons and gradually learning to cope with it all, starting with their capture by the Orcs and ending with them returning to the Shire as noble lords (well, hobbit version anyway) and captains of war. I think someone earlier on this thread made similar observations.

I like Merry and Pippin at the moment and I'll wait for the other two movies before I judge their characters as a whole.

[ReadWryt]

The point is not what Jackson has decided Saruman might do, the point is that here he is making changes to the character that serve no purpose, that do NOT make it easier for the audience to understand what is going on, as some folks seem to feel so many of the changes are made for, nor does it portray Saruman as he is...backstabbing and decietfull to all who deal with him.

What good does it do the audience to see Saruman suddenly turn against Sauron and then die in the next film? Mark my words, you will all feel differently when Wormtongue has pushed Saruman off the balcony of Orthanc in the next movie and realize that Jackson isn't making The Lord of the Rings, he is making "What the Lord of the Rings would be like if Peter Jackson had Written it", which actually sounds like the title of a MAD magazine parody more then anything else...Oh wait, this IS a lot like a Mad Magazine parody...

Theoden: 'You hold out your hand to me, and I perceive only a finger of the claw of Mordor'
Gandalf: 'When last I visited you, you were the jailor of Mordor, and there I was to be sent.'
Gandalf: 'Your servants are destroyed and scattered; your neighbors you have made your enemies; and you have cheated your new master, or tried to do so. When his eye turns hither, it will be the red eye of wrath.'
Gandalf: 'Easy it is now to guess how quickly the roving eye of Saruman was trapped and held; and how ever since he has been persuaded from afar, and daunted when persuasion would not serve. The biter bit, the hawk under the eagle's foot, the spider in a steel web! How long, I wonder, has he been constrained to come often to his glass for inspection and instruction, and the Orthanc-stone so bent towards Barad-dur that, if any save a will of adament now looks into it, it will bear his mind and sight swiftly thither?'
Gandalf: "So whether he will or no, he (Saruman) will appear a rebel (to Mordor). Yet he rejected us, so as to avoid that very thing!'
Parentheticals were added to the above quote to give context.

Interesting bunch of quotes, where in the movie did they appear? You see, that would be the only way that they might apply to your argument, because if they only appear in the books then they do nothing toward helping the audience think that Saruman is anything BUT the unfaltering right hand of Sauron.

[aragil]

I wasn't trying to argue from the naive audience member's POV. I am way too biased to try that. I can't even remember what I thought the first time I read Lord of the Rings (I remember the Hobbit really scared me). My point in that post was that PJ was not extending beyond the books to portray Saruman as being to some degree under the control of Sauron. Before anybody jumps on me, I also said that PJ NEEDS to show that Saruman wants to get the ring for himself as some point in the Two Towers. If PJ does not do this, than he will have mis-represented Saruman's character.

[xgothgrrl]

Harad,

I would have to agree with most here that that chapter will prob. be cut. For the most part because it's-so far as a movie ending is concerned-rather anti-climatic, esp considering all that went before. It may be covered in an eplilouge however, just as the history of the Ring was done at the beginging of the flim. I personally love to see Sam coming home after helping to save the world to find a young Hobbit girl telling him that now he can get on with all the really important stuff like settling down getting married and have kids...but that's just the Sadistist in me I suppose.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[baraka]

Why did PJ change the name of bilbo´s book There and Back Again a Hobbits Holiday to There and Back Again a Hobbits Tale.

I know this is not a big change, but it´s a change nonetheless and i don´t think it was necessary.

[Greymantle]

Welcome to the Forum, Baraka. :)
I agree with you, and for many of us the stupid, unnecessary changes are one of our biggest "gripes" with the new film. Please do join in the discussion...

[xgothgrrl]

Ohh I agree, to see the Shire as So beautiful and tranquil at the beginning and then to see it at the end...absolutely. Keep this in mind, however...the Shire afterwards was hinted at in the movie when Galdriel (I know it's misspelled...it's late) had Frodo peer into the mirror. So who knows it may be worked in some how...but since we never saw her give the acorn to the fellowship...*Shrug*

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
Yes.
PJ But if he does do the right thing, there will be a lot of crow served to some others not mentioned.There is no crow to be eaten. It is interesting the different tacts taken by the DEFENDERS OF THE MOVIE... if one makes a valid argument against a viewpoint, it's "let us wait and see what he does in the next movie" or "it's a movie and not the book", or "a direct adaptation of the book is impossible to achieve through film media".

If you challenge on an issue that is, indeed, debatable, they chastise you for not understanding that JRRT really didn't mean what he said. Or that he was ambiguous and not definitive on the point of contention. But... this is the movie thread and I am resigned that people who support the movie as THE REAL DEAL and a great adaptation won't be swayed and I'll just have to stay the way I am. I'm a guy who loved the movie but feels it could have been so much better.

[Greymantle]

*Claps*

Quite well said! I think you hit the essence of this entire debate right on the nose.

Oh darn, this is another one of those pointless posts, again. Sorry all for wasting your time. :rolleyes:

[xgothgrrl]

Hmmm the only reason I can guess and I'm not defending it mind you before this new arrival gets slammed dunked by the elder fellowship of brethren, is that the word Holiday as it applies to people in England and the meaning of the word as it applies in America are two entirely different things. In England people go on Holiday...in the States people celebrate a Holiday. Yes it is a case of dumming down i will admit...but you asked why and well that's my best guess.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[xgothgrrl]

Well Flashbacks are a usefull dramatic plot device...the major prob with them is they did to slow down the plot if done poorly. I dont know how they would do it otherwise...if that is they do. Though I would like to know if they dont...how are they going to explain Gimmel's (yes I know it's misspelled again..this time I'm doing it to annoy the person who corrected me before..sadistist remember) taking axe in hand to defend The Queen of the wood's beauty.

So many questions...so long to wait
Love Always
xgothgrrl

[Eonwe]

Don't know if it is a change or not, but

I lost it when Gandalf was twirled around like those astronaut test machines by Saruman. And then he starts talking to a butterfly. Pa-leeez.

[xgothgrrl]

Baski...Now you'll have to elighten me on that one mate, Is that one of the animated versions?? I'm thinking of the one where they have that orc song "Where there a whip there's a way" correct me if I'm wrong, cause there is a destinct possiblity that I am. Not that you heard that from me mind you. :D

Love Always
you know you

[xgothgrrl]

Okay I got to ask...why is everyone so upset or perhaps just mildly unhappy with the duel between Sauraman and Gandalf. I mean no one thinks Gandalf let himself be locked up on the top of that tower do you. So it stands to reason that some type of battle did ensue and if two Wizards are going to "mix it up" so to speak...how the hell do you expect them to do it. Now forgive me but I've not re-read the books in awhile...as my copies were stolen by a ex-roomie-from hell, so if it is covered in the actual text then pls pls refresh my memory. Personally I was wondering if anyone who had not read the books, had any clue as to where that giant eagle came from.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[xgothgrrl]

Hadad

Thank you.

[xgothgrrl]

lets try that again...

Harad

Thank you.

((See what a 16 hour work day and three hours of sleep get you))

[aragil]

I thought that was going to read "Hadad, thag you very buch".
"Where there's a whip (woo-psh), there's a way" is from the Rankin/Bass adaptation of the Return of the King, which in someway picks up where the Bakshi version leaves off. Personally, I liked that song, if little else from the movie.

[xgothgrrl]

No aurgument from me there mate, me tag says it all, but for purposes of good spelling, proper punctuation and coherent conversation...it helps. But hey if you get my meaning...no worries.

Now back to the hair splitting...I take it everyone thought the wizard's duel was too "crouching tiger" Let me assure you I saw that flick no less than 10 times...Christopher Lee is no Chow Young-Fat.

[xgothgrrl]

Rankin/Bass now there is a name I know...they also did(God I'm showing my age and I hear the rips coming now) Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer as Well as Santa Clause is Coming to town and several other Children's Christmas Specials...ahhh Childhood.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

P.S. thang you very bunch

:D

[aragil]

Actually, Christopher Lee is a very accomplished fencer, and member of the stuntperson's guild (or something like that) according to the official movie site. Ironically, he's trained a lot longer (if not as intensely) as Chow Young-Fat.

[xgothgrrl]

Really??!! I did not know that...How cool is that.

Actually I must say...I'm really enjoying this forum, even if I stray from topic from time to time...okay a lot. Just reading through the previous posts I learned alot I did'nt know...thanks all.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[Moriarty]

I think we may well see a scouring of the shire in the final movie...... we have had a few hints of it in the FOTR with the bit showing what might happen if Suaron gets the ring and also with a little bit of romantic interest with Rosie and Sam at the beginning. Hope so anyway.
I see what people mean about it might be anti-climatic but the BBC Radio play handled it very well.

Hmmm I think this thread would be better named - Compare and contrast the original LOTR with the adapted movie version.

[xgothgrrl]

3:57am to be exact.

Now before I live, so I don't look like a complete moron to the more studious members of this group...who are most likely groaning at everything I've written thus far. :)

We were discussing the final chapter in the Shire. I would very much like it to be included in the flim for what I belive to be a very valid reason. To me that chapter has always served as a reminder, warning perhaps..that in all conflict, war, police action what have you...no matter how just the cause(in this case the ultimate battle of good vs. evil) there is always a price to be paid and innocents made to suffer. In the case of the Shire the cost was dear, but the damage repairable...far better than the fate which would have awaited them had Sauron won the day. And esp considering the events currently taking place in the world today...It is something we should all be reminded of.

Okay that it for me tonight...have a great evening all.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[xgothgrrl]

Okay, okay one more for the road, but this is my last one...yeah.

My gratuatious usage of the word Mate, of course. Actually I am from Aussie org. My Mom's from Fla and I spent many a Christmas iin the states with relatives and moved here about 5 years ago. Do you have any idea how hard it is to be a Goth Diva and pull off Jane Austin like Goth-speak, when you sound like Crocodile-bloody- Dundee. No. Ehh just as well you don't i suppose.

Night all and there goes my chance at sounding profound.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[ReadWryt]

Actually, Bakshi's movie was Slightly, not Mostly, animated. The whole thing was filmed in Black and White somewhere in Spain and Rotoscoped over. I remember this distinctly because I was in High School when he started the project and being the huge Star Wars geek I was subscribing to Starlog, Fangoria and any other publication of their kind I could get my hands on.

In the film version of LOTR, it appears that rather than work together, Bakshi's adaptation and stylistic choices clash with Tolkien's theories on the fantastic. Although Bakshi intended to create realistic creatures through the process of rotoscoping, he merely succeeded in creating "live-action that had been doctored up to look like animation graphics" (Beckerman, Rings, 45). The characters are difficult for audiences to identify with both because they are animated, and because the quality of animation is low, consistently revealing flitting live action figures very roughly sketched over, necessitating a "...suspension of aesthetic judgement ... that is just too great." (Stuart, sic, 38) Perhaps the effect Bakshi desired, and the one he actually presents to the viewer, was simply not thoroughly thought out; Whatever the reason, the intimacy so vital to a connection with the characters of a film is severely lacking in Bakshi's LOTR. http://qlink.queensu.ca/~7rjn2/lotressay.html

As for the Gifts of Galadriel, I know that someplace on the net, perhaps TheOneRing.net, I saw a couple of stills from it. My suspicion is that it was cut for the sake of time, and from the semi-randomness of several of the cuts in Rivendel and Lorien, I deeply feel that history will show us that it was a decision made by New Line and not some error on Jackson's part.

All indications are that the Scouring of the Shire will not be shown. Inclusion of this sequence would put the brakes on the story and really drag down what otherwise would be a buildup to the coronation of Aragorn and the passing of Blibo and Frodo across the waters with the Elves. I suspect that the "Saruman Impaled on the Wheel" photo is a clue to this as from what I understand he dies in the next movie, probably due to the fact that there will not be a Shire Scouring for him to be at.

Finally, I really am beginning to think that the last Hobbits we will see will be Rosie, Sam and their kids in some scene analogous to the final chapter Tolkien passed up publishing (See History of Middle-earth Vol IX: Sauron Defeated). This is, of course, fortified by the crediting of one Elanor Gamgee in "The Return of the King". Since the lass playing her,Alexandra Louise Astin, was born 27th of November, 1996, I am assuming this is not some invented old Aunt of Sam's, but instead "Elanor the Fair", his daughter who married Fastred of Greenholm. (I don't REALLY know all this stuff, I'm just really quick with the research. :p )

[Foe-Hammer]

I think a good way to finish would be to have saruman escape to the shire before the fall of sauron. Have merry and pippen dispatched to the shire.
Then steal a technique from "Apocalypse Now" where the cow (Saruman) and the Colonel (Saruman) are killed at the same time but in different places.

[Foe-Hammer]

I guess screenwriting should be left to the experts after all.

[Snaga]

why not steal from the Matrix and have Frodo slo-mo kick box Sauron to death?

[Grond]

What I think should have happened is that Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas would abandon Merry and Pippin and catch up with Frodo to protect him on his journey to Mordor. They would catch Gollum and still use him in conjunction with Aragorn for guides. The party would encounter Faramir, who would recognise Aragorn for who he was and hail him as king. Aragorn would then, with Gollum's help, lead them to Shelob's lair and Aragorn would kill the beast with Anduril. They would also butcher many orcs on their travels (only to silence them and keep their journey to Mt. Doom secret).

In the meantime, Merry and Pippin would escape after the orc battle with the Riders of Rohan and would still come to Treebeard and gain his help in crumbling Isengard. Gandalf would appear in Mirkwood and link up with Treebeard, Merry and Pippin and they would proceed to shadow Saruman's army.

Gandalf would then proceed to Edoras and banish Wormtongue and rouse Theoden. They would proceed to Helm's Deep where they would face an insurmountable host against them but this time you would get to see the Battle of the Orcs and Trees. The Ents would give battle orders to the Huorns and some **** would fly in that battle. Naturally the Ents and Huorns would prevail and Theoden would have minimal loss of life. They would immediately proceed back to Edoras and receive the red arrow and head of to Gondor. Merry would ride with Dernhelm and arrive at Pelannor as in the book.

In the meantime, Frodo and party, would be proceeding towards Mount Doom. Aragorn would still be with them... he couldn't proceed to the Paths of the Dead and he wouldn't be able to hinder the corsairs of Umbar. The Corsairs would sail up Anduin and arrive at the Battle of Pelannor Fields. Theoden would be killed by the Witch-king and Eowyn and Merry would then kill him. The Corsairs would overrun the battlefield and Gondor would fall.

Frodo and Aragorn with party, would proceed to Mount Doom and after much "hot potato" passing, finally throw the ring in the fire. Sauron would be vanquished, Aragorn would become King of Mordor and the Dark Numenoreans of Umbar would rule Gondor.

Later, Aragorn with Gandalf's help (he escaped the rape and sack of Minis Tirith on Shadowfax) would forge a Great Ring and Aragorn would become the Dark Lord. Then the story starts all over again.

Now I'm sure that's how J. R. R. Tolkien would have wanted it written if he'd really thought out the plotline, especially if he'd have been thinking of making it into a movie.

you know.... and one time..... at band camp.....

That's the way Grond sees it..... but I could be wrong!!

[Ancalagon]

after much "hot potato" passing, finally throw the ring in the fire

Excellent, surely you can now join Harad (he who is knowledgeable in film-making) and re-write 'The Lord of the Rings' as Tolkien would have wanted it. Of course, he didnt know about the advances in CGI that we are blessed with in the '??????' whatever age!

All hail Grond, for surely he has answered the prayers of the 'great unwashed'?

Harad, when you make your next film, be sure to ask Grond for 'scriptwriting' assistance, for you will surely be great among men!

[Grond]

Alas, ReadWryt, Cir, Tal, and Acalagon are all moderators and can fry your butt anytime they want. But the forum does have rules. I may disagree with you and vice versa. You attack something sacrosanct to us and trivialize our ideas. For two weeks now we have been spit upon and when we finally start to defend ourselves, you cry foul. Well get real. As I said before, this was our forum first. I have repeatedly stated I enjoyed the movie but disagree with your vision of PJ's ME. You have derided us in much the same fashion as is your right.

Besides it was you who said,
"Why not steal a scene from "Bladerunner" where Saruman admits he's a replicant and lets Frodo go."

and then, "Good one.
Or "Ground Hogs Day" where Aragorn wakes up every morning and has to wrestle Sauron with the Palantir. Finally he learns how to make Arwen love him and his nightmare ends.
Not an expert but a talented amateur."

I fail to see why you're so upset... I was just putting in my two cents worth. I thought you were encouraging different settings for the work and submitted my contribution. BTW, I like your adaptation better than mine. It was very good.

:)

[Goro Shimura]

The scenes I missed the most were...

1) Strider attempting to win Frodo's trust at the prancing Pony.

2) Bilbo offering to take the ring to Mordor at the council. (Boromir laughing until he realized everyone respects the hobbit.)

3) Gandalf's conversation with Saruman-- especially where he changes from "Saruman the white" to "Saruman of many colors". (What's going to happen when Gandalf goes white in the Two Towers?)

4) The discussion of the fellowship about why they should go to Minas Tirith while Frodo was thinking of where to go.


Strider hardly makes an appearance in the film. There are almost no tracking scenes. Instead we get this Action Hero guy who is knifed by his girlfriend and who sets a couple Nazgul on fire. (It was much better in the book where they attacked invisibly.)

I would much rather have had more dialog taken directly from Tolkien than all of these modern kung-fu scenes (and the leap across the staircase scene.) This is LOTR, not Jackie Chan!

[Mearas]

Originally posted by aragil
PJ was not extending beyond the books to portray Saruman as being to some degree under the control of Sauron. Before anybody jumps on me, I also said that PJ NEEDS to show that Saruman wants to get the ring for himself as some point in the Two Towers. If PJ does not do this, than he will have mis-represented Saruman's character.

I think it's entirely consistent for the movie to portray Saruman as under the control of Sauron. There's a passage in TTT (Chapter VIII, "The Road to Isengard") where, after describing Isengard and Orthanc, Tolkein wrote:

"But Saruman had slowly shaped [Isengard] to his shifting purposes, and made it better, as he thought, being deceived--for all those arts and subtle devices, for which he forsook his former wisdom, and which fondly he imagined were his own, came but from Mordor; so that what he made was naught, only a little copy, a child's model or a slave's flattery, of that vast fortress, armoury, prison, furnace of great power, Barad-dur, the Dark Tower, which suffered no rival, and laughed at flattery, biding its time, secure in its pride and its immeasurable strength."

Also, in the movie, doesn't Saurman almost immediately accuse Gandalf of hiding the Ring from him in the Shire? I don't recall the exact exchanges, but the scene did convey to me that S. wants the ring for himself.

[Mearas]

Originally posted by Goroshimura
The scenes I missed the most were...

2) Bilbo offering to take the ring to Mordor at the council. (Boromir laughing until he realized everyone respects the hobbit.)


I, too, missed Bilbo's speech. Of course, I think that the entire Council scene was awful and did no one justice.

[Ancalagon]

Harad, I relish your description of me as a 'fundamentalist' though sadly I somewhat fail to hit the mark. That you do not understand or value the opinion of others, albeit, those whom you share a bed with, I find great difficulty in taking you as seriously as you would expect. In so much as I appreciate your views and the humour you add to this forum, you are not the 'instigator' you like to think you are.

I for one, have tried to remain impartial to the 'rantings' of the sicophants who frequent this humble forum. I have remained impartial while you are your colleagues have tried to demean those who hold Tolkien as the 'primary' and Peter Jackson the 'secondary' in reverance of this great work. Long before you arrived, discussions were afoot pertaining to the relevance or accuracy of Tolkiens work. Though since you only acknowledge the 'producer' over the 'author', it is difficult to continue with reasoned debate.

Do not dare to offer an opinion of me based on your own ignorance of this forum and that which it holds dear. This was here long before you decided you had an opinion.

Do I respect your opinion? Of course I do; you have brought much to this forum that has been wanting, though you and those who share your ignorance have also managed to ridicule those who stroke wives and girlfriends (do you understand that?) and not each other. If precociousness is your driver for debate, then woe to the 'great unwashed' whom you have so deeply offended, for I include myself in that legion.


why not leave this forum and set up another one where you can stroke each other in your foul caves of bile.

You are already in the caves of bile my friend.

[Ancalagon]

Where do you see 'Moderator' under my name?

[Ancalagon]

Because 'caves of bile' is difficult to top!

[Ancalagon]

Absolutely; Harad; I love you! Though Male stroking is out of the question! :)

[Foe-Hammer]

I want to see how this thing is going to list 10,000 views.

[Ancalagon]

Did Orlando Blooms (Legolas) bowmanship remind you of Crow from 'Hawk The Slayer'? He looks nothing like Crow before you say it.

He did for me, but then maybe I am showing my age!

http://www.badmovies.org/movies/hawkslayer/index.html

[Thorin]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mearas


I think it's entirely consistent for the movie to portray Saruman as under the control of Sauron. There's a passage in TTT (Chapter VIII, "The Road to Isengard") where, after describing Isengard and Orthanc, Tolkein wrote:

"But Saruman had slowly shaped [Isengard] to his shifting purposes, and made it better, as he thought, being deceived--for all those arts and subtle devices, for which he forsook his former wisdom, and which fondly he imagined were his own, came but from Mordor; so that what he made was naught, only a little copy, a child's model or a slave's flattery, of that vast fortress, armoury, prison, furnace of great power, Barad-dur, the Dark Tower, which suffered no rival, and laughed at flattery, biding its time, secure in its pride and its immeasurable strength."



That is the whole point Mearas. Saruman was deceived! Tolkien portrays Saruman only for himself, thinking that he would use Sauron as a stepping stone for his own purposes. Saruman didn't realize that he was really doing what the Dark Lord wanted. But he was in it for himself. That is made clear in the first book. The movie makes Saruman as being in direct league with Sauron, his crony, you might say. In the book, Saruman tries to convince Gandalf to get the ring so that the wizards might rule. Gandalf tells him that there is no "we". Only one may wield the ring at one time, which proves even more that Saruman was in for himself and wanted the ring for himself. Telling Gandalf to join forces with Sauron in the movie does not show Saruman's character truthfully in terms of the want for the ring. That is why he sends his orcs after the fellowship and takes rule over the orcs of Mordor. He wants it for himself. Folks watching the movie now will think that Saruman is getting the ring for his master Sauron. False, false, false.

[Ancalagon]

To add to Thorins extremely inciteful interpretation;

Quote from the Sil;

'Thus the wise were troubled, but none had yet percieved that Curunir (Saruman) had turned to dark thoughts and was already a traitor in heart; for he desired that he and no other should find the Great Ring, so that he might wield it himself and order all the world to his will. Too long had he studied the ways of Sauron in hope to defeat him, and now he envied him as a rival rather than hated his works.'

This had always been in his heart, and he had never revealed this to Sauron, even while using the Palantir.

[Foe-Hammer]

it is very clear that in the movie Saruman tries to convince Gandalf that the two of them could rule with the ring. That is an exclusion of Sauron and an inclusion of Gandalf.
It is true that Saruman is portrayed as working with Sauron also and without the part I just quoted I would totally agree, but that part IS in the movie and must be included in any interpretations of Saruman's true intent.
You could argue that Sauron commanded Saruman to tempt Gandalf with the offer. Conversly, you could argue that Saruman wanted the ring for himself and planned on betraying Sauron.

We are talking about the movie following the book, etc. All we really get in the book is Sarumans attempts at the ring for himself and the eventual betrayal of Sauron. We know that he was in contact and in cahoots with Sauron. Tolkien just didn't think far enough to make Saruman a complete character by adding the dialogue that would have happened between Sauron and Saruman.

In PJ's version we have the same elements, but his focus is on his attempts at the ring for himself. It is not an attempt to shift the character of Saruman. It was an attempt to make him a more real character, which is an improvement.

[Ancalagon]

Foe;

I understand your thoughts entirely. Though I suppose the problem really eminates from the fact that Saruman is Saurons sidekick, which you and I both know, Saruman is not. He is, for all his faults somewhat a loose canon in this sordid affair. Problem is, that was not shown to us in the movie. Whether for good or ill, whether in theTwo Towers or not, we can still recognise somewhat of a dissolution that just doesnt quite fit. That is my humble opinion and I feel fairly strongly about it.

[beren]

PJ changes the text in a way no one's mentioned yet -- and I've gotta get it off my chest. The film has two narrators: Galadriel narrates the Prologue. Later we hear Saruman: "...the hour grows late, and Gandalf the Gray comes to Isengard, seeking my council," or something like that. Presumably he is speaking telepathically to Gandalf, but he is also narrating to us, the audience. Why do only Saruman and Galadriel get to speak to us directly? Because both are in possession of seeing technology (if I can call it that), the Palantir, and Galadriel's wok full of water that you all know the name of, but I don't. Someone else has seeing technology, and that's PJ himself. That's why Saruman looks directly at the camera, at us, when he says "I have seen it." I like to imagine that the prologue's visions of the past come to us via Galadriel's pool of water (she speaks, after all, of "things that were").

How does all this amount to a change in the text? Because it's all hugely postmodern and self-conscious, and is therefore completely alien to the spirit of Tolkien, who is about as anti-modernist as a writer can get in the 20th century. There, that feels better. Thanks.

[ReadWryt]

Harad,

A quick question. If I take a photograph of you and lay tracing paper over it, then loosely draw an overly simple charachature using you in the forground and fill the background in with what I care to, have I indeed made a drawing of you?

[beren]

Readwryt,

A quick answer. Yes. And I'm not Harad.

I'm not sure you get it (and there's a distinct possibility you don't care). Saruman looks directly at the camera and talks to us; in this way PJ's deliberately added a modernist touch, referencing his own camera as Palantir... and this is out of all keeping with Tolkien's traditionalist values. The book wastes no time referencing itself as a book -- but guess what? every other piece of literature written in the last fifty years does! In many ways it matters more than plot or dialogue changes. It's a Tolkien or anti-Tolkien distinction.

[Mearas]

<<Saruman was deceived! Tolkien portrays Saruman only for himself, thinking that he would use Sauron as a stepping stone for his own purposes. Saruman didn't realize that he was really doing what the Dark Lord wanted. But he was in it for himself. That is made clear in the first book.>>

I agree!

[...]

<<The movie makes Saruman as being in direct league with Sauron, his crony, you might say. [...]Folks watching the movie now will think that Saruman is getting the ring for his master Sauron. False, false, false.>>

OK, the nature of your gripe becomes clearer.

I didn't (well, don't) remember that in the movie Saruman had asked Gandalf to join with Sauron rather than Saruman. When I get to see it again, I will pay more attention here.

Remember, though, that even in the book, Saruman is acting the part of a crony (e.g. checking in via the palantir), presumably thinking that such behavior has earned and sustains Sauron's trust.

[ReadWryt]

Beren,

While I'm certain that, either by vanity or other presumption, you felt compelled to assume that my post clearly directed to Harad was meant for you, I feel the need to let you know as tactfully as possible that it's not really all about you. :p

I'm still waiting for Harad to respond to the question I posted...

[Foe-Hammer]

ancalagon Though I suppose the problem really eminates from the fact that Saruman is Saurons sidekick, which you and I both know, Saruman is not.I don't agree with that. But, I am open to a change of mind if someone can show me text that shows that Saruman was in no way in cahoots with Sauron and can show me text that refutes the text that suggests he is. So, far I haven't seen that.

[mickyplums]

Do you mean "cariacature", "foreground" and "Gandalf the GrEy"

Nonetheless I like your point ReadWryt. What we would have there is not a drawing of me but an impression of me, your interpretation. "Precisely" I hear the film-fans cry, the film is an impression, an interpretation and should be enjoyed as such.

Not in this case. We, longtime Tolkien fans, are safe to watch this "interpretation" once or twice, it shan't cloud our knowledge of JRRT's works. We can pick at it and criticise it because we know the books so well. The crucial degradation caused by this film is that people who have never read the book will watch it think its a "good" film and all the wonder in the language and the subtleties of the plot which I found when I first read the book will be totally lost. For example, the quotation about the comparison between Isengard and Barad-dur which Ancalagon used on this page. Absolutely out of the top drawer of language. It creates better understanding and a deeper sense of reality than any interpretation could ever hope to achieve.

LOTR is a life-changing experience, the film is not. In my humble opinion it is a dumbed-down, sexed up, badly humoured, devastatingly imbalanced, uneducational, perversion of the greatest piece of literature that I have ever read. And I have read a damn lot of books.

I will not accept the "its just a film" argument. Everything in our society today has to be quick-fix, instantly ready, open 24hours a day and 365 days a year. The film represents everything that Tolkien hated and everything his interpretation of the Shire contradicted. Some things take time and patience, but that investment yields a deeper love and truer understanding.

[Thorin]

I think mickeyplums has stated quite clearly how we (or at least me) as purists feel about the movie.

There have already been a few "newbies" to Tolkien who have come on here and are judging the book by the movies standards instead of the other way around. Our main focus should always be: "Yeah it was an excellent movie, but the book is much better and cannot compare in the least. Read the book!" or "The movie was okay, but the book is much better and cannot compare in the least. Read the book!", or "The movie was lousy, I couldn't stand it,! the book is much better and cannot compare in the least. Read the book!" Unfortunately, a lot of members here are giving the impression that Tolkien could have taken a few points from PJ in the way he showed his characters and scenes. Not the message Tolkien fans should be potraying to those who are Tolkien illiterate at this point.

I hope and pray that all who have seen the movie before reading the books will take up the books and try to envision everything by their imagination rather than seeing Elijah Wood or Cate Blanchett. I hope they will read FoTR and say, "Man, why didn't PJ do THIS instead of what he did!" Unfortunately, Hollywood and the boob-tube are replacing reading a good tale in our day and age.
:(

[Foe-Hammer]

Well, the book stores can't keep enough copies in stock. So the movie has brought readers to the books.

I hope people say "it's just a movie, not as good as the books, but I still have my view of ME intact because I am not mindless zealot, and can actually make a difference in this world doing something other than mindlessly defending a work of fiction".

[Radagast]

Readwryt,

Could you post that phrase from Tolkien's letter again, in larger text so all the film defenders can see that the bookist's are trying to defend the will of the very writer of the works.

I loved the Bakshi films, even with all it's flaws, the most important thing about it was that it tried to keep the spirit of the language intact. It had some pretty bad changes, mostly minor though. Legolas was at the ford, Saurman was pronounced Aruman, so people I guess would not be confused with Sauron, and Glamring breaks in the clash with the Balrog. But the spirit of the books seemed to be much stronger, probably because of the language. The characters all seemed much truer.

I think that is PJ problem he lost touch with the characters in my opinion, and slapped on some cheesy dialog that will not endure or endear anyone to those changes. At least not me.

To whoever replyed to Goroshimamura, the Bakshi film covered the issues he brought up and was far shorter a film and even got to the Battle of Helms Deep. This just proves that PJ wasted a lot of time.

[Foe-Hammer]

Could you post that phrase from Tolkien's letter again, in larger text so all the film defenders can see that the bookist's are trying to defend the will of the very writer of the works.Why would that be important? Should what Tolkien wrote sway our opinion one way or the other? I really don't see what that has to do with the discussion, other than to make the over-zealous defenders of the book look like brain-washed deciples of some off-the-wall cult.

[Ancalagon]

I venture to say that not one person new to Tolkien will be dissuaded from reading the books, quite the contrary

My wife, (in her second year of an English Literature degree) who has never read Tolkien watched the film and afterwards I asked her would she read the books; empahtically she replied 'no'.

Trust me; this disappointed me more than any of the changes.

[mickyplums]

do you mean "disciples"?

[Thorin]

Yeah, but Foe, there is nothing wrong with going back to the source. This whole thing is ultimately about Tolkien. You call it fanaticism, I call it keeping perspective.

If I want to reiterate the words of Jesus, I'm going to go to the Bible, not the Koran or Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ".

The fact is, is that quote is there. Blatantly ignoring and pooh-poohing such a quote and trying to justify the opposite, yet claim to be a fan of Tolkien seems like someone claiming to be a Christian yet deny the words of Christ when he said "I am the way, the Truth and Life."

No, surely he didn't mean THAT!

(And for all of you waiting to rip me apart for comparing Christ to Tolkien, get a grip...It's just for analogy sake, not some theological statement)

[Foe-Hammer]

Thorin,

True but Tolkien himself allowed others their opinions of his work, pretty harsh ones at that. None of us here are being that criticle, except some fundies towards the movie.
I think we all know that there is no "winner" in this except those that refuse to play.

[razorink]

Howdy all - this is my first post, having just seen the movie today. Let me say that I enjoyed the film, but wasn't as moved as I thought I would be. Whether that's due to the differences between book and cinema is hard to say. I found the scenery breathtaking, and the casting excellent. I haven't read the books in a VERY long time, so I will apologize in advance if my facts aren't straight. One of my favorite passages in the book involves the valiant death of Boromir (I love them tragic hero sacrifices). Let's start there. Doesn't dear Boromir die in the opening chapters of the Two Towers, NOT the end of Fellowship? It was one of my favorite scenes from the Bakshi rendition as well, and for all the talk about "Legolas' expresion of grief" being moving, I find that Tolkien's description and the Bakshi version of the skirmish more so. Too much about that whole episode in the current film is altered, to the point that it had the less than moving effect on me. This is how I remeber it - The fellowship hears the Horn of Gondor, alerting them to the danger that B. has already stumbled into. By the time the gang gets there, B. has already kicked MUCH Orc butt, but fallen in combat, the Horn is CLOVEN, B. is slumped against a tree with no fewer than 3 black shafts sticking out of him, but the sheer number of Orc carcassas surrounding him is testament to his valor and makes his sacrifice all the more poignant (like I said this sort of stuff usually moves me to tears) - the Bakshi actually has a group of Orcs torturing him with every arrow, while he just grits his teeth and tries to get at them but is too severely wounded to kick more butt until help arrives (chills thinking about THAT scene). And I think they should have burned him like Tolkien had written. Boy did I go on about that. There were other discrepancies, but I'll save it for another post.

Thanks for letting me ramble.

[Moriarty]

I can't imagine anyone here would ever say the movie is better than the book. Or even judge the book by the movie. People who haven't read the book

Is anyone saying that?

Has anyone said that?

Generally I believe people who are perhaps percieved by some here to defend the movie are saying they like bits of it, possibly parts that show a character the way they imagined them, or even scene of the movie.

I think it is near impossible for a movie to be compared to the written word as the written word allows a very personal veiwpoint which is unlikely to be shared completely by anyone else. This is very obvious from the posts on this forum. Even things as simple as pronounciation of names between us differ.

Yes the movie is a rudimentry drawing or tracing of the book but that doesn't stop the movie from being a classic great movie in it's own right. Afterall there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the old masters like Leonardo and Van Eyck actually traced the image of their subjects using mirrors and lenses. Their paintings are still great works of art and they are not the original !

[razorink]

"Yes the movie is a rudimentry drawing or tracing of the book but that doesn't stop the movie from being a classic great movie in it's own right."

Maybe, but only TIME can make something a "classic". Was it the greatest movie I have ever seen? No. Did it transport me to another place, and for 3 hours, give me something else to think about besides a world wracked with terror and political instability? Yes. Will I see it again, or recomend it to others? Again, an emphatic yes.

[Moriarty]

Well of course it isn't a classic yet but I think it will be .... what with the other 2 to come.
No not the best movie I'v ever seen either..... plenty better ..... but it was good. I will also see it again and I don't often do that!

[Grond]

Originally posted by Foe-Hammer
ancalagonI don't agree with that. But, I am open to a change of mind if someone can show me text that shows that Saruman was in no way in cahoots with Sauron and can show me text that refutes the text that suggests he is. So, far I haven't seen that. I've seen the movie two times now and diagree with the assertion that Saruman asked Gandalf to join with him to rule ME. He requested that Gandalf join with the Power (aka Sauron) as elves and men no longer had the strength to withstand Sauron and that Saruman and Gandalf would be able to help Sauron shape the new ME so that it would be better and more ordered. His insinuation was strictly to join with Sauron. (I guess I need to go see it a third time to be sure).

As far as quotes in the book, the author is clear that Sauron is influencing Saruman. But he is just as clear that Saruman is playing both ends against the middle. Saruman hoping that he will come into possession of the one Ring and set him self up as the Righteous Dark Lord or be the faithful servant should Sauron prevail. The most telling quote that shows Saruman was indeed lustful for the Ring for his own sake is paraphrased by Gandalf in the Council of Elrond when he states, "Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us. That is in truth why I brought you here. For I have many eyes in my service, and I believe that you know where this precious thing now lies. Is it not so? Or why do the Nine as for the Shire, and what is you business there?"

[Grond]

Harad, I have already acknowledged that I enjoyed the movie. I will go to see it again. I will buy the DVD when it comes out. I will see the other two and buy their DVDs. I will then buy the Director's cut of all three boxed in one. That doesn't make me any less of a purist. The movie is great.... it could have been better.

And I totally disagreee with you on Saruman. Saruman wasn't a schitzoid. He was deviously cunning. I stated that he was playing both sides against the middle. If he could convinice Gandalf to deliver the Ring to him or if he could find it himself, we'd have Dark Lord Saruman. If not, he would be the loyal servant and get his due reward. (Lordship of the west of Middle-earth). PJ playing him as a crazed yet loyal follower of Sauron is just out of character. Sorry you don't see it that way, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion, because this particular argument is truly just a matter of opinion.

[Radagast]

Foe-Hammer,
I don't get where all your anger comes from, about crazed zealots and all.

Actually I think it may have been Greymantle who posted the quote, Either way, the point being that the worst part of the film is where PJ deviated from the character of the peoples portraited.

Tolkien's letter specifically stated that he would resent such changes. Is it too much to ask from those who loved the work because of the style in which it was written and the character of the the agents in the story, that we cannot be displeased with the way PJ makes references to dwarf bar games and other not very clever deviances. "If you want him, come and claim (get) him"etc...

The scenery was awesome, and the effects were in some parts wild, but there is more to the story than that. Isn't there?

[Greymantle]

While it was ReadWryt who posted it, it's Greymantle's sig. For your reading pleasure.... here. :cool:

[xgothgrrl]

Hey mates, me again.

Okay so let me ask, other than the changes in actual dialouge from the book to the movie, which has been done I will not deny that. What are the probs. with creating dialouge in places where for example you know it exists but the book does not give details. For example in the Prancy Poney, prior to meeting with Strider and prior to the resistation of "the Cow Jumped over the Moon" (Come on can you blame PJ for leaving THAT part out) No doubt the char's shared conversation as freinds...Why is it so surprising to people that Merry and Pippin would be delighted to find out Beer is served in Pints...it is after all something I'm quite grateful for. As for the Dwarf Tossing Line...I meant that as a joke I seriously doubt it was meant as a social commentary, just a means of displaying Gimel's Pride and self assuredness.

How excatly do you feel that the char's are being mis-interpreted
pls. leave out the Sauraman being Sauron's sidekick as that has been discussed already.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[aragil]

Howdy Goth,
I think that this would be an excellent topic for its own thread. So much so, in fact, that I will start it now.

[xgothgrrl]

Also...Everyone seems to be dumping their "Issues" with the flim on PJ's back and taking delight in vilfing him personally Ie: Bastard...he Raped the book. I will admit that he is the director, but come one, he's not the only one who played a part...there were prob. other forces at work...upper management breathing down his neck for example, not to mention that the job of bringing a char. to life is the duty of the actor chosen to play that actor. I dont hear anyone in here calling Ian McKellen or Cate Blanchett or Elijah Wood a right bloody bastard for the way in which they chose to portray their respective char. And they in truth had far more to do with the end result on screen than the Director I will promise you. I still say that every great literary fiqure is multi dimensional and as such Actors may chose to emphasis a different aspect of that char when protraying them. People have been doing that with Shakespear for years....and if it's good enough for the greats such as Macbeth, Hamlet, Othello or Shylock...well why not Gandalf the Grey or Legolas the Hottie elf.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[xgothgrrl]

aragil


Too Right, Thanks love.

[Thariel]

I would like to add to the discussion about PJ having Saruman's Uruk-Hai being spawned from caccoons. This is highly possible because remember that the Uruk-Hai were bred from Man and Orc so they could walk in the day. I doubt Tolkien would of been as crude as to of have Saruman force Orcs to mate (or rape) human females to make the new breed. I would of suspected that they were created through dark magic of perversion and some flesh-experiments. Thus the existance of the pods.

[Greenleaf]

The books are awesome no debating that.
The movie was really really good. It was the best book-to-screen I have ever seen. No movie can ever be as good as the book. I think that PJ did a fantastic job at portraying the feel of FOTR. It made sense to non-Tolkien fans and satisfied most hard core JRRT buffs. Yeah there were some changes, but all things considered it was really good. From a technical side the movie had to make money and it wasn’t going to do that if PJ put page to screen. :D

[Eomer Dinmention]

One thing i realy hate


was that they didn't show how Merry and Pippin knew about the ring they missed out of the Brandybuck bit


and one thing was that if gandalf got on the eagle when he was trapped in Orthanc he didn't have is staff then it shows him in the Mines of Moria that he does so how the hell did he get his staff back

[xgothgrrl]

King Eormer

Hey Mate, To answer you question about the staff and how Gandalf gets it back. It is a common occurence in flim...there is a name for it, but I can't for the life of me remember what it is. There are people who are hired to watch movies before they are released to look for inconsistencies in the flim, but some do escape them. It's an editing mistake nothing more...you see them all the time if you look closely enough. For example...two people are sitting at a table talking over dinner, on the table is a vase with a pink rose. The camera pans away, then pans back...lo and behold the rose is now red...or pink and white or even a tulip. Keep in mind that every scene in a movie is shot several times...in one shot Gandalf had his staff...in the second the actor may have laid it aside and forgot it. So when the edit together the good shots...in one frame Gandalf is weilding his staff...the next shot you see...he has made it vanish.

Not a plot issue...just routine editing I'm afraid

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[Moriarty]

Maybe Saruman took the staff back up the tower with him when he went back up to finally beat the **** out of Gandalf just before Gandalf takes a dive off the edge of the tower on to the eagles back! Two sticks better than one sort of thing.
Maybe Gandalf quickly whittled a new one one evening in Rivendell to pass the time.
Haha !
Well I see what you mean .....I mean staffs don't just grow on trees do they .....err well .....err yes they do !!

[Moriarty]

Or Magic I expect ..... he is a wizard after all. Bet he never loses socks and keys either!

[aragil]

Actually, ReadWryt posted on a very plausible scene that might have been edited out. I only remember the post because it contained the unforgetable phrase 'Old ****', applied by Sauron to Gandalf. I encourage you to look for it (the post), as it made for some funny reading.

[Moriarty]

Another thought : why are dwarfs so often shown as basically being Welsh huh! Ok so there is the mining connection but it happens a lot!

[xgothgrrl]

aragil,

Hey if you started a new thread on my question above...how the heck do I find it? I would really be interested in seeing people's replys. I'm a theater major and the "Craft" or "Method" is sacrosant to me so I have to be prepared to come to the actor's defense...and I just wanted an excuse to use the term "Method" which I've not done since Universty.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[ReadWryt]

Harad,

I suppose I'm WAY too picky about the use of the word "Animated" is all. I grew up learning that when one sat down and drew a series of poses of a character and then shot them, most often two frames for each drawing at 24 FPS, then that was animation. I guess it may just be anality on my part, and I'm not being sarcastic here, that makes me frown on the idea that filming an entire movie and then drawing over the actors being called "Animation". In other words, ignore my previous posts, I was being overly picky. Sorry.

[ReadWryt]

Does anyone else find it refreshing and extremely adorable that X.G. signs off "Love Always xgothgrrl". :)

[xgothgrrl]

Drawf's being Welsh?? Why did you have to ask that...I had a friend once who had simliar idea's he compared the various "supernatural" races to different nationalities as well.

Lets see...he told me that the elves were (his word's not mine) Stiff arse Brits...Proper Polite and in their own minds better than everyone else.

Drawfs were Aussies...allways ready for a rough and tumble fight and quite sure of themselves ie: that's my feeling on it and damn if anyone's gonna say different...which I kinda do resemble

and Hobbits...they are Irish...Lovers of home & hearth, enjoying nothing more than a satifying meal, a nice pipe by a blazing fire, a merry tune and a good pint...after all they know what's really important in life.

Hope that does'nt offend anyone...not meant to, but the question reminded me of it...and its good for a laugh or two.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[Moriarty]

xgothgrrl,

Actually you have a very good point ........ but not only with reference to the actors interpretation.... Shakespeare is often produced in a modern manner. I seen a couple of the plays done on motorbikes at Stratford myself and they were none the worse for it. ( that is an example of changing the visual spectacle without changing the language of the play ) but there are plenty of examples where both are changed - Hell look at West Side Story ( I'm sure you all know it's Romeo & Juliet ) and many other examples of updated classical or Shakespearean plays.

[Moriarty]

Nooooo..... you're quite wrong there Xgothgrrl.......

Dwarf are generally shown as being Welsh even down to the accents they always have. Who plays the dwarf in FOTR ....... a Welshman.
And what do you mean about Brits thinking they are better in their own minds.... of course we are haha!!

Actually Elves always seem portrayed as basically Gay.

Likewise hope no-one gets offended ..... just what I have noticed in many movies and books.

[xgothgrrl]

Moriarty(Better than Holmes anyday)

Point taken...so in that case can we add stand offish as well, as John Ryes-Davis was the only member of the Fellowship who did not get a tattoo to celebrate his participation in the flim all the other 8 actors did.

Just some useless trivia for you...

Love Always
xgothgrrl

p.s. Legolas Gay...Say it aint so.

[Moriarty]

It ain't so!

Haha .... Actually I was going to make an exception of Legolas.

I was pleased that PJ had managed to show his character without making him appear a poof! ( can I say that !).

Hmm Did Liv happen to get one too ? and if so where ?

[xgothgrrl]

ReadWryt,

Why thank you. I have to say that I have been called many things in my time, which I would'nt ever repeat in proper company, but adorable...never. That was very sweet. Thanks.

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[xgothgrrl]

Moriarty,

last post for me tonight, but I could'nt resist. Yes I'm very glad they did'nt make Legolas look "girlie" (that's prob more polite)
but what I'm most happy about concerning legolas who is as I recall-and I could be wrong here- a Wood elf from Mirkwood,is that unlike the animated movie...he was not GREEN. Just imagine if you dare

Hiiii Hooo every one legolas the frog here with a muppet news flash.

*Shudder*

Love Always
xgothgrrl

[razorink]

Howdy ho,
On the topic of Legolas, and Elves in general, aren't they supposed to be TALL ( I say this as a 6'8" man myself, so maybe I'm biased, but I digress). I thought PJ made a good effort with the Hobbits ->Dwarves -> Humans height differentials. Why make those Keebler folk human height? I have always hoped for the role of Legolas....oh well, there's always the Lord of the Ring's B'way musical, I suppose........

[Ancalagon]

Did you ever consider Basketball to sitting in front of a screen?

[Radagast]

I've seen the Bakshi film far too many times. But just for those who haven't seen it. He is fair skinned and has blonde hair. Sorry, not green. Also there are quite a few parts of the film that are wholly annimated. Maybe you're thinking of the Rankin-Bass "The Hobbit" film, where the elves were green and looked like they were made of wood themselves.

As for character changes, besides Saruman, well there's Elrond the pissed off mean elf, Aragorn the guilt ridden in need of some child psychology because he can't re-assure himself that he won't make the same mistake as his ancestor did a couple of thousand years ago. Boromir, well I just like the way the Bakshi film did him better. More of a dark Viking charater, not ready to chastise Aragorn for not giving everyone more time to mourn Gandalf's passing. Arwen. Gimli the ever bragging ever faltering dwarf. etc...

I liked Frodo's portayal, Gandalf was Ehh, Legolas was perfect, Sam was good. But this is all just my insignificant opinion, so take it for what it's worth. It's too late to change anything now.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Harad
And BTW, how "devious" is to say face to face to the person that you are trying to fool, Gandalf, both that you are getting the ring for the Wizards, and for Sauron. That is not "devious" in my book, that is "nuts." Aragil, you have sent me on a hunt and I have found your answer in The Lost Tales, The Hunt for the Ring. It reads in part,
"Two days after Gandalf had departed from Orthanc, the Lord of Morgul halted before the Gate of Isengard. Then Saruman, already filled with wraith and fear by the escape of Gandalf, perceived the peril of standing between enemies, a known traitor to both. Hid dread was great, for his hope of deceiving Sauron, or at the least of receiving his favour in victory, was utterly lost. Now either he himself must gain the Ring or come to ruin and torment. But he was wary and cunning still, and he ordered Isengard against just such an evil chance..."

To me, Mr. Tolkien seems to be talking about a very sane and devious individual. Have I tracked this down for naught or are you yet convinced?

[aragil]

The only hunt I've sent anybody on lately is the hunt for ReadWryt's 'Here you go, you old ****' post. Frankly I'm a little disappointed nobody's found it yet- it was pretty funny. I think it is somwhere in the early goings of this thread, but who can be sure with 45+ pages of posts?
As for Saruman, sure he's still cunning, wary, devious etc. I don't think that he would have been a candidate for an insane asylum, if one had existed. But I also think his lust for the ring and the domination of Sauron via the palantir were causing him to make very poor decisions. Who in their right mind would try to double cross Sauron? Of course, as you pointed out to Harad, this is an opinion. For what it's worth, I do think that Saruman was in a lot better mental state than poor Denethor, who by his end had gone quite clearly mad. I also think that PJ should at least show that Saruman has double-crossed Sauron in the movie, but I won't be upset if this is only revealed to us in The Two Towers and not mentioned in The Fellowship of the Ring.
Harad and razorink: Legolas was not a Noldo, or of the Quendi in general, so he wasn't one of the tall elves. He was of the Sindar, or 'slightly less tall elves', unless you listen to Greymantle, in which case he could have been a Sinda/Sylvan cross, making him downright average height. And remember, Aragorn was a remarkably tall human, so much so that his nickname was Strider. Boromir was described as being only slightly shorter. Gandalf was also tall, though he tended to stoop. I read on the movie site that they figured Gandalf to be about 7'!

[Moriarty]

Yes sorry Aragil,

I had better things to do New Years Eve than go through 45 pages or so of posts!

[Foe-Hammer]

While sneaking about the set in NZ, I came across a scrap of paper that has a rough sketch of what they thought the size comparisons were.

[Foe-Hammer]

Oh, thanks for blowing it for me!:p

[aragil]

Harad- while you're current, I thought I'd take the chance to mention: to change your tag- hit the 'user cp' button, and then the 'edit profile button'. You can change your tag line to read anything you want (even 7'2")!
I can't believe that the movie guide lists orcs at 6'6", taller than the Uruk-hai. That could be a typo- maybe it should have read Numenorean (they were taller, I know Tolkien addresses it somewhere).

ps. To xgothgrrl, whenever you read this. My character-defense thread is 'Characterization in the movie was absolutely PERFECT!!!'

[Foe-Hammer]

I still have the actual piece of paper, although it looks like it came from the "Official Movie Guide" (from Walmart $9.88 US).
I will sell it for round trip air fair to New Zealand. And while I'm there I'll try to "aquire" some more "original" movie stuff.

[aragil]

user cp, edit profile, custom user text.

I still think they should have a range on Uruk-hai, making the biggest possible Uruk-hai larger than the biggest possible 'normal orc'.

Foe- good luck in selling that 'item from the set'. Perhaps E-bay?

[aragil]

...right after birthdate, right before additional information. Maybe it is a netscape problem, thank goodness I've finally been assimilated by Microsoft (my resistance was futile).
If ReadWryt is out there in cyber-space reading this, he might help you (be nice to him). On a related note, I have selected to not have e-mails regarding new posts on subscribed threads sent to me, yet I still seem to be getting them. Help me ReadWryt, you're my only hope!

[razorink]

Aragil,
Quite correct re. Strider. I may be mistaken, but I seem to remember him being described as nearly 6 1/2 feet tall. I prefer Bakshi's portrayal of Boromir as more Viking-esque. It seems all the Humans portrayed in the film need some kind of therapy (touching on a previous post) to deal with childhood issues (Aragorn), ego (PJ's Boromir, although some of that is due to the Ring's influence), and in Bree maybe AA. What a sorry looking bunch of drunks. Nobody has said they miss the song and dance at the Prancing Pony, but it would have perpetuated the image and feel of a "friendly" pub instead of a room full of leering alcoholics. Speaking of which, it's just about time to go to the French Quarter for New Year's.

[xgothgrrl]

Okay I just saw the movie again last night. I have to say that I thought I might feel different about the flim after being exposed to this forum and all the cristism of the flim. Well, I did'nt all hair spiltting aside (some of it's justifiable on the part of the hair spiltters) I still experienced all the Magic and wonder that I did the first time, if not more. I have to belive that anyone who is not overwhelmed by the flim and what it is attempting to do...honestly choses not to be. Your not enjoying the flim because you have made a prior decision not to. I could be wrong of course...but that's the impression I've gotten. It's not the book and yes I did notice a lot more that was out of synch with the book but on the whole...I cried from the first time they showed the shire...I cried when Gandalf fell...I cried when Boromir fell...My breath caught in my thoart during almost every battle scene and I laughed several times throughout.

All that said there is one glaring prob with the flim that I must bring up here. ANY MOVIE 3 HOURS LONG NEEDS TO HAVE AN INTERMISSION!!! 3 hours and two large cherry cokes is way to long to go without a bathroom break.


Love always
xgothgrrl

[Grond]

Originally posted by xgothgrrl
Okay I just saw the movie again last night. I have to say that I thought I might feel different about the flim after being exposed to this forum and all the cristism of the flim. Well, I did'nt all hair spiltting aside (some of it's justifiable on the part of the hair spiltters) I still experienced all the Magic and wonder that I did the first time, if not more. I have to belive that anyone who is not overwhelmed by the flim and what it is attempting to do...honestly choses not to be. Your not enjoying the flim because you have made a prior decision not to. I could be wrong of course...but that's the impression I've gotten. It's not the book and yes I did notice a lot more that was out of synch with the book but on the whole...I cried from the first time they showed the shire...I cried when Gandalf fell...I cried when Boromir fell...My breath caught in my thoart during almost every battle scene and I laughed several times throughout...

Love always
xgothgrrl XGG, You are mistaken in thinking the majority of the purists didn't enjoy the movie. While I can't speak for all of us, I thought the movie was great and did a good job at conveying Middle-earth to the public that hadn't been exposed to JRRT's works and to those who have only read the book once or a few times. Most of us who have emerssed ourselves in the works feel that there are two problems with the movie adaptation.

First and foremost, it is just not true to the plot and characters. That is a fact that speaks for itself. You can argue to degree of distortion but not that the distortion occurs. (Arwen is a prime example as is the portrayal of the conflict between Saruman and Gandalf and the palantir revealed, bla bla bla.)

Secondly, and almost as important, is the betrayal of Peter Jackson as perceived by the loyalists (me). He stated all along that he, too, was a purist and took the book with him on set and reread chapters as they were being shot to make sure he maintained the vision of the author. Sorry, but a purist would never, ever jack with the plot and characters and from a purist's point of view, he failed miserably. We would have given him lattitude to delete things (aka Bombadil) and shorten things (aka The Council of Elrond) but to change basic character precepts is just unacceptable to us.

I still loved the movie and was moved by it. I will also enjoy it again.... but it doesn't quite fulfill my vision of Middle-earth. I'm not sure anyone could have have; but, I expected more. That doesn't make me an enemy of a movie or PJ supporter, just someone that disagrees with them.

And, yes, I do have a life outside of Tolkien.:)

[aragil]

Anybody who thinks that characters in the movie are at variance with those in the books is invited to post at:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1531

[Grond]

Harad. If you would have simply left in Glorfindel and deleted Arwen's enhanced role, you would have a convert in Grond. I didn't like what PJ did to Elrond or to Galadriel but would have cut him directorial slack in interpreting the character. That is his right as a director/screen writer. I've made it clear in all my posts that had he simply deleted scenes or shortened scenes (both for the sake of time), I would be fully on your side.

Changing basic character traits and encounters (Saruman and Gandalf) or added plot that is non-existent in the book, is unacceptable. I would even given PJ as pass on adding plot that could have happened (the Merry/Pippin fireworks scene which was not in the book but could have happened). I will not give him a pass on changing plot. (Arwen).

I guess we'll just have to disagree about movies never being "true" to the plots and characterizations. I will agree that they are never identical, but I have seen many movies where the plot is intact and characterizations are accurate. (The Godfather and the TV mini-serise Shogun are two examples of many that I have been a fan of both the book and the movie.)

[Grond]

Harad....................

PEACE!!!:) :D :cool:

[Hawkblaze]

By far the most ****ed up part of the movie, although most of it was awesome:

They cut out my sig!!! Instead they replace it with one of the lamest lines I have ever heard: "Let's go hunt some orc." AHHHHHHH! SO LAME!!!

[Grond]

Ah, c'mon Harad. We live in the age of Shakespeare in Love and Elizabeth. After all, we're not asking the audience to hear something different than 90 million other people have already read.

And Viggo, is one ac