What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

[ReadWryt]

TheJoseph,

If you wish to say that you have never had an in depth conversation about these books without bringing up Political Subjects then simply say that. I find it repugnant that you, through your posts, imply that anyone not looking for some Political Underpinnings in a Mythology that the author claimed to have written merely for "..anybody who likes a good and exciting tale..." is missing something that apparently you alone can find.

[LotR_Girl]

Whata hell...???
Didn't C da movie :(:( but know what we're talkin 'bout...
NO TOM BOMBADIL, that's wha I hate!!! And that stupid Liv!!! She could wait 3rd movie, for God's sake!!! She won't die...unfortunately. And orc named Lurtz?!!! Peter is insane, I'm tellin' ya!!! And he calls himself Tolkien-fan... Fat, stupid, rich...
Huh...I'm OK now!!!

[TheJospeh]

Actually, I know all about JRRT's writings about the tale being simply a great tale. And it truly is one. However, a meaningful conversation entails literary analysis in the context the word was originally used in. Also, I would point out that what author's put in their forward is not always the truth. Mark Twain, for example, wrote before "Huckleberry Finn" that no meaning should be attributed to any form of literary analysis. As Americans, you well know that book was pivotal for launching your literature. Furthermore, it is impossible to write a novel without allegory. Read Jung, read anything about literature and you will see! Therefore, I think it ridiculous that a writer who was writing during World War 2 and fought in World War 1 could avoid such themes. And even literally classifying the kingdom's in the book requires Fascism as a term. Sauron and Saruman are dictators.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

P.S. It is not that I am part of the dangerous few who over-analyze but you are part of the dangerous many who fail to attribute meaning to anything. Books can be read on more than one level! Open your eyes and see the great world about you!

[Grond]

Originally posted by TheJospeh
...P.S. It is not that I am part of the dangerous few who over-analyze but you are part of the dangerous many who fail to attribute meaning to anything. Books can be read on more than one level! Open your eyes and see the great world about you! TheJoseph, I didn't know that we had met or that you knew what my personal views were on any issue other than this one. And, until now, I have never been accused of being closed minded on this forum, even by those whose opinions conflicted with mine.

I guess this all just boils down to you having a degree in philosphy and having an off the chart IQ and we mere mortals just being unable to understand what would make the world, both literary and real, run more effeciently and effectively. We should just leave that to the intellectual supermen and do as we're told to do and think as we're told to think. Right? Wait a minute, if the TheJoseph knows everything and we know nothing.... and TheJoseph runs everything and we simply do what he says...... wait a minute... isn't that a dictatorship???? Isn't that Fascism???

[DGoeij]

I'm glad my mother always kicks my b**t every time I get pretentious about going to university. Only when I don't trip over my untied shoe laces all by myself, that is.
I think the tone in your post is a little pretentious Joseph. Besides, professor Tolkien himself stated in his introduction to LOTR that the deeper meaning of his story wasn't there. Now one can always place a piece of writing in the context of the time it is written, but a lot of stories, happen to be stories, not statements.
Could we leave the fascism thing out? Thanks.

[TheJospeh]

I don't have a degree in philosophy. Nor have I ever claimed to. Nor have I ever claimed that my high IQ made me a better leader of men than you.

If you assume the only significance a book has is put forth in the author's forward than you have a small mind.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[daisy]

I would also like to distance this discussion from fascism - maybe, Joe, if you would like to further your philisophical inquiry into the LOTR allegorical dictatorships and parallelism with World wars, you could start a thread dealing with said issues.

Also, I would put Sauron down as a tyrant re: tyranny, before I would deal with dictatorship. I think he goes beyond the mortal definition of dictator.

I also think you indirectly complimented me on my little English degree. It is true that I do not have a degree in philosophy, although I did study it in university as part of my compulsories. Although I do agree with Grond - I would much rather have mastered small engine repair!!!

Do you not think it is more than a little disrespectful to disregard Tolkein's plea for 'take this at face value'? He was definitely not of the same ilk as the tongue in cheek Mark Twain.

Anyway, back to Middle Earth.....

[pixieamalthea]

Mithiril:

of course their hands are dirty...and of course, in general, they all looked dirty in the movie.....I think everyone noticed that.
So no, you're not the only one that notices those things.
If they weren't dirty at all, then people would even notice that....

Seeming "dirty" made everything more realistic and believable.

[TheJospeh]

Well almost everyone else on this board has used words incorrectly so you might as well not be exempt. Mortal definitions? You're limiting the definition of the word far beyond the point I would. A difference of opinion then, except the dictionary agrees with me.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[druid]

I haven't had the time to read through all the comments in this tread but I wonder if people realise that Jackson's orginal reason for using LOTR was to showcase a new style of special effects, supposedly better than CGI espicially in the area of fire, ie balrog

but of course he soon realised what a gem he had, well I hope he did

Have to say I had such doubts about the changes, and I'm still not totally impressed, of course I'd like for nothing to be changed and I'd sit for hours on end to watch it all

but this really wasn;t for the fans of the book, this was for the people out there who haven;t as yet had the joy of reading these splendid pieces of art

I would nearly forgive him after I saw the look on my friends face after we came out from the show, she had not only never red any of tolkiens work, but had been looking at me like a complete lunatic when I was counting the days to the release, but now I think I might just persuade her to read first the hobbit and then the trilogy

[andyuril]

one thing is the whole galadriel bieng tempted by the ring and turning into a monster and just in case we didnt get that piece of exposition she then proceeds to tell us "i have passed the test" or something to that effect.

[druid]

Yes it's all very of putting but I'm told by some people that are trying to get into "the business" that it's brilliant SF, personally I was glad I had red the books because at least I knew what PJ was trying to say, I really don't think he got the message across at all

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by andyuril
one thing is the whole galadriel bieng tempted by the ring and turning into a monster and just in case we didnt get that piece of exposition she then proceeds to tell us "i have passed the test" or something to that effect.

yeah this really annoyed me too....for a visual medium like cinema, did we need that brilliant piece of script writting???

if there need be evidence for the movie being "dumped" down for the audience that was the highlight

[Eomer Dinmention]

One thing that ticked me off was that they didn't show how Merry and Pippin knew about the ring


adn one thing was that how did Gandalf get his staff back when he was in Moria sauraman had it

[pixieamalthea]

The part where Galadriel tests herself in front of The Ring seems to be bothering alot of people...but I thought it was well done.
I think it really gave the audience a sense of how powerful she really is. The special effects were cool . I don't know...it worked for me:D

[telperion]

how incorrect it might have been, i was genuinely shocked to c galadriel change into the demon she dared not be...my heartbeat was over 200 and i felt like walking away ,my palms were like cascades of salt water ,,but i stayed and enjoyed the fact that a movie could move me at laest for a moment or two...

as for the hollywood censorship , thejosph , i fully agree with you on that part. we are constanly fooled and indoctrinised. Its scary to see implementations worked into every form of entertainment that doesn't claim 2b education.. very dangerous if there weren't men like joseph and ourselves that question every pixel of info we receive..especially when works of literature are edited into populistic forms such as films, art that is so close to our hearts like LOTR....
remember that the masses rule but there are only few who know and they control the instrument ...

a very common subject since the woII , but i'm afraid that the britsh still live too much in their victory , evrywhere i look i hear a brit shouting fascism and war , ignoring to to look positively at the future...many examples could be inserted here, but for now joseph darling, a request from alll of us .....please give us an argument or three constructing that idle axioma of yours..
refreshen our dumb minds somewhat and explain how tolkien has had fascism in his mind whilst writing for example the cottage of lost play or beren and luthien or a topic of your choice, because if you continue shouting big words this thread will become less choice

[daisy]

Oh Telperion, are you in for a treat now!!!!

Just thought I would wish you luck before Joe attempts to rip you limb from limb for accusing him of yelling big words, although you did also kind-of compliment him so maybe you're safe.

Although I called him a little kitten and he still made fun of my word usage so you never know.

Our Joseph is lots of bark and bite, but he's really quite endearing if you give him a chance!!

Peace,
daisy.

P.S. Of course now I'll probably get it more than you!!!

[TheJospeh]

Wow, compliments come so seldom.

Anyway, whereas every single myth with the Silmarillion does not pertain specifically to fascism, the over-branching theme certainly does. In the case of Luthien and Beren we have Tolkien--at least to a limited degree--putting his own self into Beren. Consider the hero: an underground freedom fighter battling with a few loyal allies against the evil power of Morgoth. His friends and family who fight with him all die--a similar experience happened to Tolkien I believe when he fought in World War 1, but don't quote me on that because I could be mixing up authours--and he wanders along alone. Then Beren comes into Doriath through a hard path and falls in love with Luthien. The realm of Thingol is basically the dawn of the elves and the world preserved. It was the first great Elven kingdom of middle-earth and at that point has not changed since its beginning. Luthien the ever-young, is also a symbol of that old order of things--that dawning of man kind. Beren is yearning for the past, before the great evils of Morgoth. Much like Tolkien the men yearned for the old England, and greatly feared the coming technology. Tolkien was not a luddite but he disliked the calous way humanity was advancing it. He yearned for less technological dependent times. Here I think we can draw a link between Beren's love for the past through Luthien and Tolkien's love of the past in his more mundane life.

This adds only in lending wait to the conclusion that Morgoth and then Sauron are fascists. They have no claim to Middle-Earth, as the Valar point out that Morgoth has forsaken all responsibilities and benefits of being a Valar. He is not a monarch. He gained his power over the Orcs and the few Elves that served him through charisma or fear, the common tools of the dictator. Dictators quite often--Hitler for example--rework an existing religion and put themselves or their party at the head of it. Morgoth does this, as well. Sauron, serves Morgoth and eventually suceeds him as a dark power in middle-earth. This story line is very similar to the empowerment of Germany taking into account the first World War (The Kaiser) and the second World War (Hitler's time to shine). Furthermore, Man fights a battle against almost overwhelming odds, very similar (beyond coincidence?) to the odds England faced in many battles. The Battle of Sudden Flame can easily be compared to the battle of Britain. Plans=Dragons etc, etc. Also, Morgoth was left to build up his powers much like Hitler was. So there is also an argument that Morgoth can equal Germany and his second coming was the second World War.

In any event, I think it is a diservice to argue that Tolkien's work reflected the World War's so precisely, however, he did borrow certain themes from the wars.

Also, I now see this post jumps around a lot without any clear flow, and for that I apologize but I'm too lazy to fix it up and add stuff where needed. ;)

Sincerely,
The Joseph

P.S. As a last bit of evidence for Tolkien's work dealing with politics consider the chapter in "the Lord of the Rings" entitled "the Scouring of the Shire". I think you'll agree our Hobbit heroes come back to a communist regime. Tolkien was dealing in politics.

[daisy]

Hey Joe,

Wow. What can I say? However, it really intrigues me how looking so deeply into LOTR doesn't kind of ruin it for you. I mean, when you read the books, can you separate Tolkein's alleged political inspirations from the fantasy world he created, so when you read you are in Middle Earth, and not in 1941 ?Germany?

daisy

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by TheJospeh

P.S. As a last bit of evidence for Tolkien's work dealing with politics consider the chapter in "the Lord of the Rings" entitled "the Scouring of the Shire". I think you'll agree our Hobbit heroes come back to a communist regime. Tolkien was dealing in politics.


a communist regime??? wtf??? if anything they were under another dictator installed by saruman....

[daisy]

I also have a problem with the term,'communist regime' being applied to the Scouring of the Shire. Communism, in its pure, 'idealistic ( think Marxist) form', is supposed to be a communal society where inhabitants work for the good of the whole and, although the inhabitants would be limited in terms of rights and freedoms as individuals, they would not necessarily be violently oppressed in a fear, terror kind of way at all times. So I would go with lilhobo and lean towards dicatatorship. But isn't this also kind-of a case of , 'if it was a dog it would bite us? in terms of obviousness?

[TheJospeh]

In the word's of F. Scott Fitzgerald, "No, communism hasn't been proven a failure, it has failed." Meaning, of course, that communism could turn out for the best in the future. However, every historical instance of communism--barring the pseud-communism of the Native Americans--has resulted in a system many would argue is much worse than fascism. Trotsky blundered along all idealistic and hopeful and got an ice pick in the back of his head for his troubles--or was it an axe?

The clear difference between the realist's view of communism and fascism is the controlling governments. A dictator is seen as almost a king. He is the first citizen, more important than all others. He is almost nobility. The communist leaders have no such public distinction since such a distinction is in essence anti-thetical to communism. Therefore, they wield power through propaganda and charisma. Or they subjugate any opponents so that their is no resistance and regardless of how disliked they are there is no alternative.

Communism also focuses more heavily on economy. Fascism can--and normally does--operate on a capitalistic basis.

Consider the Shire. Lotho, through the annonymous backings of Saruman buys up all the land or the "means of production". Woodmills, property whatever. The Hobbits are then imprisoned if they disagree with him (or Saruman once he gets there). No political opponents are allowed to rise up. The whole revolution is based on economics which does not necessarily have to do with fascism.

Furthermore, consider what Tolkien terms "gatherers and sharers". The term is almost Orwellian! "Sharers" though they don't share, is not a fascist term. The fascist has no need of such propaganda, he must only provide a bare minimum of comfort BECAUSE he is the boss, he is the most important and he tells no lies about this. However, that phrase is EXCELLENT communist propaganda.

And to answer the question of Daisy. The novel isn't ruined by my analysis of it. This is why: a lot of the allegory springs from Tolkien's subconscious mind. They are mythological archetypes, in the grand spirit of Joseph Campbell at work in Tolkien's mind. They cannot be avoided, though in retrospect Tolkien knows they exist within his work, nor does he hate them. He just realizes his novel works on two levels--the first which he pleads his readers not to ignore in his forward--and the second which is wholly different from the first, almost another novel within a novel. I can separate the two in mind, no problem.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[lilhobo]

for your information, it is the ring that can be seen as a metaphor for communism, ie the ring is the socialist device that can be used for good, but ultimately will corrupt all in its power

the ring that empowers the One and enslaves the masses, and once the ring is destroyed so will the powers of the other rings be diminished

socialism is man's ideal of a Utopia, communism is man's pathetic attempt at it

[TheJospeh]

Don't include me in that statement. Socialism definitely isn't my idea of Utopia. Anyone who believes socialism can effectively work in a democratic society is just plain wrong. And without democracy or capitalism how do you regulate the arts?? Granted popular opinion is a poor way to do it but it sure beats the hell out of letting a council of power-mad politicians decide.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

You want Utopia? Invent a time machine and go back to either Sparta or Athens. All hail the city state! All hail direct democracy!

[telperion]

lol.. good one daisy...;) the power to get lost is a very true one for the wanderer. A friend of mine and i do that from time to time , last time we were in germany in the black woods , walking in mid night and it was freezing cold , minus 15 degrees, and we then decided to get lost , to take the low road so to speak, just "guided" by the stars we were so o'erwhelmed we couldnt walk and we just sat there , completely in awe of what was or is...
the same feeling i had whilst reading LOTR ...

this i had to explain to the ones who had not read the book and only saw the movie , they all thought midddle earth was so violent.. and i know that for the larger part of its history M-E must have been so peacefull..try making a movie about that..

you also said i was in for a treat, (one shouldn't only alledge but compliment also , preferably in the same sentence)and i have been, some things you claim to be true joseph sound very plausible 2me. the fact that tolkien did have ambigious feelings about technology is very likely 2me 2. i have a book of paintings of jrrt and bklack smoke chimneys are in some...he surely loved the old days. he might have been a bit of an anachronist in his age..his love for old sagas was deep.

as for the political comparisons with the first and second darkness, meaning the end of the second and the third era , (not the destroying of the lamps and the trees by melkor) i was also very reluctant to accept that the great west whereto the elves nearly all returned was in fact the british isles.and now i acknowledge that..

but tolkien has always stated that his tellings should not be confused with an allegory of the twentieth century though some of the economic modalities of the shire are based on his experiences of poverty and he indeed lost all but one of his friends (1918). did he just say this to avoid being entitled as a political idealistic writer such as there are golding or orwell etc.

i think not . the evil comes forth out of the beginning of times where melkor sang in disharmonie with his brethren and sisters...
he was always jealous of the creating power of ilu , by the making of the elves , he tried too to produce a people and did evrything in his power to create but failed and was ashamed of his attempt thereof and of his punishment that he turned on his creator like a teenager would on his parents.. but ,said ilu , all will contribute to the glory of the final harmonie and all will have contributed to its beauty and will then see ...

Sauron was ambigous in his mind 2 about his (janus) part. in the second era he disguised himself as beautiful as he could to endow the nine and seven wth powerful rings , but he was envious of the beauty of the elves and perhaps men.

a large part odf fascism is the ideology that you are the chosen people that the parasites must be destroyed.......Sauron never intended to govern a world with a people that he contempted , namely orcs and foul things , he doesn't love them..hitler loved , (the dark-haired one loved his blond chidren , compare sauron with his children, c? its the other way around)sauron did not , there is good without evil but no evil wthout good in tolkiens work..........in our world supremacy is the key motivator of society....we understand why marx and engels were fundamentally wrong about that.... and , joseph , i understand why you like the the beginning of the days of democracy so much.... those societys were based on direct democracie for the citizans not (!) for the slaves who had no rights or were not even considered men , (let alone women).(fasces ,symbol of imperium in the time of livius)

i trust that you are a humanist joseph otherwise we should have an entirely different discussion here .... but i think its best we do that on another forum .....

telperion

[DGoeij]

Ancient Athena, an Utopia? Well, they sure did their best and a lot of the good things are stil a benefit to todays society. But their direct democracy didn't included women at all nor most of the men in the city, because they were slaves. An Utopia with slaves doesn't appeal to me.

Beside from that, how could Tolkien actually add communistic propaganda in his book? The sharers and gatheres comment does sound like that, but how much communist propaganda did enter Great Britain before and during WWII? Maybe there's a serious flaw in my knowledge, and I don't mind correction if I did get it wrong.
I always understood that it was during the Cold War that communist propaganda really became widely known by the public in the 'western' civilization as being actually communist propaganda. If true, that makes it hardly possible for a novel written before and during the 19-forties to have contained such mentionings.

But really, correct me if I'm wrong on this. :confused:

[DGoeij]

Ancient Athena, an Utopia? Well, they sure did their best and a lot of the good things are stil a benefit to todays society. But their direct democracy didn't included women at all nor most of the men in the city, because they were slaves. An Utopia with slaves doesn't appeal to me.

Beside from that, how could Tolkien actually add communistic propaganda in his book? The sharers and gatheres comment does sound like that, but how much communist propaganda did enter Great Britain before and during WWII? Maybe there's a serious flaw in my knowledge, and I don't mind correction if I did get it wrong.
I always understood that it was during the Cold War that communist propaganda really became widely known by the public in the 'western' civilization as being actually communist propaganda. If true, that makes it hardly possible for a novel written before and during the 19-forties to have contained such mentionings.

But really, correct me if I'm wrong on this one. :confused:

[Minas]

Just come back from a trip to Australia and noticed on the TV ad selling the music CD that they show a quick shot of Galadriel with the Fellowship lined up and she appeared to be giving out the gifts.
I mention this because way back in the postings on this thread many a poster bemoaned the lack of these scenes. They must have been cut at final editing.

Also on same TV ad Galadriel seemed to be 'Frollicking' through the grass with someone else (Arwen?). These scenes flicked through during the ad (which I say only once) but they were definitely not from the first movie. Have nay of our Aussie brother Tolkienites seen this and can give some insight?

[telperion]

lookin out for the directors cut.....

[Grond]

Amen!!!! telperion!!!!;)

[TheJospeh]

Sheakespeare addresses communism in his works. That is because he is a genius and the best example in the world's history that aliens exist. Tolkien's genius is not on par with Shakespeare's, however, I don't think it is impossible for Tolkien to have looked at the world and realized what was coming. The Communist Manifesto had existed for many years by that time, for example. Intellectuals do this sort of thing all the time. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes they are right.

Also, the Shire isn't actually England. It is based on England and "the Scouring of the Shire" is a manifestation of Tolkien's fears for England.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

P.S. Yeah, Athens had slaves and it makes me bitter that they did! However, that model is the greatest hope for human Utopia.

[telperion]

thanx grond ..

and i had not the shire in mind but the west (or valinor)

and about shakespeare, he is undeniebly one of englands great geniuses. unquestionably so...however i think he was more of an dissident than the cultural prophet that you think.. in his work i read a tenacious critic of the british society...Wonder why the british ignore that fact all too often...

But , despite my scepcis , i am thankfull of the great drama the island has produced. sort of an love -hate relationship....

now ...what was this thread about again??????

:D oh and joseph if you're from canada shouldn't i speak french then?(thx 4 the quick reply btw)

[TheJospeh]

I think Shakespeare transcends any labels that simple. The thing about Shakespeare is you can go almost any way you want with the work because he has considered it. He's that brilliant. It's some kind of freaky brilliant. One of England's best playwrights? The best hands down, the best hands down of the world.

You can speak in French or in English, they are both our national languages and I'm obviously fluent in English and I was fluent in French, but I'm probably a little rusty now. ;))

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[WARDNINE]

AHEM.

"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches; but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and 'The Hobbit'. The crucial chapter, 'The Shadow of the Past' is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster...The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion......Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of thosee who like allegory or topical reverence. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so....I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
It has been supposed by some that "The Scouring of the Shire" reflects the situation in England at the time when I was finishing my tale. It does not. It is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset, though in the event modified by the character of Saruman as developed in the story without, need I say, any allegorical significance or contemporary political reference whatsoever." Etc, etc, etc. It's as if he cannot say enough to make himself clear.

Aside from that in his foreward, the dedication ends:
"To them, and to all who have been pleased by this book, especially those Across the Water, for whom it is specially intended, I dedicate this edition."
-J.R.R. Tolkien, 1964
"Le Maître a parlé."

[TheJospeh]

Do you think we are all so stupid that we haven't read the forward of the book????????? Obviously we have moved beyond that, as a few people have mentioned in their posts. You make me choke on my own rage! I said the allegory was subconscious, as it so often is in literature!!!! And even if you assume the main points were written before the war, they were re-written after or during the war! As Tolkien says, the novel, after the initial draft had to be "largely re-written".

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[WARDNINE]

You speak, Joe, as if you have indeed not read the forward.
Let it go, man.
Anger management is a great tool. I have used it myself.
Jesus, how many times does the man have to say that he meant nothing. Not before, not after, not any time.
Subconscious? The man planned enough for 150 friggin' Army maneuvers. He knew what the hell he was writing. A story. About a long freakin' time ago.
Choking on your own rage? Get over yourself! My sides are splitting!

I admit, ashamedly, that your posts are completely enjoyable. I have gotten many a chuckle from them. Especially tonight.
Keep up the good work, Joe.

[WARDNINE]

By the way,
are you high?
No, really. You can tell me. It's cool. Whatever.

[telperion]

high on tolkien maybe.........yes but you thought you were on to something too???????

nothing wrong with having an opnion as long as you have thought about it and when you keep quoting prologues, i have only one advice for you... don't ...
plaese read my posts and joseph it'll become claer 2 you that we've passed that hurdle some time ago......

[telperion]

apologies for the bad typing joe....that last post was written too hastely and should be read in favour of you....:)

[KidFury]

Just to pop in:

If you want an example of a Utopic socialist AND democratic system you just have to watch star Trek. The only capitalist there are the Ferengi. There was even an episode if which an old capitalsit financier is brought back to life after 300 years of cryo-sleep only to be told that monetary gain is useless in the 24th century...

Just my two cents

[Grond]

I think it would be wise if everyone would read a few books by Ayn Rand. Her Virtue of Selfishness is a classic and her philosophy explains why capitalism is the only vehicle to a truly happy and equitible society. Set goals and celebrate your life when they are accomplished.

[ReadWryt]

"Here (in Mordor) rules the personification of satanic might Sauron (read perhaps in the same partial fashion [as other identifications Ohlmarks has made]Stalin)"

There is no `perhaps' about it. I utterly repudiate any such `reading', which angers me. The situation was concieved long before the Russian revolution. Such allegory is entirely foreign to my thought. The placing of Mordor in the east was due to simple narative and geographical neccessity, within my `mythology'. The original stronghold of Evil was (as traditionally) in the North; but as that had been destroyed, and was indeed under the sea, there had to be a new stronghold, far removed from the Valar, the Elves and the Sea-power of Numenor. Letter #229 from the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, dated 23 February 1961 (One year to the day before my birth *blink blink*:eek:)

[Bryheinnen]

and like most people, got past her. She's pretty sophomoric, good only for pseudointellectual late-night college dorm bull sessions.

I'm far from a communist (life-long Republican) but people who take her philosophy seriously and live their lives according to its tenets are scum, plain and simple---people who would be right at home with buddies like Hitler and all the other megalomaniac dirtbags that have infested history.

***Deleted by ReadWryt***

I'm sorry---I'll readily admit I'm combative, but usually not abusive. But in this case it's warranted. Tolkien would reject your perverse outlook on life totally and utterly, as any person with decent values and ethics would.

Ayn Rand, for heaven's sake. The only decent thing that selfish hag ever did was die. Disgusting.

[lilhobo]

what can i say , i am aghast :eek:

[Grond]

Alas, I have a Seiko and a Chevy Pickup truck. Other than saying that, I won't respond to your own stupid and short-sighted statements.:(

BTW, I'm sure Christopher Tolkien agrees with you concerning his father. You can reach him at his villa in the South of France.:p

[daisy]

Joe,
Do you not get the fact that the author himself, in the forward to the book in question, very clearly and firmly explained that the book was an adventure created in his head, or heart? It was not an allegorical take on World Wars, or Hitler, or Stalin....at least NOT TO THE AUTHOR. I think it is great that you find so many ways to explore the trilogy and make connections in your mind. Yet I sense from your posts that you actually believe, unequivocably, that you are correct about your analysis. Do you not, in any way, find that totally insulting to Tolkein, that you have decided you know what he meant and what he was getting at? This may not be what you think you're saying, but this is what I am hearing ( or reading, as the case may be).

Hey, I'll debate like anyone about the allegorical, symbolic meaning and imagery in any work of art, or social or political or cultural event. Yet I stop far short from giving my meaning and definition to someone else's reality.
In one of my English classes at university years ago, we discussed the habit of white middle-class authors to take the voices of dis-enfranchised people of colour in their works. This was called appropriation - taking someone's identity, or voice. I feel at times that you rob Tolkein of his voice on a forum dedicated to the genius of the man.

There was a writer named J.R.R. Tolkein, and he created a world called Middle Earth and creatures like hobbits and orcs and Ents. And he wrote wonderful tales. Hell, he even created a language ( at least one) called Quenya, or high elven. And you know what? Those accomplishments are enough for me, without adding his name to the list of subconscious socio-political historical commentators of the twentieth century.

:(

By the way jamesy, there is a thread called the guild of politics somewhere in the Prancing Pony where people can discuss political issues.

And I am not sure whether choking on a pretzel and/or spelling words wrong is more pathetic than being really drunk on vodka and on an internet forum typing the word 'ha' over and over. It is truly a toss - up
And I am not an American, by the way.

[TheJospeh]

I just escaped from a teacher like you...thank goodness I made it out of high school and into University. Get this, Daisy, Postmodernism sucks so don't hoist its pseudo-relativism on me. Everyone's opinion is justified as long as you go on and on and on about how you could be wrong. Well, of course, I could be wrong and, of course, this is my opinion. It's coming out of my mouth isn't it?

I'm not disrespecting Tolkien at all. I'm simply acknowledging to separate levels of interpretation. What the author says doesn't have anything to do with his subconscious! Well, it does but they don't always agree is the point I'm making.

Furthermore, when I recommend Tolkien's work I leave all this junk out and tell them it is a grand faerie story. I'm betting Tolkien realized what his work contained and--maybe he was even disgusted with it--he didn't want that to overshadow the greater elements of the story. Avoiding allegory is almost impossible, some would say impossible.

If you are hearing that I am saying I am the be all and end all of the Tolkien world, then you are a fool. There is a difference between asserting your opinions confidently and claiming them to be facts. Opinion: Through analyzing yours posts I have concluded that you are a feminist who considers ALL passion and strong opinions to be asserting an archaic code that--and you would thank god for this no doubt--the sisterhood has managed to beat back.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

P.S. I don't think the Americans really need you defending them. Nor should you be defending them.

[telperion]

pppphhh , had 2 read that twice daisy , and i must agree with joe : your kind of reasoning made me drop out and live on the beach ......

[daisy]

Joe,

I will probably never understand your need to be personally insulting to people you have never met. It is not usually something I do, nor do I do it well when I try. I have been told over the years that I am a good teacher , but I have also been called a b--ch and to f-off from sixteen year old gang members close to tears so who knows? . I am a special ed. teacher so I try to find ways to help kids get through, you know? I am sorry if the teachers you experienced, or some of them anyway, made you have this attitude towards teachers, even ones you do not know.

I did not teach that class on appropriation. I was a student at the time. It definitely made me think, but who knows?

I don't know whether to be flattered of wierded out that you analyse my posts and find me a feminist who something something beat back something. Again, you reach much too deep. I didn't quite get that part.

I will continue to post me responses to your posts and be unafraid of your nasty replies. Whatever the reason you are so, I don't know, unhappy? I am sorry. I hope it gets better whatever it is.

Sometimes I am a fool. I bang into doors, drop pieces of pizza on my lap, sit on my cat. I cry at stupid long distance commercials and love ABBA. But people seem to love me more for it. So I forgive you.

Peace.
daisy

and telperion, bring me back some seashells.

[Grond]

Originally posted by TheJospeh
...I'm not disrespecting Tolkien at all. I'm simply acknowledging to separate levels of interpretation. 1) What the author says doesn't have anything to do with his subconscious! Well, it does but they don't always agree is the point I'm making.

2)....I'm betting Tolkien realized what his work contained and--maybe he was even disgusted with it... Avoiding allegory is almost impossible, some would say impossible.

3)...then you are a fool. 4)Opinion: Through analyzing yours posts I have concluded that you are a feminist who considers ALL passion and strong opinions to be asserting an archaic code that--and you would thank god for this no doubt--the sisterhood has managed to beat back.

5)P.S. I don't think the Americans really need you defending them. Nor should you be defending them. Gosh, where does one begin? 1) and 2) prove you to be a mind reader and apparently are claiming to know more of the subconcious mind of the author than the author himself; 3) and 4) insulting a really nice lady who makes a living improving life for kids who would otherwise likely be abandoned by society and 5) insulting a large percentage of the board who are American by your blatant anti-American sentiment. I won't respond, I will simply do what ReadWryt has advised us to do............consider your post reported to the moderator for further action. :) Have a nice day!

[ReadWryt]

Is that a thread I smell burning in the pits of the endless bitstream because people couldn't hold reasoned discourse without browbeating each other and making spurious accusations? *Sniff Sniff* Hmmmm, it would really be a shame for one of the oldest threads on the forum to be deleted just because someone couldn't mind their manners...

[TheJospeh]

1. I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp. Subconscious! The author is not conscious of his subconscious...at least not until he examines his writing. How can you think Tolkien is conscious of it before it goes into his writing?! HOW?!

2. Just stating an opinion. Is it out there? Maybe but it's my gut feeling. Nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not something I would include in a literary essay. However, on an informal forum I think it can be included.

3.+4. Please waste a moderators time. I have no qualms about that. I'm sure he will find nothing wrong with my post. And if he does then he will have a problem with your post, as well. You think there is a difference between calling someone a fool and telling someone they think they are a mind reader. It's just couching the sentiment--on your part--that I'm a fool in different language.

5. I'm quite certain I have a right to be anti-American. Furthermore, I'm responding to other posts, not taking the forum off-topic myself.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Foe-Hammer]

RW,

Do you really think jo gives a rats @ss about this thread? I thought it was a pretty good one, until........

[Grond]

This will be my last post to you TheJoseph, so you have cause to be happy. I have not ever used my ignore key before but there is a first time for everything and you are it.

In my post, I was not seeking to insult you, simply stating the truth. For you to know what the author was subconciously stating and/or thinking would require mind reading of a man that has been dead now for almost thirty years. That was not an insult, it was a fact.

In your post, you called Daisy a fool and insulted her directly and then proceeded to insult Americans. I won't stoop to name calling, it isn't necessary because everyone on the forum can see the writing on the wall and yes, TheJoseph we can read it too.

Foe-hammer, I'm wit' ya on this one.:)

[Foe-Hammer]

Grond,

Oh no! Watching this dummy self destruct will be tooooo much fun to miss!

Here's how it'll go......

He'll keep pushing RW et al, until they PM him with a warning. That wont work. Then they'll delete his posts and he'll come crying to the rest of the BB and try to make it a public issue. He'll do this by comparing his deleted posts to posts that are simular, but are still in the threads. This will begin his public cries that the admins are singling him out unfairly, to which they will list proof of his misdeeds and infuriate him even more. Then he will begin swearing and cursing like a drunk sailor. At that point the admins will ban him, contact his ISP, who will in turn contact his mommy and she will ground him from the computer and wash his mouth out with soap.

He will then go to another BB, and start the process all over again.

So, stick around. It's gonna be fun!! ROFLMAO!

[TheJospeh]

Trust me. RW can step back from the arguments and be just about this thing. As to comparing it to other people's posts? That I would do, but not in the public forum. And if they ban me, you know who will be coming along with me? I better spell this out for you: you, Foe-Hammer.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[Foe-Hammer]

LOL!

OK jo. Suuuurrrrrre. Keep talking, I'm almost convinced.

ROFLMAO!

[daisy]

Joe Joe Joe.

I will never get why you need to be insulting in your postings. I find it so hard to do that, even when I try. Who knows why you choose to go after my profession or my politics - feminist or otherwise. Red flags always go up when angry young people, especially men, start any sentence with, you feminist ( or something similar)...a la Marc Lepine.

As for being a fool, well, I can't deny it. I am clumsy, absentminded, I listen to Easy Rock and cry at commercials. I love ABBA and believe in aliens. I don't know exactly what qualifies me as a fool, but I'm sure you will find something . However, my follishness seems to make those who know me love me more, so quite an agreeable trade-off, non?


I am sorry you are such an unhappy person. Quite an assumption on my part, but it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Whatever it is that has made you so sad you need to be mean to others purposely, I hope things get better soon. And it sounds like you had crappy teachers for the most part and I am sorry about that too because there are lots of those. But my students kind- of love me, so that's okay. And some of them wrote three entire paragraphs today, even though they can barely write a sentnce sometimes. So,your strange agression notwithstanding, it's been a good day.

Peace to you, Joe.

[telperion]

waterloo?

[telperion]

wow , i've got a sudden urge to sing ....here goes

i'm a man
without conviction
i'm a man
who doesn't know
how to sell
a contradiction
he doesn't know
"" " " " " " " " "


even the elves had their differences but this is menschliches alzu mensliches (zarathustra)

[Grond]

kama kama kama Chameleon, he comes and goes... he comes and goes.:)

[Ciryaher]

I find the lack of maturity in some of our members disturbing...

I have noticed how a lot of the vultures that hang around in the Movie forums take a particular liking to derogatory comments, profanity, and generally having no purpose in the occurence that resulted from the combination of their parents' DNA [aka: life].

Now I accept the fact that America isn't perfect, but I must make a bit of a comparison that I observe. Take Gondor, now. It is the bastion of freedom, which shields the weaker lands in Middle-Earth from the Black Scourge. Thankless it is, and often scoffed at by outsiders, yet it is stalwart in its mission to protect.

Remember who protects you.

[TheJospeh]

...between a cliched line and a classic line? I don't know but I think this is a classic line rather than a cliched one.

"Sure, we have order. But at what cost?"

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[ReadWryt]

Ok, if this thread digresses any more with discussions about Who said What to Who...or "Who started it", or anybody defending something they posted that had NOTHING to do with "Changes in the Movie" then I will freeze this thread, delete everything that has been posted in it that is not about the subject and leave it frozen but readable as a reference.

If you folks can't keep to the subject and leave the personal **** in PMs and Email then I assure you that heads will roll and you can bet that *I* won't be arguing with anyone about "Who started what" or any of the things that you people seem to want to inflict on the users of this thread who would rather not have to post around your pitifull chest beating and rudeness! This is the LAST warning for ANY of you. If this cannot be resolved in PMs and Email then DROP it and leave it out of the PUBLIC THREADS.

Damn, now I know how those mothers feel driving down the freeway screaming at the kids in the back seat to shut up!

[telperion]

whooo, horsie whoo there.......
feminism, marxism, socialism, defending americanism:eek: ,
thanx ciryaher....but i'm out..

[Gloer]

...
Actually I liked all the changes. The movie was a s good as it gets.

So, everyone:

There is nothing here to discuss. All thechanges are likeable and nice... There is nothing interesting here... Go on. Move along to the next thread. The authorities are closing this place and everyone needs to leave...

[Samwise]

I agree. All the changes were good ones. Let's face it, it's imposible to put all the FOTR in to one three hour movie. I think PJ did a very good job.

[Camille]

Definitely what really bother me is Arwen as a warrior rescuing Frodo???? come on!!! and the way Merry and Pippin got themselves in the adventure, by stealing vegetables!! in the book they did it because they care about Frodo and they have decided not to let him alone

[Snaga]

The personal attacks need to stop and nothing I say below takes away from that. I think the tone that Jo uses is deplorable but feel there is for definite something in what he says - that the great issues and themes of the world in which Tolkien lived do indeed find an echo in his work. More than an echo.

Tolkien wants us to read LotR as a good story, and noone disputes that. Tolkien did not intend parallels to be drawn between his created world, and either his beliefs as a Christian or his experiences in the turmoil of the first half of the last century. But I think it is difficult to argue that, in a story about the fight of good against evil, that either his personal beliefs or his experience of war will have had no impact. Any portrayal of evil will rest on what you believe evil to be, or evil you believe you have witnessed.

I think the analysis (seperated from the abuse) that Jo offers falls down not on the specifics of case by case analysis of observable parallels. In most cases they are soundly argued. But it doesn't help to insist that there was a kind of subconscious intent in these, in a way that sounds like a form of schizophrenia. I see it more of the natural process of internalisation and externalisation that is the flow of how an artists creates.

I've seen in a number of threads a really strong resistance to this idea from a number of people who insist on repeating 'Its not allegory, its just a story' - to which I say 'Its not allegory - its great literature'. So you have a text which stands on its own legs as a marvellous story with characters you 'believe in' and love and care for. But you can read it on so many levels, and one is the level at which Joe does - looking for signs that JRRT has internalised and transformed the world in which lived into his creation.

If you don't see it that way, you won't bring that interpretation to the text. So equally Ciryaher sees Gondor as a parallel for the US (although he doesn't state that this is JRRT's intent). I can imagine that many in the world with a less favourable view of US foreign policy would not see this at all.

But taking the tone of Joe's posts aside, I'd also request a bit more tolerance of his views too (well not the personal attacks) because if someone wants to share what he gets out of the books, that's what the forum is for, no?:):cool:

*****************

Back on the theme of the thread - I think Bilbo and Sam are portrayed well in the film, but Frodo, Merry and Pippin are far too lightweight. I saw Frodo as serious and brave, Merry as Mr Organised, and Pippin as jolly and careless, but still no prankster. In the film they are not half the halflings I wanted to see.:)

[Grond]

I found it was just so much easier to add him to my ignore list. The views I don't object to at all, the way the views are stated and argued is to what I must strenuously object. Especially in my case where I tend to fight fire with fire. It's easier to wait until my friends in the forum tell me the rhetoric has been toned down. Then I can go in and unignore them.

I agree with VoK, the Forum is THE PLACE to exchange ideas concerning JRRT's works but a well ordered discussion is essential and beats an all out "Flame War" any day.:)

[Foe-Hammer]

So joe is gone? I hope not! I so wanted to watch him self destruct.

If tolkien admitted that the book was based on his experiences in wwI and the events of wwII etc, the charm of the book would be gone. And I'd bet that the history buffs among us could confirm that his story would parrallel most events in history where the conquest of the world was the goal.

Look at the crucifixtion of christ and his return, kinda mirrors gandalf. I'd also bet it would follow other religions too.

I believe tolkien was inspired by a higher power and this story was written with no events of history in mind.

[daisy]

No, Foe-Hammer, Joe has not been removed from the thread. I guess it is his call as to whether he will return to the forum for more discussions.

As far as I know, Joe was never slated for removal, although perhaps he came close a few times. Anyway, I don't remember whether we ever decided on the Arwen - Readwryt Helm's Deep photos - was that even in this thread?? I still say the hair doesn't work for me....

daisy

Had to add also that I agree with you Foe about Tolkein maybe taking themes from general, archetypal struggles of good against evil and not basing the trilogy on one specific historial world event. That is what is often so uncanny about world religions; their creation stories, archetypal figures, allegories, tenets, are often very similar.

d*

[Grond]

I think someone may have misunderstood my post. I simply stated that I added Joe to my ignore button. When I pull up a thread, his comments are not there. It is a feature available to everyone and should be used if you have an aversion to a particular poster. I don't have an aversion to what Joe says as much as I do to the way he says it. So..... I added him to my ignore list. A very civilized way to handle someone that you are ready to go to war with.:)

[daisy]

but I just remember that I was really ticked off by the total decimation of the relationship between Aragorn and Galadriel. In the book, they have this very nice conversation and she gives him the green elfstone thingy and this makes a nice seguey with Arwen but in the film there are some meaningful glances but that's it. ANd the necklace looked like something I could buy in the wicca shoppe on Queen. Nice shop but you get my point - hey by the way did you guys know we can buy actual replicas of the rings in certain stores??

And of course the hamburger joint ice goblets, and the little action figure wedges that, if you get them all and build them into a ring they light up or something....:rolleyes:

[Bryheinnen]

after having immersed myself so deeply in the books, having read them more than two dozen times, that some people simply cannot---or perhaps refuse to---see it as the deeply spiritual, clearly proto-Christian work that it so obviously is. I want to emphasize, by the way, that at one time I was an atheist/agnostic and even then I saw it as so. And to tell the truth, I was annoyed by that, as perhaps some on this board of my former atheistic convictions want to perceive it.

Indeed, reading these books was the epiphany that began my conversion to Christianity. I remain a very bad Christian, sometimes (many times!) even an unwilling one. But these books were the seminal event in leading me inexorably, resisting all the way, to my uncomfortable encounter with God. I DON'T THINK I AM BY ANY MEANS ALONE IN THIS RESPECT. I think many have read Tolkien and have been snared through beauty into the same inexorable journey that I have trod from unbelief to faith. I would be interested in those on this board who HAVE been thus changed would speak up and confirm the truth of my conclusion.

I'll conclude my part of this discussion/flame by saying simply this; I believe that people who read LOTR and who deny its deeply spiritual (and as I have said, proto-Christian) lack insight, much like the person who reads GULLIVER'S TRAVELS and sees it only as a clever and amusing fantasy, not as the savage satire that Swift composed it to be. Either that or they want to appropriate Tolkien's story while willfully resisting where it inevitably leads them. In either instance (and I mean no insult, sincerely) I feel sorry for them, because they have been blind to the real beauty of this towering work.

Another book well worth reading, as I have mentioned here before, is Richard Adam's dark and murky SHARDIK. It morphs the power of God into a shape at one and the same time alien and yet familiar to us. It often drags, but interspersed, like lighting in a fog, are scenes of great iconic power thaqt are (at least to this reader) never to be forgotten.

May the stars shine on the end of your journey....

[Grond]

Bry, the main difference was that Swift was writing a satire picking on the establishment at the time of its writing. Tolkien has repeatedly denied any such parallel. I won't argue with you that the structural setup is one of a single God world but I fail to see where there is a tell-tale Christian setting. Eru is all powerful and you could even go so far as to compare the Vala and Maia to arch-angels and angels. Do you see Frodo as Jesus and Gandalf as John the Baptist? Or is Gandalf the resurrected Christ and Frodo but a humble disciple? Is it Melkor or Sauron who is the evil Satan.

Undeniably, Tolkien own religious beliefs filtered into his works, whether he willed it or no. I just don't see them as keenly and sharply as do you. And I will have you know that I have tried. I, too, am a not so good Christian. This world is a place that I wish was and hope that somewhere it can be, by the Grace of God.

[Elbereth]

I hated how they brought Merry and Pippen into the story....The movie made them look like ignorant tag alongs...when in actuality, they knew about the ring well before Frodo, and recruited Sam to spy on Bilbo and Frodo, until the mystery was told.

Their whole conspiracy was completely ignore....and I thought that was one of the great points of the story...The very fact that Frodo's dear friends, would knowingly and willingly follow him into uncertain doom. The movie just made them look like unfortunate idiots who roped themselves into something they had no understanding of.

Well, I just hope the two movies to come will show them in a much better light.

I also didn't like the fact that the friendship between Gimli and Legolas was never established in this first movie. They are suppose to grow closer in Lothlorien...but that was never shown...I wonder how the future movies will deal with that lack.:confused:

[tresh]

I saw movie about a week ago and entered this forum about 20 minutes ago.

There were many changes, but the one thing that sent me flying to the boxoffice to ask my money back was the end.

OK so Boromir show his intention to take the ring, Frodo puts the ring, dissapears, sees the Eye. Then Frodo slips the finger of his hand and falls "right into" Aragon's arms. During their dialogue Aragon swears again to protect Frodo with his life, but send him a minute later into Mordor alone. During Frodo's escape stumbles into all his friends and they all let him GO!!!!!

If I remember corectly in the book Boromir was last of Fellowship to see Frodo before Mount Doom (exept for Sam). Merry and Pipin were caught becouse they were trying to find him, not becouse they were drawing Orcs away.

I do think this is THE MOST important part of the book (along with the council of Elrond, which was also messed up). So that was the only change I couldn't get over easily.

[Inwe]

Just one thing I've got to know. Where was Tom Bombadil?

[markrob]

Originally posted by Inwe
Just one thing I've got to know. Where was Tom Bombadil?

He and Glorfindel are at the Prancing Pony drowning their sorrow over a pint of brew and cheap pipeweed. Overheard in the conversation: "I cant believe that bastard Peter Jackson left us out of the movie, damn him, damn him to hell". Burppppp! :p

[Grond]

Originally posted by markrob
He and Glorfindel are at the Prancing Pony drowning their sorrow over a pint of brew and cheap pipeweed. Overheard in the conversation: "I cant believe that bastard Peter Jackson left us out of the movie, damn him, damn him to hell". Burppppp! :p roflmao

[Samwise]

The reason PJ had Arwen save Frodo is because he wanted to show the love between Aragorn and Arwen. Tolkien doesn't really show how much Arwen loved Aragorn, that she was willing to give up her immortality to be with him.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Samwise
The reason PJ had Arwen save Frodo is because he wanted to show the love between Aragorn and Arwen. Tolkien doesn't really show how much Arwen loved Aragorn, that she was willing to give up her immortality to be with him. I thought Arwen showed Aragorn her true love in their love scene in Rivendell where she forsook her immortality and bound herself over to him. I don't quite see where she is showing love of Aragorn in carting a Hobbit around on her horse. But, of course, I could be mistaken!!;)

[daisy]

okay but can you please explain to me what the whole knife at the neck thing was about? I haven't done that to any of my beloveds' - usually it was a fork!!!

daisy the sharp edged bad-ass flower:cool:

[lilhobo]

that was one for the women lib movement and you are moaning about it???? wazzzzzzzaaaaaaaaaaaaa :D

[telperion]

say what you want , but when she spoke Sindarin she was damn sexy...:D

[Mithiril]

Liv's voice was so low in that scene, at first I didn't even think it was her, I could have sworn that her voice was dubbed in. Strange...

Anyway, after seeing the movie several more times since this thread started, I have to say that the things that bothered me most consistently remain scenes that seem to alter the very essence of a character from Tolkien's description of them. The Arwen thing, of course, but the whole wizard duel still really gets to me. I've said it before: to me, wizards are so cerebral, they don't need to bash each other all over the place to establish dominance. I don't know how else to visually bring that to a movie, but I think PJ could have put a little more thought into how to show a struggle for power between 2 wizards and not have it look like a brawl. Less special effects, allow these 2 great actors to ACT.

The same with the Galadriel freak out thing...Cate Blanchett is entirely capable of displaying some fine acting, no need to rely on FX there either. Those things really stick out in my mind that I wish had been done differently.

[Samwise]

Sure everyone has things in the movie that could have been done better, but as a MOVIE not a comparison to the book, I think PJ did very good. I thought the movie was great, inspite of the changes.

[daisy]

lilhobo -

what exactly is a "women lib movement"?

Too much Arwen face in the commercials for the film on television.

daisy the white (petal)

[telperion]

women' libido movement perhaps?

[Gary Gamgee]

Boromir should never have picked up the Ring if he had done in the book then he surely would not have given it back to Frodo. And although Frodo is at times that scared in the book it is not constant like the Film. The Hobbit's character's in general really annoyed me, you had no sense of their stout heart's, their courage, thier humour nothing but helpless saps who fall into a dangerous quest. He still has two film's to do so let's hope that their character's improve, one bit of good news was they way Sam at the end of the film started to show us his huge loyality to Frodo.

[Thorin]

Yeah, the Boromir thing really bothered me. Sure they needed to set Boromir up for betrayal in the audience's eyes, but the power of the ring was quite diminished (add in the council of Elrond as well).

Despite poor editing and a lot of important stuff cut out, my biggest beefs are with what was done with what was left in:

1) Arwen
2) Wizard's duel (I'm with Mithril on that one)
3) Saruman
4) Boromir on Caradhras (As far as the rest of the scenes of Boromir and Sean Bean is concerned, he did a phenomenal job on Amon Hen...Kudos for the betrayal/redemption scenes
5) Galadriel and Lorien (though many of those scenes were edited out and will probably be put in the DVD version)
6) Poor character development (specifically of Aragorn at Bree and Merry and Pippen's meeting up and joining the fellowship)
7) Elrond (as an actor and as a character)
8) Council of Elrond poorly done

I felt that most, if not all of those things could have been improved even for time/budget/audience purposes...

Good things this purist liked:

1) Scenery
2) Costumes
3) Intro of overthrow of Sauron
4) Boromir's acting
5) Moria (except cave troll)
6) Gandalf (for the most part)
7) Legolas (for the most part)
8) Shire (for the most part)

Not having seen the movie since it came out has mellowed me a bit. I 'm sure if I went again, Arwen would put me on to another tirade of what I hate about the movie...:D

[Harad]

Arwen was a composite character taking in characteristics of the Books Glorfindel, Arwen, and perhaps Elronds sons. Composite characters are a standard technique when movies, all movies, need to compress the story because of severe time considerations. Arwen in the movie was true to the spirit of ME and LOTR as has been succesfully argued in many threads herein. And as an aside, Glorfindel in the book was a "weak" character as has been successfully argued in the "Searching for Glorfindel" thread.

Geez, I hope this reply is no more "repetitive" than the post that it replies to.

[Thorin]

Yes, it is repetitive...and just like all the other repetitive replies to repetitive posts like mine, it misses the point...

Nobody is whining (at least not me) about the loss of Glorfindel, a minor character...The problem is that PJ has taken another minor character and is beginning to make her into a major character and make her do not only some of the things the "other" minor character was doing, but stolen the thunder of other major characters. Even if PJ made up a completely different character (like Lurtz) to do the work of numerous other characters (to avoid having to deal with three or more different characters doing three or more different things) that might have been somewhat acceptable...It might as well be another character because Arwen will soon be unrecognizable for the many un-Tolkienish things PJ will have her do.

[Snaga]

Thorin

You say you don't like Saruman. Is it:
- the implication that he is a straightforward servant of Sauron, rather than playing a game and in it for himself that irks you
- the portrayal of him as responsible for the snow on Caradhras
- or Christopher Lee's portrayal of him that you don't like.
(Or all of the above / something else I've missed).

Apologies if I'm inviting repetition - I've not seen anyone post before that they thought Christopher Lee was weak as Saruman. In fact I thought he was really excellent, but the other criticisms I could relate to.:)

[Thorin]

The first two..

With what Christopher Lee had to work with, he did do a great job..Physically I think he looked the part quite well.,

[Harad]

"the implication that he was a straightforward servant of Sauron"

Where were the Orcs taking M&P anyway? Does the implication of things later proven to be wrong REALLY matter? Geez!

[baraka]

Originally posted by Samwise
I agree. All the changes were good ones. Let's face it, it's imposible to put all the FOTR in to one three hour movie. I think PJ did a very good job.

Why did PJ change the name of Bilbo´s book. Do you like that change also. It was totally innecessary and stupid.

[Snaga]

Chill out Harad, you're getting yourself all upset again, for no good reason.

Its possible to think that the subleties of the book could have been included by more thoughtful dialogue without concluding the film is ****. I think its an excellent film. I think adaptation is perfectly legitimate. But its just its not perfect. OK?

[Harad]

I'm icy VofK.
There are some like you (ithink) and me who can criticize issues in the movie, because it wasnt perfect. There are others who use those issues to slam the movie. I, for example, dont like the Wizard wrassling match. The hidden motivation of Saruman I believe is a bad rap for the movie.

[Thorin]

If the movie leads many of us fans to be confused to Saruman's motives, how will non-Tolkienites not be confused?

It seems pretty hard to reconcile M&P being carried off by Saruman's orcs and Saruman telling Gandalf "We must join Sauron!" And then threatening death to Gandalf because he refuses.

You can't reconcile the two because the former actually did happen in the book and the latter did not. That is where the script goes wrong and where Saruman's character is not only contradictory (whether it is explained later is not the point) but also his personal motives seem ambiguous and swallowed up by the spectre of Sauron....

The movie played this part out badly. So much of the justification by movie supporters of the things Saruman does in the movie is because PJ wanted to show a tangible villian early....He would have done that much more by emphasising that Saruman was in it only for himself rather than portray him as Sauron's crony.

[markrob]

Is it not possible that "movie" Saruman was just pretending to be a Sauron crony? I mean, hes got to work both sides to get into position to make his on play for the ring doesnt he? He is rather wise, so he cant show his hand too prodominatly or Sauron would suspect something. Everybody is so quick to jump on PJ about Sarumans character but I think we will see in future films that ole Saruman is using his wisdom to make his true move. Just something to think about.

Upon further research I have also found this bit of information:
" In 2953 Saruman took Isengard for his own and fortified it. There he gathered Orcs and Dunlendings, who at his orders began harrassing Rohan and Fangorn; he also began spying on Gandalf and keeping agents in Bree and the Shire. About 3000 he used his palantir and was TRAPPED by Sauron; after this time, although he thought himself free, he was ACTUALLY CONTROLLED BY SAURON. His pride grew even more rapidly than his power at this time, and by the time of WR he called himself Saruman the Many-Colored."

And then blah blah blah the rest is history. This is from The Complete Guide to Middle Earth by Robert Foster (1971). So it is possible that he WAS under the influence of Sauron but retained enough power to act for himself as well when the time came. Words for thought.

[Luthien]

And what about the medal that Arwen gives to Aragorn ¡?¡?¡

a bit cursi isn't it ?

[Grond]

Originally posted by markrob
Is it not possible that "movie" Saruman was just pretending to be a Sauron crony? I mean, hes got to work both sides to get into position to make his on play for the ring doesnt he? He is rather wise, so he cant show his hand too prodominatly or Sauron would suspect something. Everybody is so quick to jump on PJ about Sarumans character but I think we will see in future films that ole Saruman is using his wisdom to make his true move. Just something to think about.

Upon further research I have also found this bit of information:
" In 2953 Saruman took Isengard for his own and fortified it. There he gathered Orcs and Dunlendings, who at his orders began harrassing Rohan and Fangorn; he also began spying on Gandalf and keeping agents in Bree and the Shire. About 3000 he used his palantir and was TRAPPED by Sauron; after this time, although he thought himself free, he was ACTUALLY CONTROLLED BY SAURON. His pride grew even more rapidly than his power at this time, and by the time of WR he called himself Saruman the Many-Colored."

And then blah blah blah the rest is history. This is from The Complete Guide to Middle Earth by Robert Foster (1971). So it is possible that he WAS under the influence of Sauron but retained enough power to act for himself as well when the time came. Words for thought. From FotR, The Council of Elrond, Gandalf speaking to the Council, ..."He (Saruman) came and laid his long hand on my arm. 'And Why not, Gandalf?' he whispered, 'Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us. This 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 ask for the Shire, and what is your business there?' As he said this a lust which he could not conceal shone suddenly in his eyes."

That doesn't sound like he was totally under the control of Sauron, but he could have been fakin' it.:) And that's from the book markrob, I'm not sure what message PJ was trying to convey. I'll wait and see the other movies before I pass final judgement.;)

[daisy]

I don't know if you have these in other countries but you probably have something similar - Coles Notes, where classic literature is summarized and analysed so that slacker high school and university students don't have to actually read the book....

That's sort-of how I view the Saruman thing from the movie - PJ just had to make it clear in about seven minutes 20 seconds, or whatever amount of editing time he had, that Saruman had turned dark. He didn't have the ability to put in any real background or years unfolding etc. for this - he just had to make the point fast. Ergo - " We must join with Sauron". Short and simple for audiences to get - I've also read interviews where PJ discusses the fact the FOTR was missing a real visible villain - I mean, there were the yucky orcs and the Nazgul but they were brief...Gollum was nothing more than a shadow...and Sauron was a big burning cat eye or something. Perhaps he saw the Coles Notes Saruman as a way to give the audience a recognisable, clear 'villain' figure.

Just a thought. I have to get back to my Coles N...I mean, Tale of Two Cities....

daisy the reading reed:p

[Kuduk]

Daisy, in the States, the most venerable version we have is Cliff Notes. I always found it amusing that when classmates would complain that they couldn't find a book at the library, I would go and see that all the Cliff Notes versions would be checked out and impossible to find while there would be a zillion copies of the original novel lying around.

Returning to the current topic, I think someone brought this point up already, but the movie (FotR) does indicate that Saruman is in it for himself and not necessarily serving Sauron. When Saruman asks the Lurtz orc whom he serves, Lurtz lets out a full-throated "Saruman!" The fact that Lurtz does not hesitate, does not appear the least bit confused ("Sauron? I mean...Saruman!") and says it with all the gutso that Saruman has given him makes it clear enough (at least to me) that Saruman's previous actions and statements were a bit of a ruse. True, one never actually hears Saruman say "Go jump in a lake of molten lava, Sauron! I'm taking the Ring myself!" But I think most moviegoers don't need things spelled out for them (at least not all the time).

I agree that Saruman's statement to Gandalf that they must join Sauron because he is too powerful comes across as a bit crass. Being the skilled and polished speaker he is, Saruman should have known better that Gandalf wouldn't fall for a line like that and certainly wouldn't respond to that kind of logic. I would have expected something much more suave (or at least oily) from him.

But I don't find PJ's decision to mislead folks that Saruman is serving Sauron to be wrong. Misdirection is an important part of entertainment from horror thrillers to magic tricks, and even Tolkien engaged in a bit of that during his books.

So what's the big deal?

[Thorin]

I don't think Lurtz saying he serves Saruman shows that Saruman is in it for himself at all.. It shows Lurtz acknowledging who HIS master is...If during WWII you took an American soldier and said, "Who do you serve in all this?" He would have said President Roosevelt and America, sir." But that doesn't negate the fact that these soldiers were part of the allied forces with Britain, fighting the war with them.

I don't really feel the movie does show Saruman deciding after all that he wants it for himself. It shows contradiction at best. It doesn't seem like a very smart move to all of a sudden switch sides with no explanation to the movie going public when the book makes it quite plain that Saruman was in it for himself all the time. Gandalf knew it and Saruman knew it...Tolkien showed how wily he is. He tried to get Gandalf to his side to give their order, the wizards more power. The movie ignores this part of Saruman's character by turning Gandalf off immediately with no hope of Gandalf even contemplating giving up the ring to benefit himself (or Saruman would have Gandalf think) by saying, "We must join Sauron!"

That's like telling a kid, "Here, stick your hand in this running blender that looks like a cookie jar." Instead of having the blender hidden and saying, "Hey kid, you want a cooookieee???"

[Isildur's Bane]

is that all thats getting to you. what about the fact that Stider's sword is broken. he has to use just flaming brands sticks and other stuff (you know grass, moss and gravel. his wallet, mobile fone etc) to fight off the Nazgul. thats what really got to me.

[Harad]

That's another complaint in the category of "Blame JRRT." Strider's sword was broken in the Book up until the time he reached Rivendell.

[Isildur's Bane]

Did they not make a big song and dance out of reforging it though?

[Harad]

Its true. That is still to come in the movies.

And, BTW I did not mean to welcome you necessarily with an argument, so,

Welcome to the forum.

[Isildur's Bane]

Thats's alright. and ta for the welcome.

[Samwise]

Originally posted by baraka


Why did PJ change the name of Bilbo´s book. Do you like that change also. It was totally innecessary and stupid.

I didn't notice that change. In the movie it was called "there and back again, a hobbits tale" that is what it was called in the book. I didn't like all the changes but the movie was better than the animated one.

[tresh]

Keep in mind that animated movie was created at least 15 years ago. Correct me if I am wrong. Even then it followed story better than the PJ's movie. Offcourse they couldn't have made every scene from the book. But ceating scenes that weren't in the book and forgetting more important scenes,which is a case with PJ's movie (or mesing up scenes that are in the film and a book) just isn't right.

I would have said it was a great movie only if they made a short little signature.

Based on book by JRR Tolkien

Then it would mean they took characters, some scenes and some events from the book and made up everything else.

[Harad]

That would be fine, except for the fact that the PJ movie followed the book very closely:

characters, plots, concepts, general feel of middle earth

with minor changes, that had no importance compared with the overall spirit of LOTR.

It is was a story about a cross country car race with Frodo and Sam in one car and Sauron and Saruman in another, then it would be loosely based on LOTR.

[tresh]

I heard feminist groups demanded that TFotR is removed from the cinema until more females were brought into the movie. So I wondered where the changes would be:

Film needs a major female character:
So either Frodo, Gandalf would be female (probably Gandalf becouse there isn't any female wizards)
Some of supportng cast should be female (ofcourse as a part of fellowship) so that would be Sam (posible romance with Frodo), either Mery or Pipin and Legolas (people wouldn't want to see female dwarf).

When I picture those changes I'm almost glad movie turned the way it did.

[Mithiril]

Oh please, feminists are blamed for everything, including the downfall of civilization as we know it. (Evil working moms!)

Did they change Harry Potter into a young Joan of Arc instead of a wizard because Christian groups wanted their input?

The only influence on big movie productions is the almighty dollar and what might bring in more of them ... not that there's any thing wrong with that. I'm all for capitalism, but I seriously doubt that special interest groups all want to have their way with the plot to the best book ever written.

(clunk) sound of not-so-gracefully falling off of soapbox

[Kuduk]

Originally posted by Thorin
I don't think Lurtz saying he serves Saruman shows that Saruman is in it for himself at all.. It shows Lurtz acknowledging who HIS master is...If during WWII you took an American soldier and said, "Who do you serve in all this?" He would have said President Roosevelt and America, sir." But that doesn't negate the fact that these soldiers were part of the allied forces with Britain, fighting the war with them.

I don't really feel the movie does show Saruman deciding after all that he wants it for himself. It shows contradiction at best. It doesn't seem like a very smart move to all of a sudden switch sides with no explanation to the movie going public when the book makes it quite plain that Saruman was in it for himself all the time. Gandalf knew it and Saruman knew it...Tolkien showed how wily he is. He tried to get Gandalf to his side to give their order, the wizards more power. The movie ignores this part of Saruman's character by turning Gandalf off immediately with no hope of Gandalf even contemplating giving up the ring to benefit himself (or Saruman would have Gandalf think) by saying, "We must join Sauron!"

That's like telling a kid, "Here, stick your hand in this running blender that looks like a cookie jar." Instead of having the blender hidden and saying, "Hey kid, you want a cooookieee???"

Thorin, you are certainly entitled to your interpretation of Lurtz' 'I serve Saruman!' scene and while your analogy to WWII soldiers may be valid, that doesn't rule out the possibility that the scene can be interpreted in other ways by other people. It can just as easily be interpreted as Saruman's declaration of independence. There is nothing in the film to contradict that interpretation.

In the book, Gandalf (despite whatever doubts he may have had) did not truly know Saruman's true intentions before their actual meeting. This is reflected in the movie. I agree that the Gandalf-Saruman encounter could have been handled much more adroitly. I missed not seeing Saruman's shimmering many-colored rainment and I was particularly disappointed not hearing Saruman's bombastic speech about his new duds and then Gandalf's priceless retort in response, "I think I preferred white." (One of the best lines in the book, IMO).

So the depiction of Saruman's motivations doesn't speak to you, Thorin. That is fine. And you can quibble with the director's execution too, I'm just pointing out there is room for other interpretations of what was seen in the movie and that Peter Jackson wasn't necessarily doing nor intending to do whatever it is that you seem to think he was doing.

[Lindir]

I´m sure this has already been posted, but I can´t browse through all the pages to check, so:
Isn´t it slightly annoying that everything that happened after Bilbo´s birthday party until Frodo wakes up in Rivendell takes just a month? The hobbits´journey in the book does, but in the film we also have Gandalf going to Minas Tirith and coming back. And then he goes to Orthanc in the same month. And there is also some implication that he has seen Gollum in this month also, since he can report that Gollum disclosed the names Baggins and Shire.
Why the rush?

[Harad]

In the Book its 17 years. The movie could have the pages of a calendar rip off or the season's changing (like the Bakshi film) but...

it doesnt.

[Talierin]

That is one thing I didn't understand. They put 60 years later on when frodo first shows up, and they have all the Elvish in subtitles, why couldn't they put 17 years later on? I don't think it would have been all that much trouble.

[Harad]

They put 60 years later on when frodo first shows up,

Memory going..disk full...

In the movie, after Bilbo gets the Ring, they put on the screen "60 years later"?

Movies are all about pacing. I guess after the times jumped around in the Intro-- and THEY really jumped in the Intro, about 3000 and 60 years--PJ figures, best now to have a "continuous" time line without more "unnecessary" jumps.

[Talierin]

Yep, it's right at that first shot when they show Frodo under the tree.

[Lindir]

I just thought of something. They never actually stated that Bilbo´s birthday was on the 22nd of September in the film, did they?
So maybe it didn´t all happen in a month, and I should stop being annoyed. But it´s still too rushed.

[lilhobo]

Originally posted by Talierin
That is one thing I didn't understand. They put 60 years later on when frodo first shows up, and they have all the Elvish in subtitles, why couldn't they put 17 years later on? I don't think it would have been all that much trouble.

sure and dont forget the "TO BE CONTINUED" caption

[B Proudfoot]

Hello all, I'd like to share my thoughts about the film if I may. Firstly though, I've been waiting for this film scince I was 7 years old. I'm now 32. My dad read the Hobbit and LOTR to me when I was young and it's been a constant companion since then, never far from the bedside cabinet and regularly dipped into with the full reading every couple of years or so. My son is now getting to the age were I hope to pass the magic of Tolkiens writing onto him.

The film for me is a triumph. I can understand the disappointment about Arwen, Legolas appears a nobody in the film when, for me his relationship within the fellowship (Gloin obviously and the race to save Merry and Pippin) are magical. Sadly he's reduced to Aragorns side kick with a wicked archery skill!

Merry and Pippin are too brave in the face of the Nazgul, (in fact they all are if you ask me. I always felt that the opening of bowels was the best you hope for when faced with a black rider and the way the film shows us Borimir giving sword lessons on the hillside, then taking on legions of Orcs and a cave troll in the tunnels of Moria did seem a little silly. Why at this rate, Gondor won't need an army, just send out the Hobbits!

Lastly, I miss Gollum. In the cartoon version, forgive me I don't know who directed it or who did the voice of Gollum, was SUPERB. "Sneeeaaakiinn!" The new film has made him an ineffectual computer animated baffoon, when in reality, both Gandalf and Aragorn relied completely on him to fill in the missing gaps to the ring history and the on-coming danger that was heading for the shire.

"Do you not yet understand? My time is over: it is no longer my task to set things to rights, nor to help folk to do so."
Bumbulin' crazy wizard...I ask you?:p

[Thorin]

Originally posted by B Proudfoot

Merry and Pippin are too brave in the face of the Nazgul, (in fact they all are if you ask me. I always felt that the opening of bowels was the best you hope for when faced with a black rider


LOL...I agree with that one! The only real fear they show is when the Nazgul is peering over the tree stump...And Sam coming up to Aragorn and saying, "Let him go or I'll have you, Longshanks". Was a pretty cheesy line that was out of place for what should have been a frightened hobbit, despite the fact that Sam was protective of Frodo.

Thought the movie did a pretty good job of making the Nazgul look scary, it did not make those who encountered it afraid as much as they should have been.

[Flame of Utumno]

Things that ticked me off the most:

- Galadriel / Lorien looked too dark and evil, and didn't really seem like a place of rest.
- The Uruk Hai were overdone and looked too man-like

[Snaga]

I can go with the comments about Galadriel and Lorien but the one about the Uruk-Hai is interesting.

Do you remember from the book the 'southerner' at the Prancing Pony and later Aragorn and Merry/Pippin discussing how the Isengarders looked like him? That suggests that the Uruk-Hai must have been quite man-like for the southerner to pass for human.

[Lindir]

This isn´t exactly a change from the books, but something that has annoyed me just a (very) little every time I´ve seen the film. When Saruman orders his orcs to cut down the trees they comment on how deep the roots are, when we can see that in fact the roots are very shallow. I´m amazed the trees have lasted so long. One storm and they would have collapsed.

And the orcs should have looked more human, not less.

[Smurfheim]

Hey! I've got one!

What in the world did the orcs of the Dwarf City do for food? How many were there? 10, 20 thousand? More? Maybe they have underground mushroom farms... Or they eat their own. If they were to reproduce at a rate that a child is born every three days or so for every 3-4 orcs, they could feasably eat the oldest of them at a similar rate to keep the population going. You think?

[pixieamalthea]

blech!
interesting thought though....:eek:

[Snaga]

Originally posted by Smurfheim
Hey! I've got one!

What in the world did the orcs of the Dwarf City do for food? How many were there? 10, 20 thousand? More? Maybe they have underground mushroom farms... Or they eat their own. If they were to reproduce at a rate that a child is born every three days or so for every 3-4 orcs, they could feasably eat the oldest of them at a similar rate to keep the population going. You think?
Hey Smurf good to see they've got the internet out to your isolated self-sufficient rural community. The rest of us rely on bit of trade and barter to get hold of food, and I'm guessing that's what the dwarves did too!!;)

[Harad]

I dont know where the criticism of this was-might have been here-it took about 20 seconds of movie time from when Sam went under until when Frodo's hand grabbed Sam's hand.

[Tar-Steve]

I thought the same thing about that criticism. Whether you liked it or not it hardly deserves mentioning among "things that tick you off the most". It belongs more in the "whatever" or "who cares" pile.

Does anybody have a take on what they think Jackson was trying to express with that drowning Sam image? A: I've only seen the movie once and B: I didn't get the point of that series.

[Harad]

Everytime I see the movie I like it more, so with that in mind: the Sam Drowning scene demonstrated the growing (non-gay) love between Frodo and Sam in a very real way by Sam risking his life to accompany Frodo, and Frodo saving his life. 20 seconds of movie time is worth making that point (made also in the book).

[Snaga]

I had only one problem with that scene - Frodo appears to disappear from the boat at one point! I sort of noticed it the first time I saw the film, and subsequent times I'm still not sure if its just a trick of the camera angles. But anyone he appears to not be in the boat at one point.

I wondered if they had tried doing the scene with Frodo invisible (as per the book), changed their mind and then got mixed up editting. Has anyone else noticed this?

[Harad]

Some have criticised the movie (again I am not sure if its this thread, but it might as well be) for the fact that Saruman seems to be a confirmed member of Sauron's band rather than a free-agent playing both sides. The movie, in fact, makes this point but subtly.

1. The Uruk-Hai that Saruman creates for "Sauron's army" acknowledge "Saruman" as their leader.

2. Saruman's orcs are retrieving the halflings to Saruman at the end of FOTR. This is bound to lead to bad feelings between Sauron and his erstwhile underling, as any viewer could intrepret.

3. I think during one of the wizard wrassling matches that Gandalf points out, as in the book, that only 1 finger can wear the Ring at one time, casting doubt on Saruman's motives.

In any case, the criticism of PJ's Saruman in the first movie, can easily lead to praise of PJ if he has kept this "book secret" hidden, and reveals it as a plot "twist" in TTT.

[Minas]

Watched the movie for #3 the other day. The majic I think is starting to wear off a bit but still loved compared to all the other movies on offer.
The Hobbits need to be stout in the face of fear. PJ shows the terror of the Nazgul at certain times but I agree he is not consistent. In the book however the hobbits every so often would 'snap' from being petrified to being beserk and having a crack at any bad arsed mother in sword range.
In the movie the dog barks snarls and then backs off before the hobbit watchman looses his head. This is enough to give the idea that the nazgul are not to be toyed with.

[ssgrif]

I have to dsay that ok, there are a few scenes in the movies which are a bit "cheezy" to but it mildly: Such as sam drowning at the end of the movie.

The scene which really ticks me off (and I'm sure its already been mentioned before thousands of times) is the one with, yep you guessed it, Arwen and the Nazgul by the river near rivendell.

Sorry, should have stuck with the books version of events, Arwen, you didnt save Frodo, Elrond and Gandalf did!

sheesh!

:mad:

[WARDNINE]

Woooooooo.
Back from a hospital stay (getting new guts).
Hey, when they say they got new guts, you don't argue...
Thanks for keeping the post going.........
:)

[greypilgrim]

the arwen scene was BAD. worse still was the council of elrond! and what was that scene on the mountain, where boromir picks up the ring, on carahdras?

[Thorin]

quote from greypilgrim:

"the arwen scene was BAD. worse still was the council of elrond! and what was that scene on the mountain, where boromir picks up the ring, on carahdras?"

Boy, it sure is nice to have a bit of support after I've harped on this exact problem since September! Denounced as a purist for preaching against the heresies against Tolkien on a Tolkien forum! :rolleyes: Though the heresies and persecution against the faithful from the heretics aren't as bad as before.

I have been continually frustrated by members who have found every argument under the sun to justify the above scenes! Arwen was bad..So bad that I decided to go get some rootbeer by the time that Arwen was cradling Frodo and saving him after saving the day.....It was just sooo bad and wrong!

COE was bad as well...I went and made an alternate screenplay for COE as well, but apparently it is gone for good because it was a while ago.... I was miffed at Boromir's picking up the ring on Caradhras as well (though as an actor, Sean Bean redeemed his character by his great scenes of trying to take the ring from Frodo and defending the hobbits to the death, and his redemption...Great job!)

My second biggest beef (besides Arwen) was the way that Saruman was portrayed and the ridiculous amount of scenes that were put in about Orthanc and the orcs...

[greypilgrim]

yes, peter jackson did some bad things. but he did do alot of good things also with this movie. special effects and scenery, plus the acting was excellent. it doesn't matter, alter the story as much as you want to pj, because i will see the next movies as many times as i saw the first! i'm at 4 now, but i'll buy the dvd.
he didn't do that bad on the movie thorin, NOBODY could have gotten it ALL right!

[pixieamalthea]

it's true. PJ did a really good job despite all of the changes he made. I'm not completely happy with some of the changes he made, but overall, it turned out to be an awesomely wicked movie.
Actually, I wonder how the movie would have turned out if Tim Burton had directed it....what do you guys think?

[TheJospeh]

Judging from his Batman stuff he would make the movie and the book as close together as humanly possible. Then he would claim he reinvented "The Lord of the Rings."

"You know all the crime-fighting in Batman? That's all me!"
"Uh, yeah, sure it is Tim."

Don't get me wrong, "Planet of the Apes" notwithstanding Burton is a great director. One of the best around. I prefer Croenenberg but Burton is still good.

Sincerely,
The Joseph

[greypilgrim]

i will wait to see the next movie before i make a formal opinion of peter jackson.

[Grond]

Originally posted by greypilgrim
i will wait to see the next movie before i make a formal opinion of peter jackson. Ditto!!!:)

[TheJospeh]

900!!!!!!! Wow.

[Samwise]

Originally posted by greypilgrim
the arwen scene was BAD. worse still was the council of elrond! and what was that scene on the mountain, where boromir picks up the ring, on carahdras? The part with Boromir picking up the ring was to help the general audience (people who haven't read the books) to understand how the ring was very tempting to use. Gandalf, Frodo, Bilbo, Galadriel, and Boromir were all examples of how powerful the ring was.

[daisy]

You know, I was totally distracted by Elijah Wood's saucer eyes every five seconds...
a useless post, but had to get it out...
Although Frodo in the book may have had big saucer eyes so this may not exactly be a change

[PRH]

I might as well get my dig in here...

This really ticked me off:

Galadriel to Frodo (telepathically) -

"He will try to take the Ring. You know of whom I speak."


We didn't need this at all. It totally spoils what might have been a little surprise when Boromir goes after the Ring. We had plenty of foreshadowing without Galadriel's explicit statement. We have Boromir's comments at the COE about wanting to use the Ring. There's the incident on Cahadhras. We have the part where Galadriel is tempting the Fellowship and shows the complete constast between how Boromir returns her stare and how Frodo does. We also have the part where they pull onto shore at Parth Galen and Boromir is staring intently at Frodo. This was more than enough, why did PJ go and spoil it with Galadriel's pronouncement?

[Thorin]

:confused:

Thanks, PRH...Now I have something else to gripe about...they just keep coming and coming!

I never even noticed that telepathic message...I agree...stupid, stupid, stupid....

Alright PJ fans, start justifying this "little" thing like the many other additions, subtractions, distortions and alterations that carry the plot and characters farther and farther from the book you all have been justifying for months....Though just admitting that PJ did some stupid things in the film would probably go farther to your credibility in a purist's eyes...;)

[Harad]

Its remarkable that such a good movie could contain one terrible moment after another. In the book:


"Yet hope remains while all the Company is true." And with that word she held them with her eyes, and in silence looked searchingly at each of them in turn.


Now THAT would be a great movie moment. I am glad you did not make LOTR:FOTR which would have been the last movie in a series of one.

[tookish-girl]

It is in the movie, isn't it?
It's one of the lines she actually says and we don't just hear it whispered into Frodo's ear.

[Snaga]

I'm going to have to agree that this doesn't work. For the simple reason that if Galadriel knew that Boromir would take the ring she should have locked him up. In the book she knew he was in peril which is rather different.

[PRH]

"Yet hope remains while all the Company is true." And with that word she held them with her eyes, and in silence looked searchingly at each of them in turn.


It is in the movie, isn't it?


Absolutely, this is in