View Full Version : What change in the movies ticks you off the most?

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

10-18-2001, 02:23 AM
For me, it's not Arwen, it's Lurtz, and the orcs hatching out of pods. That just bugs the heck out of me. You would think, since the orcs were made in mockery of the elves, they would reproduce as elves do. What is with the pods and cocoons!!! Does PJ think they're ants or some sort of bug??? And this Lurtz dude, what is with adding him in? I'm not sure if he is actually purple/blue, but in a couple pics I have seen he is purple/blue. What is up with that? He kind of reminds me of......Barney the purple dinosaur *shudders* in a way.

So, what change is really ticking you off?

10-18-2001, 03:25 AM
Orcs from pods?! Arwen a warrioress?! Some dude named Lurtz?! I think I speak for many people when I say...


I know that Peter what-his-name may have cinematic license, but DID THIS DUDE EVER READ THE BOOKS! This is almost enough to keep me from going to see it...almost.

10-18-2001, 04:07 AM
I'd say it Lurtz. And, I don't think it even sounds like an orc name. The orcs out of pods does rank up there though. Action Arwen would be next on the list....

10-18-2001, 04:38 AM
Ponds? That's terrible! How could they sink that low?

10-18-2001, 06:19 AM

If it couldn't get any worse!! Orcs from pods?

That does bother me, but to me the orcs are less significant characters. When they take and screw up the "good guys" characters, that bothers me.
And theArwen-warrior-spell-casting-witch-ifyouwanthimcomeandclaimhim-steroid wench REALLY REALLY BOTHERS ME!!!!!

There are little things that bother me. Like Gandalf grabbing Frodo and asking "IS IT SAFE?" like some crazy old man.

10-18-2001, 06:25 AM
Here is picture proof that the orcs are hatching from pods in the movies:


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

10-18-2001, 11:52 AM
For me, in general, it's the changing of the nature of the characters on the whole. Sam and Merry are much too bold when confronted with the Nazgul, who's only real supernatural power is the incredible fear they invoke in any who are not fearless.

Gandalf becomes a sputtering madman, "Is it here? Is it SAFE?!?". Tolkien wrote to Forrest J. Ackerman about the draft script that Disney fielded, "...Gandalf, please, should not 'splutter'. Though he may seem testy at times, has a sense of humour, and adopts a somewhat avuncular attitude to hobbits, he is a person of high and noble authority, and great dignity."

In fact, in general, Tolkien spoke to changes in characters later in the same letter, #210 in the yr 2000 edition of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, "I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in style and sentiment. I should resent perversions of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it apears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the Plot and Scenery."

10-18-2001, 06:47 PM
Anyone know if the Legolas "shield surfing" is still in?

10-18-2001, 07:37 PM
sheild surfing? When they tried to cross the readhorn pass?

10-18-2001, 09:17 PM
Like Telchar said, Sheild surfing?

Tell me about this one...

10-18-2001, 09:20 PM
I heard somewhere during the battle at Helms Deep he surfs on a shield (down steps?) I think this came from the footage in Cannes, but am not sure.

edit update: I just read on TORN that this scene was filmed but may be cut (<- supposedly from a "reliable source") Cheers

10-18-2001, 10:07 PM
the legolas thing doesn't tick me off too much ,ZenArwen however does,Pray pj gets the story line down!

10-19-2001, 02:50 AM
Is it too late for him to make any changes to it? I don't see why he did this pod-thing (where could he even fit this into the storyline?!), and the change with Arwen is totally unnecessary. She's just supposed to be this little Elven-hottie that sits in the Hall of Fire & has next to no lines, and Aragorn marries her in the end. The great female warriors are supposed to be Galadriel and Eowyn (though Galadriel doesn't fight, she has the warrior spirit).

And Gandalf, sputtering like a senile old man?! That is completely out of character! Peter should have gotten Christopher Tolkien to help him go through this thing and approve (or disapprove!) of any changes he made.

10-19-2001, 02:59 AM
I think the pod thing is going to be in Two Towers, in Orthanc. Probably just some shots giving the tour of Orthanc, and setting up the story for Lurtz.

10-19-2001, 08:06 AM
Have any of you checked out the changes made in the movies at tolkienonline? THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY MORTIFYING! Jackson is taking ludicrous and unecessary liberties with the movie! I must cry out WHY? WHY? WHY? Why not leave things as they are?????
Besides the horrific ones already mentioned (Lurtz, Arwen, Crazy Gandalf, pod-Orcs):

1) Balrog chases Fellowship to the bridge of Khazad-dum and fellowship jumps over chasm....LEGOLAS CATCHES GIMLI BY THE BEARD before he almost falls in!!

2) Orcs chase Fellowship to Lorien where they are barely saved by Elves.

3) Elves haul Fellowship into trees at last minute to evade a second group of trolling orcs.

4) Only Legolas and Gimli are blindfolded in Lorien instead of the whole Fellowship.

5) Frodo meets up with Aragorn after the Boromir encounter on Amon Hen and tells an "understanding" Aragorn that he must go into Mordor alone.

6) Aragorn fights orcs (and Lurtz) on Amon Hen

7) All Fellowship attacks the Watcher of the Gates.

8) Galadriel floats on some cheesy amusement park boat instead of large swan boat paddled by two elves.

9) Gimli uses his axe on the ring sitting on a pedestal in the council of Elrond to show it's indestructability. What it is doing away from Frodo is beyond me.

10) Boromir gets a hold of the ring on Caradhras and quotes a line that he used on Frodo at Amon Hen.

11) Merry and Pippin are given much more roles (overhear Gandalf and Frodo talk about the ring in Hobbiton, volunteer themselves at the council of Elrond (as do all the Fellowship, as opposed to Elrond appointing them)), fighting in Moria.

12) Bilbo is not even at the Council, and there are many other unidentified people sitting there as well.

That was just a bit of FoTR folks...I didn't even check out TT and RoTK. I am getting madder and more unmotivated by the minute to see this movie. I can somewhat understand cutting Bombadil for time's sake. But what the heck does it prove to change all the little things?? All it shows is Jackson's lack of respect and regard for the seemingly "little" things that mean alot to the story and is not a big deal to be left alone, yet Jackson changes them.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

10-19-2001, 09:36 AM
nooo that is not good...

the pod thing with the orcs remind me of the movie Matix...

10-19-2001, 12:52 PM
10) Boromir gets a hold of the ring on Caradhras and quotes a line that he used on Frodo at Amon Hen. :confused:

10-19-2001, 09:55 PM
Let us breath first, that see if those aren't nasty little rumors, for how much boasting he did it would be to pathetic. Don't get uninterested yet. Give the poor guy a chance

10-20-2001, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Telchar

"The Ring! Is it not a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt for so small a thing? So small a thing!"

- Boromir (at Amon Hen, now on Caradhras after the ring slips off Frodo's neck when he falls and Boromir picks it up, then easily gives it back to Frodo at the command of Aragorn. This, along with Bilbo dropping the ring on the floor and giving it up easily, as well as the ring sitting on a pedestal at the council, really lessens the impact of the power of the ring)

Tar, most of the changes on www2.tolkienonline.com/movies/changes

are rated out of 5 for reliability. Most of them are rated between 3/5 and 5/5. There is another link called Debunked Rumors separate from the changes links.

I didn't even go into the changes they have made when the Fellowship is in Bree. Many changes! Blasphemy!

10-20-2001, 12:19 AM
whatever i just want to see the movie!I don't (maybe i do) care but why make such a bother hollywood itself is never accurate

10-20-2001, 12:43 AM
As I've said before Tar. LoTR is not some cheap five and dime store novel. It is considered one of greatest books of the 20th Century and has developed an incredible following from it's imaginative power. You don't just take that and bastardize it because Hollywood, who as you've said does that to movies, wants to get its mud hooks on it and create a big money maker.

Having your kid taking a crayon and defacing your average local artist's painting is a lot different then him scribbling all over your Picasso. Don't you think that something this awesome deserves a little more sacredness? LoTR is a classic literary work that intertwines symbolism and allegory and prose and poetry into a story. When you change things, you change the rest. By eliminating the eggs, you alter the cake. The changes made aren't as insignificant as you may think. Most of PJ's changes are not just gimmicks to make more money or get a bigger audience By his changes he has:

1) Diminished the power of the ring, which is a central part of the story.
2) Gone against the specific wishes of Tolkien himself written in his letters as to how his characters should be portrayed. Tolkien must have had a good reason for keeping his characters as he wrote them don't you think?
3) Eliminated crucial elements to the background and history of things that are important to truly understanding the whole story.

I'm surprised it doesn't bother you that the person who has decided to undertake a venture such as bringing this masterpiece to the screen has such a casual disregard to what Tolkien intended. Oh well.

I'm not denying that it will be a entertaining movie. I'm not saying that I will not see it. I just don't think that it is truly Tolkien and I do believe that it will distort the way "newbies" will view the real LoTR and Tolkien in general.

10-20-2001, 12:45 AM
SHUT UP sorry, what if it's not true! What if!

10-20-2001, 12:48 AM
Tar, that was really, really rude.......

10-20-2001, 12:49 AM
yes.. i'm very sorry but i hate people who complain. I mean does he even know it's true!

10-20-2001, 12:56 AM
Haven't you looked at other websites Tar? Do you even do any research? Haven't you been listening to what everyone on this board is saying? Changes have been made. BIG changes and "little" changes (though just as damaging). Do you think I'm spouting cheesy rumor and rhetoric? What I'm saying is true regardless of WHAT changes are made. The principle is still the same.

Get a grip, Tar and realize that some people do care about what Tolkien intended even if you don't. That's what this board is for and that's why we all have congregated here to talk (and complain) about it. What are you here for?

10-20-2001, 05:39 AM
I Care! But i'm not that obsessed! I have a life,school work, and friends (i know you guys do too) I do not spend the hours of the weary night researching a MOVIE! If pj messes up he does its the uninformed viewers loss, also people should read the book because they want to NOT because a movies coming out

10-21-2001, 01:37 AM
Hey. Some of us don't spend that much time looking at the things about the movie (I've only seen the trailer, and none of the pictures & other things), but we care deeply about that changes that more than likely have been made to the storyline.

10-21-2001, 01:39 AM
welcome krass,i'm glad some1 takes my side.

10-21-2001, 08:15 AM
Tar: I believe Kraas was disagreeing with you.

I'm in total agreement with Thorin here (not meaning to take sides in any argument), pretty much down to the last word.

As for the original topic, I think Action Arwen still annoys me the most. However, I would very strongly disagree with this earlier statement, "She's just supposed to be this little Elven-hottie that sits in the Hall of Fire & has next to no lines, and Aragorn marries her in the end." In my opinion Arwen is supposed to be one of the strongest characters in the books, though within the storyline of LotR she obviously does not play a huge role. I think it shows extraordinary strength of spirit that she would make the choice to give up immortality, a home, family, and Heaven itself because her love for Aragorn is so strong. I think that by turning her into this warrior sorceress Mr. Jackson is twisting and cheapening her character, thereby acheiving the exact opposite of his professed intent.

10-21-2001, 08:45 AM
Well, truth to be told...I am a bit annoyed with the cutting out completely of the "Scouring of the Shire", but from a cinematic viewpoint I can see where that would be a case of putting the brakes on the momentum of the story. Of course though, it means having to completely rewrite the death of Sauruman.

As for Boromir getting his hands on the ring, well technically he gets his hands on the Chain that the ring is on. At least that's all I've seen in the stills from the movie, but that alone is a shame.

It's the nature of the characters...the core of their motivations and how they react to them, these are the things that I fear will leave me scratching my head. Frantic half mad Gandalf is the best example I can point to, but there are many others...most of all showing Sauron as a physical being I think will be the most depressing. It completely defies the nature and design of the character. This I know not to be mere rumor, as Jackson has stated that there will be scenes of Sauron in the movie on several occasions and in several interviews, and not merely as flashbacks...

...this just in, in the interest of being fair and ballanced, here is a quick addendum...

Liv Tyler (Arwen) is on the cover of the November issue of W Magazine, the fashion Mag. In a surprisingly insightful article, she discusses Tolkien and PJ's films at length. The interview includes the following reassuring-to-purists statement about how Arwen (or as dubious fans have dubbed her, XenArwen) will be portrayed in the films:

"Let's get this straight," says Tyler..."Arwen is SO not like Xena in any way. She's a totally kick-ass, tough chick, but she doesn't fight. Those are all just rumors. Peter Jackson asked me to do this, and he's an incredible lover of Tolkien. I had to trust that, and so should the fans. If you don't want to see what another person does with the part, then don't go to the movies."

...well I guess we can see where Ms. Tyler is comming from, she all but said that if you don't want to see the sweeping changes that Jackson has made, save your ticket money and wait for the Cable release. "If you don't want to see what another person does with the part, then don't go to the movies."...Hmmmm, no Liv, we just wanted to see the characters the Author created is all...

10-21-2001, 05:50 PM
Amen, brother.

Hollywood will still always be Hollywood. Actors are still working for their paycheck and directors are still trying to gain an audience and make a buck.

From the many quotes I've seen from PJ and actors, they have a pretty warped idea of "lover of the books" and "staying true to the story". What a load of two-sided, speaking out of both sides of the mouth, drivel!

10-21-2001, 07:28 PM
thanx for clearing that up! I shall sleep better

10-23-2001, 02:09 PM
"Sure, it's not really THE LORD OF THE RINGS ... but it could still be a pretty damn cool movie. " -- Peter Jackson

WTF ?? :confused: :confused:

Gandalf bumps his head on a chandelier and then a door frame when he first enters Bag End
Yeah right, Gandalf is a nutcase who is stupid enough to bump hid head in a house he visited many times.

Saruman captures Gandalf by fighting a "wizard duel" involving telekinesis, lightning, and Gandalf being slammed against the wall.
Please don't tell me this is going to be some sort of children movie like Harry Potter or D&D.

I really hope there is SOMETHING of the real story left. This thread scares the hell out of me :(

10-24-2001, 12:43 AM
it would be kinda funny if gandalf did that though, lighten the movie up a bit.

10-24-2001, 12:45 AM
I have only one word to say in response to that:



10-24-2001, 12:49 AM
wouldn't any of you find that slightly amusing!

"Hollywood screwed LOTR to high heaven, maybe PJ could be killed by a chaotic fan...OH well, it's done I hope this stuff is mostly rumors Eh,ho ,eh!"

10-24-2001, 12:50 AM
Heh, I didn't quite follow that.....

Sure it'll be funny, but that doesn't mean it should be put in. That just isn't Gandalf.

10-24-2001, 12:52 AM
I was making an Irish drinking song about LOtr being so messed up.

10-24-2001, 12:54 AM
I see. *Chuckles*

10-24-2001, 12:56 AM
LOL, the one jump frodo jump scene will not go to well. I think that i might be kicked out for talking in the movie theater while seeing thes

10-25-2001, 10:39 PM
My deepest fear is that Jackson is so invested in the character of Frodo...that he has so much desire for Frodo to be liked and so wants there to be a "happy ending" that he might just, and let me say that I have heard no rumor that this is happening...it just seems like something Jackson would do, Let Frodo destroy the Ring at mount doom, instead of failing his quest as he did in the original story.

10-26-2001, 12:32 AM
ooch he wouldn't do that!

10-26-2001, 10:34 AM
That would be.. hmm.. "helt for jævelig!"

10-26-2001, 06:03 PM
I must admit pj is messed up but NOT that messed up

10-26-2001, 06:19 PM
Why not? In Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age it says of Frodo the Halfling:

" ... and there into the fire where it was wrought he cast the Great Ring of Power, and so at last it was unmade ..."

(Yes I'm kidding as regards the Movie, & kidding big time :D)

This quote is perfect Tolkien though, ... ah the variations of "historical" & poetic redaction! JRRT the Master!

10-26-2001, 06:20 PM
geez...complications always come dont they

10-28-2001, 12:22 AM
I'm reading the posts on this thread and I'm doing a long slow white hot burn. Once again I am reiterating my intention to *not* give the bastard Peter Jackson even a dime of my money. That's why God invented the bootleg download. I will *not* go see this movie in the theatre. I will*not* buy or rent it on VHS or DVD. I will download a free copy of the movie off of the Internet. I've never done this before and proabably won't do so again (except for when "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King" get released on as free bootlegs), but I will *not* give the bastard Peter Jackson a cent of my money.

10-28-2001, 01:23 AM
howz every one so sure!? I'm seeing with my friend so we can complain about it later.

10-28-2001, 01:27 AM
No one will want to see the movie with me. I won't shut up the whole time.

10-28-2001, 01:46 AM
same,but since we'll both complain it won't matter

10-28-2001, 01:58 AM
I hear you, Iluvatar. I have been *****ing and philosophizing against the changes in the movies and not getting much support from forum members (except for Greymantle and ReadWryt). Most of them just want me to stop my *****ing! Just looking at the spoilers/changes of FoTR on www.tolkienonline has almost made want to skip the movie. I haven't even touched the ones for TT and RoTK. Nor am I going to, because I feel that it will push me over the edge! Already knowing that the Scourging of the Shire is cut makes me predict the horrible liberties that are being taken with the other two movies. Down with PJ!!!

Nonetheless, even though I am a purist I don't think I could miss seeing it on the big screen. Even though I will be fuming, grimacing and "Oh come ON, PJ!!! -ing through the whole thing, my wife, an English major and English literature lover, as agreed to finally read LoTR so she can come see it with me, and a lot of my students who areTolkien fans will be there and talking about it and spoiling it for me for months after if I don't.:)

10-28-2001, 01:34 AM
nobody agrees with me:( *tear*

10-28-2001, 01:40 AM
finally, someone agrees.Do you Cir?

10-28-2001, 01:41 AM
I am going to see this movie. You whiny slapnuts can complain all you want, but I am going to see this movie, whether there are a million confounded changes or just one. I go to see movies to be entertained, not to critique them for their accuracy. If I was the sort of person that hated movies just because they weren't correct, I would hate almost every movie ever based on history or literature (including Gladiator and Hunt for Red October, for instance).

We all knew the movie would not follow the original storyline to the T. Who cares? A movie is a movie.

10-28-2001, 01:44 AM
thats what i kept saying too,but no one ever listend to me!

10-28-2001, 02:17 AM
It's not that we don't listen, it's that we disagree.
This isn't just a movie. This is supposedly a serious attempt to put the Lord of the Rings, one of the greatest literary works of all time, on screen. It's not just "entertainment;" if Mr. Jackson is to be believed, the movies are "The Lord of the Rings," not "Based On the Lord of the Rings."

10-28-2001, 02:20 AM
it is entertainment!why is it a movie, movie = entertainment some people want to enjoy the movie not be a snobby critic and complain about every stinkin little detail! Which is sadly how we sound when we complain about little or big things normal people don't care!

10-28-2001, 03:38 AM
However we are critiquing from the perspective of the Tolkien fan. We (as a generic term) are in fact probably the best authorities on how these movies should be. The "normal person" might not see problems, but that is because the "normal person" does not understand.

10-28-2001, 03:39 AM
so enjoy it like a normal person,loosen up!

10-28-2001, 07:41 AM
Forget it Greymantle. You're flogging a dead horse, as am I. Tar doesn't seem to get it. If we wanted to see a movie butcher a book, we'd go see the average Stephen King movie that butchers his books everytime. Apparently Tar and others must feel LotR is on par with Stephen King's books and other novels and deserves to be unnecessarily changed. Especially since LoTR coming to the screen has been a work in the making since it was published, you would think that it would be done right, considering this is the only time in history it will happen.

It's too bad Tolkien's masterful world is being drastically altered in the name of "entertainment". From his letters he was quite adamant about what PJ 's doing now. It's to be expected that nowadays people will sell out great literature for entertainment. It's even sadder that people who know better (Tolkien fans) don't really care. After all, it's only entertainment :rolleyes:

10-28-2001, 07:54 AM
i get what both of u r saying and i am leaning towards tar and cir..

the movie is about the book, right? ok it is not exacly the same but some bits r and i am going to see the those bits...because pj didn't write those bits ..tolkien did..u have got to understand that the Whole lotr rings books can't be put on screen so..but some of it can..

10-28-2001, 07:57 AM
I have absolutely no problem with people going to see this movie and enjoying it. Go to the movie; enjoy it! Be entertained. I will think no less of you for doing so. Myself;I am no unwilling to give the bastard peter jackson any of my coin. My unwillingness is not because he has changed the novel to make it more film compatable, but because he has both changed characters (Arwen) and created characters (Lurtz). Tolkien created an extremely detailed and consistent universe; for the bastard peter jackson to disrespect it is unconsciounable, and as much as I need to see this film on the big screen, I am willing to pay the price and watch it on a bootlegged download as my personal protest against the bastard peter jackson. Join me as you will.

10-28-2001, 05:25 PM
we all have our highly different opionions

10-28-2001, 10:49 PM
Hey, I keep saying it...I'm not so much angry at the changes as I am in the way that Peter Jackson is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He claims that he is being true to the Characters as J.R.R. wrote them, and that he is a huge fan and wouldn't make radical alteration to the mass media, and then attempting to smooth the feathers of the Real fan base by explaining and making statements that NEVER get the attention of the mass media. It's as though there are TWO of him.

He's playing a game...he's trying to keep the public ill informed so that they believe he is a genius...that he has created the definative movies from the books, and yet those of us who really DO see the books as wonderous gifts, portals to a completely different world inhabbited by marvelous characters who have real motivations and are aware of the deep and glorious history of their world, instead of a really neat bunch of stories to make money off of.

10-28-2001, 10:50 PM
when you put it that way... it soundsd really bad!

10-29-2001, 04:35 PM
Let me make an example, not to prove any particular view, but to show some similar instances.

How many of you have seen the movie, The Hunt for Red October? I'm sure at least one or two of you have. Now how many of you have read the book, AND seen the movie? The book has much more action than the movie, and scenes in the movie are conjugated from nowhere, and scenes are downplayed to the dull. Why? I don't know, but the movie was a high-profit film at the time. I like the movie, but the book was better. It is basically the same for every movie that came from a book: storyline is inexplicably altered or downplayed and irrelevant changes are made.

10-29-2001, 05:40 PM
I beg to differ. There are, as in nearly everything else, exceptions to the rule, the most striking in my recallection being "The Color Purple". The movie is nearly identical to the book...of course, it's not nearly as long a book as say Red October, and neither Spielburg, the director of The Color Purple, nor the director of the Hunt for Red October bragged about how he read the chapter from the book along with the cast imediately before shooting the scene to prove they were being accurate to the Author's intent.

10-29-2001, 10:05 PM
The Green Mile is a perfect replica of the book. The only difference that me, my mom, and my uncle (all together scrupulous readers) noticed was that one guy's butt was described as pimply, and we had the misfortune of finding out it wasn't...

Rosie Cotton
10-29-2001, 10:24 PM
I may just be repeating what Ciryaher and Mike said, and if so sorry, but let me just say that even with the billions of cuts and additions PJ is making he is probably staying closer to the book then most people who have made movie adaptions of books do.

I've read the book "Girl Interuppted" which the movie is based on. The movie is one of my favorite movies, but the book is nothing like the movie. The ENTIRE climax of the film was made up for the movie. There were all sorts of subplots made up just for the movie, I mean a lot of changes were made.

The only movie I've seen based on a book that is extremely close to the book is "October Sky" out of the book "Rocket Boys." There were a few scenes in the book that were chopped out completely for the movie (similiar to the way Bombadil is cleanly chopped from FOTR), and they even got rid of the main characters nickname that is used through out the book (can you imagine what we'd be doing right now if PJ renamed Frodo?). But the movie has kept everything important to the feel of the book, and the personalities of the characters in tact. If someone asked you what the book was about and then what the movie was about you'd get the exact same description.

I think LOTR will be like October Sky, not like Girl Interuppted. PJ is changing some things around, but these changes won't interfere with the story itself. When PJ says he is keeping close to the books, and then goes and puts Arwen at the ford he isn't changing the main plot of the book, or the feel of the book. He really is staying close to JRRT's LOTR. He's only changing one small detail so the movie will appeal to a wider audience. As long as the movie LOTR still has the same main storyline, and feelings to it that makes the book LOTR so wonderful, who really cares if Bombadil is in or out, or if the ring is on a pedestal?

Whew... well now you all know my opinion. :D

10-30-2001, 03:55 AM
In answer to your question: I do, and I know I'm not the only one.

10-30-2001, 04:47 AM
Amen, Grey, I'm with you all the way.

With some movies, I can understand the changes needed to be made. Cutting because of time factor and budget make sense. But when you stray from the book by needlessly changing key factors in a movie, screw up the dialogue, create characters that are not there, and replace characters' with others for no reason other then to add some sort of variety and to make money, that is unnecessary and it bothers me. It bothers me, especially when the book can stand alone on its own merit rather then needing the "help" of money grabbers who want to make it their own.

Now make that book the Lord of The Rings. The greatest novel in the 20th century, the book that has gathered a massive following for 60 years. Let's make needless changes to the story. Lets make the characters more "exciting" and "politically correct", regardless of how Tolkien wanted it. Let's take an incredible tale and alter it...for no decent reason!

Why don't we just make Lassie a cat. Down with PJ!

10-30-2001, 12:18 PM
Dito on Thorins post

10-30-2001, 06:14 PM
As usual, Thorin, we are in total agreement.
And I'm not someone who always hates "political correctness." But this is different entirely.

10-30-2001, 06:17 PM
Has anyone seen the Bree video?
They're spouting lies the whole time. I mean, listen to Sean Astin's quote! He obviously hasn't read the books himself, so apparently Mr. Jackson has been lying to his own cast as well.

10-30-2001, 10:29 PM
All I have to say is that if half the things that I have read on this board are true, I will never go to see any of these movies. I will never rent them, buy them, or even watch the promo's on TV. It is reprehensible to destroy the trilogy in this way. I have been looking forward to this/these movies since I heard that they were being made. This is garbage. It sounds like Gandalf is a stooge; what does he do, **** when you pull his beard??? Where is Christopher Tolkien during all of this???? I would rather read the books backward, word for word, than go see this debacle. I would rather see Harry Potter twenty-seven times in a row than catch the slightest glimpse of an orc-pod. And I thought the Bakshi rendition was bad! I could only get through thirty five minutes before throwing it away.:mad:

10-30-2001, 11:29 PM
I'm with Cir 90%, I suppport greys points on his split advertising but i intend to enjoy the movie like cir plans too

10-31-2001, 01:39 AM
I must ay that if all the things stated by our fellow LOTR fans is true than I AM ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS:mad: How could PJ do this. LOOOOOOOOSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRR

I mean come on man, does he not realize how many fans he will offend, I looked @ the orc pod pics, and was absolutely horrified, it was the most disgraceful thing I had ever seen in my life.

I don't know what Christopher Tolkien has to say about this but he better say something. Also the Arwen thing really pisses me off as well, not to mention they show Aragorn kissing Arwen, yep . I don't know if any1 has seen it, cause no1 mentioned it. All I know is that it really dissapoints me, and I hope something is done about it.

10-31-2001, 03:29 AM
Hollywood will overexagate any love story it's just their retarted way of expressing themselves. yes arwen makes me pissed too! I intend, I swear to see the movie enjoy and then complain!

10-31-2001, 05:11 AM
I see where your comin from. I still plan to see and enjoy the movie as well, but I will definitely be complaining afterwards:p

10-31-2001, 11:10 PM
Christopher's hands are tied in this matter. He has done all that he could by having his father's name removed from the title...

11-01-2001, 01:07 AM
he has cause the latest trailer said nothing of tolkien aside from the obvious title.

11-01-2001, 01:41 PM
So it doesn't even say "Based on the .......... Lord of the Rings by J.R.R Tolkien"?

11-01-2001, 09:12 PM
Hey guys.... this is going to be one kick butt movie. Even if it deviates from the true intent of the book... in the long run it will bring more and more readers to Tolkien. Every time I've seen a great Movie (aka The Godfather), I've immediately gone and read the book.

I'm not keen on pods and added characters but Hollywood will by Hollywood. If you don't like it... don't go to the movie. I for one am going to have my cake and eat it too. I will be first in line at the movie and will then come home and read the books again for the umpteenth time.

11-01-2001, 09:52 PM
I don't think the fact that these are going to be good movies was ever in question. The problem is, the movies Peter Jackson is making are not the Lord of the Rings.

11-01-2001, 10:14 PM
C'mon Grey..... To make the LOTR like it needs to be made would require a movie to be 20 hours long and be economically unfeasible. We Tolkien fans need to take what can be marketed with the caveat at the end being more Tolkien fans who will read the books and find out the real story. No movie has ever followed perfectly to the original story line of any book. I don't have to like it but again I say to you....***** and go to the movie or ***** and don't go to the movie. But enjoy the movie.

11-02-2001, 01:33 AM
Ok Im really really new here, and I suppose Im at risk of sounding stupid here: but how do you guys know so much about the movie????? I thought I had been to every movie site and seen every trailer available now. Anyways, just curious (and I kinda wanted to say hi :D ) so please respond!!!

11-02-2001, 02:10 AM
Welcome Ravenskies,

A lot of what I'm talking about come from the Trailer, the myriad photos posted about and the list of rumored changes on www.theonering.net ...there are enough stills about of the "Wizard Duel" between Saruman and Gandalf, the Uruk-hai "hatching" from pods and the Sword Weilding Arwen on Horseback to make one worried about how this thing got hijacked by Peter Jackson in the first place.

11-02-2001, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by Grond
I don't have to like it but again I say to you....***** and go to the movie or ***** and don't go to the movie. But enjoy the movie.

:) I'll take the first option. But I'm sure I will enjoy the movie, whatever it ends up being.

11-02-2001, 03:33 AM
Hey Grond,
We are not asking this movie to be exactly like the book, like you said that is not really possible. The only thing is, is that Peter jackson is making UNNESSASSARY Changes which just show his lack of respect and knowledge of these books. This is what makes us angry. O yea, and i would apreciate it if we don't swear. It is in the rules you know. thanks a lot.

11-02-2001, 05:10 AM
Sorry I used the B word instead of gripe. I'm just so excited to finally getting a quality production of the books. (Visually not necessarily from the writer's point of view).

I have lived through what I think was a poorly done cartoon version of the Hobbit with Orson Bean as Bilbo and then Ralph Bakshi's version of TFOTR and TT which stunk. We finally have the technology to put together an awesome interpretation of the movie and I'm looking forward to it.

On the other hand, as a purest, I am disgusted by many of the changes. Especially Zen-Arwen/Warrior Princess. Her contribution to the story was important but subtle and not a full screen character.

The other great disappointent is this Lurtz character. I guess the Balrog and Nazgul weren't strong enough evil characters in TFOTR. We have to introduce an evil SUPERORC for Aragorn to thrash. Having said all that..... I still can't wait to see it all.

11-02-2001, 03:06 PM
Hello all,

I have been reading the previous postings on this topic with great interest and it is obvious (like myself) all here are great LOTR fans. However, I do not share the view of the majority and find criticism of a film, yet to be seen, quite facile. There seems to be much confusion surrounding the nature of the artistic works is question. LOTR is truly a magnificent literary work and to diminish it would be a crime, however, the forth-coming film is a separate work and it must be seen as such.

It has been mentioned above how it would impossible to fully create Tolkien's work on the screen without extending it to 20hrs in length. I would argue, further to this, that it is not possible to reproduce some areas of the book at all. The literary devices that Tolkien uses (such as the speeches given in the council of Elrond) would simply be absurd if reproduced to true the book. They would be far too long, and quite frankly tedious. It seems as if some members of this forum would only be satisfied if - on paying the entrance fee for the cinema - they had the novel recited to them in their seats! Scenes have to be different, Tolkien did not write LOTR as a screenplay. Different things may be said and done but provided the film stays as close to the book as reasonably possible I will be happy. I will not, however, as this stage proclaim my outrage about a film I haven't seen; there is no sense in it.

I loved the book for it's magnitude and depth, but when I watch the film I will be watching it as just that: a film. I acknowledge that some things appear to have been "created" and their effect in the film shall be interesting to see. But such speculation as to the effect of these on the film (as it can only be for the trailer and the odd pictures released are no way near enough to evaluate an entire film) is fruitless. The orc pods for example, if the creation of Saruman, could be entirely justified. Saruman didn't produce such creatures as a mockery of Elves but altered them so as to stand sunlight. The pods therefore could be part of this modification. This, WE HAVE YET TO SEE. Please, people, have an open mind. See the film and then judge.


P.s. I am cynical about the Arwen character, but we'll just have to see, wont we.

11-02-2001, 04:36 PM
That is a very understanding point of view and I agree w/ a lot of it. Your probably right it would be wise to see the movie first and then, complain:D

11-02-2001, 05:53 PM
I completely agree with maclock, in the sense that of course the movie will not be EXACTLY like the book. It is a different interpretation, by a different person and therefore a different work of art. From what I have seen so far, I think it looks like it will be a spectacular movie in terms of visual effect, (not all is exactly how I envisioned it of course...) but I for one am looking forward to seeing it.

p.s. I will admit however that the Arwen character does seem a little off...

11-02-2001, 06:20 PM
Once again, my ire has not so much been raised by the changes...some of them I certainly agree with, including the showing of the Ent attack on Orthanc, and I am not in the least upset with anything that is being left out of the film, even "The Scouring of the Shire", as I realize both the time constraints and the unique needs of the cinematic medium...my complaint is with Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema and the major media outlets all making the claim that Peter Jackson is a genius and a true Tolkien purist who is working his hardest at bringing the definative telling of this story, and succeeding in creating Tolkien's intent and vision of the tale for the big screen. The ploy is quite obviously designed to convince the general public that this is going to be a direct screen adaptation of the original story and characters, and that Peter Jackson is some sort of mesianic wunderkind who read every chapter straight out of the book along with the cast before shooting the corresponding scene, then create a diatribe about how some Tolkien Scholar was wowed by the sets, and how the crew is painstakingly creating Swords and Props that have Elvish inscribed on them that actually MEANS something, yet not word one to address things like Peter Jackson INVENTING dialog, changing characters for no good reason and all the time bragging that he is being true to the Author's Characters and Story...

11-02-2001, 07:52 PM
Interesting point Readwryt. I agree that the ego of many producers and directors could do with a sizeable reduction. However, I cannot see why he should be at fault for making such alterations (as I have mentioned I do not necessarily think they will matter, after all it is a separate work of art). If he is at fault for representing his film as a direct screen adaptation of LOTR then why did he specifically state in an interview how hard it would be to ADAPT the film. Furthermore if people are duped in to thinking it is entirely accurate, when they do read the novel (as many will) they will see for themselves the differences and make their own judgement. There is always hype surrounding films but LOTR is far too famous a series to be overshadowed, the book will always be with us and treated therefore as a separate (we shall see if better) work.


11-03-2001, 01:05 AM
I agree with Maclock and RW. I know I will probably love these movies, Arwen and all, but I am mad at PJ and NLC for proclaiming it to be true to the books.

11-03-2001, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by ReadWryt
Once again, my ire has not so much been raised by the changes...some of them I certainly agree with, including the showing of the Ent attack on Orthanc,

Oh no... I haven't heard this one. Give it to me straight doctor, I think I can take it...

What about the Ents and Orthanc????? :mad:

11-03-2001, 07:01 AM
I think I must officially agree w/ ReadWryt on this one. i am very upset that they would profess to be so accurate to the book. CAUSE IT IS A LIE:mad: But..... i also would like to know about the Ents and Orthanc since I as well have heard nothing about it:confused:

11-03-2001, 07:08 PM
All of you have good points! I still want to watch the movie then complian I won't start a stupid boycott cause of some jacka$$ who wants a pay check

11-03-2001, 08:33 PM

The Ent's siege on Orthanc will not merely be described after the fact, but instead shown. I actually think this is a good idea so long as Jackson isn't writing too much dialog. It worries me to hear that someone is ADDING to the story more then would removing material because this means that PJ is writing "Tolkienesque" dialog for the Ents, and for Saruman and Gandalf in their meeting in Orthanc and the ensuing "Wizard Duel".

11-03-2001, 11:57 PM
I could really care i'm going to see anything goes tonight!
Ents are cool,

11-04-2001, 06:27 AM
Has anyone else seen the Bree movie?

“When the hobbits arrive at the Bree gates, they arrive in the pouring rain, and are looking for…a…a…tavern called the Prancing Pony.” –Dominic Monaghan (Merry)

“There’s a darkness, a slightly Gothic-age to Bree. The buildings’ll felt as though they looked—sort of looming in over you.” -Dan Hennah (Grammatically Impaired Supervising Art Director)

“…and so Bree is, in the books, and in the movies, the first time that the hobbits...y’know…have begun an adventure, I suppose, that is perilous.” –Sean Astin (Sam)

Bah! PJ lying to his ignorant actors and production workers, again!

11-04-2001, 08:16 PM
I beg to differ...It was in a sense, thinka bout it the wraiths were in their and it was a firstreal with a wraith. So if you look at it it could be besides it's all basis of opionin he's putting his veiw of the book, and that he has every right too!

Name me a book that was accurately portrayed in a movie!?
(ha take that greymantle!)

11-04-2001, 09:15 PM
Tar, I think what Greymantle was trying to portray is that the actors don't even know what's going on in terms of the relation of the movie to the book. That is pretty sad...

Plus, Bree is not the beginning of their adventure, which proves Grey's point even more. According to the movie it is because PJ has cut out Bombadil and the barrow wights. According to the book, they have had encounters with the Ringwraiths before Bree, and their adventure began when they reached Woody End. Which means the actors don't even know what happens. They are speaking according to their experience with the movie.

Your little jibe to Greymantle at the end of your post, shows (like always) that you are missing the point of what us purists are talking about and why we have a problem with PJ altering LoTR. I am not even going to waste my breath explaining it to you again for the umpteenth time because you are not going to get it again.

And if you've seen The Rainmaker and Misery, you will see two pretty good examples of movies that follow the book quite (not exactly) well, even down to narration and dialogue.

11-04-2001, 10:28 PM
The Green Mile
The Hunt for Red October

11-04-2001, 10:33 PM
yes i miss points but it's all basis of personal opinion. I want a good laugh now and then does that make me an anti-purists? I want to enjoy a movie am I being a non-lotr fan?I heard the elijah wood read lotr before so did bilbo and gandalfs actor, christopher lee reads lotr once a year since 25 years ago. I find that good evidence that they do know what they're talking about.

11-05-2001, 08:58 AM
I thought the Green Mile took place over a much longer period of time in the book, but I may be wrong..As for the Actors being kept in the dark about the real meaning and characterizations in the books, let me remind you that the Peter Jackson Publicity department LOVES to use the quote from PJ saying that he and the actors allways read the section of the book that they are about to film...so there goes THAT theory..hehe

I still say that "The Color Purple" came the closest to being the direct screen adaptation of a story I have ever seen in my life...otherwise you need to go back to the early 60's and before and look there. It seems that when Television came along and started stealing viewers, the film industry decided that they needed to start doing things that Television simply could NOT do, so they started putting more Sex in here and more Violence in there...a bit more action and less real plot, until now if you were to propose making "To Kill a Mocking Bird" into a movie today, it would have two steamy sex scenes, at least one grusome and gore filled murder and a kickass car chase. The problem here is that this is "Sword and Scorcery" Fantasy so far as Hollywood is concerned, and so steamy sex is out...but beefing up the role of half of the Love Interest would be analogous..and a Car Chase isn't possible, but a Horse Chase can, and IS, done. As for Violence, well...a nice Wizard's Duel could suffice in the first film quite nicely...are you seeing a pattern here, because you should. Hell, I'm not even certain that New Line didn't TELL PJ to put all that **** into the film to give it mass appeal, but if that was true then he shouldn't be taking credit for doing with this story what Spielburg had little or no trouble with in "The Color Purple"...

As for Christopher Lee...well..We are talking about a guy who was not beneath taking cheap roles in wretched Hammer Films productions of every incarnation of Dracula imaginable, so I can see where the money in his pocket was not problem...how else do you explain why he has said nothing about his character apparently being killed at Orthanc as an expedience to the fact that the Scouring of the Shire has been left out?

11-05-2001, 08:55 PM
ReadWryt, I agree with you.

The Color Purple was magnificently adapted to the screen and so was Mario Puzo's "The Godfather". Much was left out of the Godfather but nothing was really added. Distorting the plot line with added characters and romances that were not portrayed in the books strays way to far off the path of what is normally deemed Hollywood writer's perogative.

I'll still enjoy the movie, but as a 30 year fan of JRRT, I find it replusive that we have cocoons and Lurtz and Zew-Arwen. Frodo resisting the Riders by himself at the Ford of Bruinen is one of the most valiant and meaningful parts of the book. It shows Frodo true character and his true strength. Even Elrond comments on Frodo's character and steel will. Having Liv Tyler (Zen-Arwen) steal that scene to lend credence to her involvement in the story is a true distortion of Tolkien's intent and goes way beyond the line of artistic interpretation.

11-05-2001, 10:15 PM
That totally sucks! Grond, that was frodo's big moment when he showed his stuff and because of womens lib. Peter Jackass can, i cant say it but

11-05-2001, 11:41 PM
This is an apparent change of heart! I detect a new hostility towards Mr. Jackson coming from you, Tar.... mwahahaha..... :cool:

11-05-2001, 11:42 PM
oh it's not a hostility just a mood change, I'm still watching and enjoying the movie.The fact that peter jackass is in it makes no difference

11-05-2001, 11:49 PM
Well, excuse me if I interpreted you calling him a "jackass" as hostility! :rolleyes:
Most of us would agree with you.

11-05-2001, 11:50 PM
It's just a moodswing, and yes i find his fat jackassy ass insulting.stealing frodo's glory for womens lib.

11-06-2001, 12:04 AM
It's not that, IMNSHO. He's doing it for money and for an appeal to a modern audience.

11-06-2001, 12:06 AM
I know, I know and it's soooo depressing that if he's the lotr fan he preaches to be he'd sabotoge the story of a lifetime!

11-06-2001, 05:20 AM
Well Tar, I guess you are starting to see the point. :) In itself it may be a good movie. I know that the parts that are true to Tolkien will be good.

But I know that I will wish that I didn't know anything about Tolkien when I see it. I probably would enjoy it more....Now PJ has stolen that away from us...crapping all over the greatest book of the 20th century.

The only real salvation for all those waiting decades to see Tolkien's masterpiece come to life....and he blows it for selfish gain and lies to all the fans about it as well.

Down with PJ!!!!!


11-06-2001, 06:48 AM
Amen Bro,
DOWNW/ PJ!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

11-07-2001, 03:04 AM
I am quite annoyed by Arwen's increased role (even though I think Liv Tyler is very attractive). I can live with some of the other things , although they are hard to swallow. Saruman's early death is better than lets say, no death at all or no Saruman. The cocoons the orcs are bad. I think PJ should have avoided their creations completely, but hey, this movie has to remain PG 13. Anyway, Tolkien never went into details on how Orcs are born, and how they age. Gandalf's personality is also something I can live with. Even though he is a powerful figure in the book, there are times when he seems quite human, although he should be the last to 'splutter'. I disagree with the additions of new characters, like the evil Kurtz (Ha ha Apocalypse now!) or whatever the orc's name is.

I agree that PJ is not a faithful, and he should not claim to be one, but we should give the guy a break.

He is making my dream come alive - a relatively faithful adaption to the silver screen of my favorite book.

As long as it is a reasonble bit more accurate than the animated Hobbit (has anyone else seen that?) I will be satisfied.

11-07-2001, 05:41 AM
Gosh, Hama, you sound just like I did a week ago when I joined this board. The most upsetting thing about the whole set of movies is the ommission of The Scouring of the Shire. The pinaccle of the book was not the crowning of Aragorn as King or the restoration of the kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor; it was the transformation of the Hobbits. They left the Shire not knowing what they were or what they were capable of and came home to thrust evil from their land and be remebered among the greatest of all the peoples. Upon reaching the borders of The Shire Gandalf says to Merry, "You are grown up now. Grown indeed very high; among the great you are, and I have no longer any fear at all for any of you."

Later, Saruman comments, "You have grown, Halfling.... Yes, you have grown very much. You are wise and cruel. You have robbed my revenge of sweetness and now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy....." How on Earth can you leave that out?????????

11-07-2001, 11:05 AM
Well, if what you say is true, whitch I don't know, and The Scouring of the Shire isn't in the movie I fear that PJ has chosen Aragorn as the great hero..

11-07-2001, 03:24 PM
Everything I've seen to date indicates that Saruman is killed in The Two Towers. How can one have a proper Scouring of the Shire with no Saruman needing to be scoured....

11-07-2001, 05:27 PM
Hmm.. What about Grima, maybe PJ are making him responcible for the Scouring of the Shire?

11-07-2001, 05:33 PM
I've heard that Eowyn kills Grima in the movie (TT ? )... It does make sence... if the SotS is taken out...

11-07-2001, 05:55 PM
It only makes sense if you totally change the mood of the book and end it with the crowning of the King. What a crock!!! PJ's ruining one of my favorite parts of the book. Darn!!!

11-07-2001, 05:59 PM
Yes, the Scouring of the Shire is needed... err I am as much against these movies as Thorin is! Down wit Pj!!

11-07-2001, 06:05 PM
Aha! We're winning fanatical coverts.

*Darth Vader voice* All is proceeding according to plan, Thorin. */Voice*

11-07-2001, 06:07 PM
I didn't know that so much would be changed.. Hmm.. Even Tolkien fans will get lost while trying to recognize the "line"..

11-07-2001, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Greymantle
Aha! We're winning fanatical coverts.

*Darth Vader voice* All is proceeding according to plan, Thorin. */Voice*

Yes, and soon we will crush the rebel resistance, Lord Greymantle...


Now all we need to do is convert Rosie Cotton and the world is ours...


11-07-2001, 07:57 PM
WTF... IS PJ making the film about a book I havent read? Didn`t know all this until I read it here. What about the Ents? Heard that they were taken out of the script as well. This really messes with my mind. LOTR without Treebeard? How does he think to get rid of all the orcs at Helms Deep? The Ents has got an important part in LOTR as well as Bombadil. This is sounding more and more like another Hollywood farse. Is their way of thinking like this: Lets take Really good books and rip them apart? Its starting to look like that. F... Hollywood thinking!!

11-07-2001, 08:49 PM
Ondir, if you'll read through this thread completely, you'll see many of the changes we're talking about. Treebeard and Ents do apparently play an integral part in the FOTR and the TT but are presented much more in a first person. (ie we actually see the Ents attack Isengard as opposed to it being related to the group by Pippin and Merry).

Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest section appear to be completely ommitted. You'll find most of us on this bb are not upset with the ommissions; rather, we're upset with the creation of new characters and added roles of existing characters. (ie new super Urak-hai named Lurtz, Arwen Evenstar in Zena Warrior Princess role, etc.) With a work as detailed as LOTR you couldn't possibly include everything from the book in a series of three movies, but at the same time, it is appalling that PJ is changing the very essence of the characters and story line.

Still.... it should be a good movie. Heck, it's loosely based on the best book in the world.

11-08-2001, 01:50 AM
On the omittion of the "Scouring of the Shire" I fear I must give PJ a pass here. As a reader you are bound to feel a connection with Frodo and the other Hobbits that would not be as easy to reproduce in a film, and so if you take a moment to imagine what a Non-Reader would experience...the long three film buildup to an ending that, after the battles and perils that went before, ends in a run down, burnt out Hobbiton and the chasing out of the now all but defeated Saruman only to have him killed by his Rat-Like accomplice would be a MASSIVE let down. I dunno, that's my feeling on it...I would almost have rather had a visual postscript, kind of the antithisis of the Prolog that will be in the beginning of the first film (The need to fill in the story of Sauron and the Rings of Power BEFORE the Council of Elrond is a given..), something at the end that showed clips of action and expository with Gandalf explaining the events of the Scouring of the Shire, leading to Bilbo and Frodo at the sea and the scene of their parting from Middle-earth.

11-08-2001, 02:24 AM
If it ends with the crowning of the King do we not see Frodo, bIlbo and gandalf sailing to the grey havens? Now that actually IS a good movie-type ending, coz they could literally be sailing into the sunset. Awwww!
Besides does it also mean that Sam doesn't marry Rosie and have their 1 million kids?!?

11-08-2001, 03:14 AM
ReadWryt didn't say that would be left out; he said it would be "jumped" to.
Though if PJ continues his pattern, I wouldn't be too surprised if he cut that as well. Not dramatic enough or something. He'll find an excuse.

Rosie Cotton
11-08-2001, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by Thorin

Now all we need to do is convert Rosie Cotton and the world is ours...


I will never be converted! :D :rolleyes:

The cutting of The Scouring of the Shire, is to me the most upsetting change, but I completely agree with RW's post on why it was neccessary. I think that if you analyze why the changes are neccessary for a film adaption, like RW just did, most of them DO make sense.

it is appalling that PJ is changing the very essence of the characters and story line.

Yes, there there have been subtle changes to characters, and less subtle, but still neccessary changes to the storyline. But HOW CAN YOU SAY THE VERY ESSENCE HAS BEEN CHANGED!!!!! THIS IS STILL LOTR!!!If you asked someone who just saw this movie, and someone who just finished reading LOTR for the first time to describe ME, and the story they had just seen/read, I'd bet their descriptions would be almost identical. Because, the story doesn't depend on the ring being with Frodo during the coucil of Elrond to make the ring the evil thing it is, it isn't about Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, it's not even about The Scouring of the Shire! And the movie won't be about Arwen, or orc-pods. Both are about Frodo Baggins, and the war of the ring; a hobbit faced with a seemingly impossible task that he ends up accomplishing.

Their's nothing wrong with a purist viewpoint... just please stop acting like PJ decided to cut Frodo, Sam, and Gandalf out of the fellowship, to replace them with Arwen!

11-08-2001, 04:19 AM
The Lord of the Rings is a great book, and although the Scouring of the Shire is an important part, the book does reach a sense of finality with the crowning of King Elessar, and so I can see why the film would end there. PJ kills off Saruman in the rather infamous (among Tolkien fans like us) 'Wizard's duel'. I am not sure what happens to Grima, but I am not sure it matters too much. PJ might have gotten him to fight on Saruman's side, and he could be killed off by the Ents or someone (although that would make me and many of you mad.)

11-08-2001, 04:24 AM
Saruman, killed in the stupid wizards' duel? If that's true, I'm really furious. It means we never have any scene of parley, and there's no struggle with the power of Saruman's voice, and...good Lord.... Sorry about this, but that bastard.

11-08-2001, 06:21 AM
The cutting of The Scouring of the Shire, is to me the most upsetting change, but I completely agree with RW's post on why it was neccessary. I think that if you analyze why the changes are neccessary for a film adaption, like RW just did, most of them DO make sense.

No..they do not. I do not believe (and correct if I'm wrong, RW) that RW is supporting the changes, or your viewpoint, just the cutting of the Scourging, which like Bombadil, could be justified from a movie making point of view. These cuts do not, however, justify the ludicrous and annoying changes to the rest of the script that were not sanctioned by Tolkien, nor would they be his wish.

Yes, there there have been subtle changes to characters, and less subtle, but still neccessary changes to the storyline. But HOW CAN YOU SAY THE VERY ESSENCE HAS BEEN CHANGED!!!!! THIS IS STILL LOTR!!!

Nobody is saying that the very essence of LoTR is being changed. We are angry that PJ does not have enough sanctity for Tolkien's wishes that he changes details that could and should be left alone. We are angry that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth like he is being so true to the script, as if JRR was working through him in making this movie.

Who is PJ that he thinks that he can go against what Tolkien intended (indeed, how he wrote the plots and it's characters) and decide that Gandalf should act like a sputtering, paranoid, out of control man, or that Elrond's council is not important enough to portray it right (and I'm not talking about cutting out the history tales), or that Boromir should handle the ring on Caradhras. These changes DO have great significance to the story and by altering them, you distort the literary significance of the whole thing.

If you asked someone who just saw this movie, and someone who just finished reading LOTR for the first time to describe ME, and the story they had just seen/read, I'd bet their descriptions would be almost identical. Because, the story doesn't depend on the ring being with Frodo during the coucil of Elrond to make the ring the evil thing it is, it isn't about Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, it's not even about The Scouring of the Shire! And the movie won't be about Arwen, or orc-pods. Both are about Frodo Baggins, and the war of the ring; a hobbit faced with a seemingly impossible task that he ends up accomplishing.

That I doubt very much, Rosie. ..unless the reader was so influenced by Hollywood, he wouldn't know good literature if it bit him on the rear. All of these events do play an important part. The Scouring, Old Forest, Barrow down, Weathertop; all work together to support exactly what you say they don't: a hobbit faced with a seemingly impossible task that he ends up accomplishing. All these episodes build up to just that: it's called character development. Tolkien wasn''t just some average Joe-story teller. Tolkien spent most of his adult life forming ME, you don't think every part of it interprets and complements itself? You don't think that he had reasons for every thing he wrote about? Of course altering the story like PJ has done will change much of the meaning of the plot and character. The little things in good literature make a big difference to the story, that's the difference between your average author and those like Dickens, and Tolkien. They wrote it that way. Maybe when you take a few more English classes in school, you will see that.

11-08-2001, 12:52 PM
I have to take exception with Rosie's post. The glory of the story is the MYTH. The story is not any one, or even the collection of things that you describe...but it IS the completeness of the universe in which the story unfolds. Indeed the books would not have been hindered had J.R.R. left out Bombadil, or included more Arwen, but as anyone who has read the History of Middle-earth could tell you, he was ALL about consitency, continuity and character. There was an order and purpose to not only the languages which were his first love and truely the real inspiration for the Elves and Dwarves and their complex culture, but the consistency of the characters...the fact that Gandalf was unlfappable, not some blathering half crazed madman one moment and then engaging in a Wizard's duel the next. There was a means by which elves were born and it was implied that Orcs, being a grotesque parody of the Elves would most likely do the same...but probably with whips and chans and stuff..(Just kidding). I think you can see what I mean, it's just that there is a richness and completness to Middle-earth that transends simple Fiction. It's a whole other world for which the author, either overtly or covertly, breathed a coherent life with particular rules, standards and laws...and here comes P.J. and his press department spinning tales of how this Director is going all out to reproduce the books in true form, when he has tossed many of these rules and laws out the window out of fear that an audience would be too stupid...or too uptight...or have too short of an attention span to ever accept, let alone enjoy the story that was voted one of the top ten greatest of the past millenium, and tell it in the manner that the author employed to thrill MILLIONS of readers since it's publication...*Whew* Ok...I'll get off my soapbox now...*Trips getting off the box and spills my coffee*

11-08-2001, 04:00 PM
God, do you people EVER stop ranting? It is frustrating to read the continuous stream of anti-PJ posts appearing here. Principly because almost all seem to continuously disregard the fact that the film is a SEPERATE work within itself, and isn't (nor could it ever be) a direct recreation of the novel...

"It has been mentioned above how it would impossible to fully create Tolkien's work on the screen without extending it to 20hrs in length. I would argue, further to this, that it is not possible to reproduce some areas of the book at all. The literary devices that Tolkien uses (such as the speeches given in the council of Elrond) would simply be absurd if reproduced to true the book. They would be far too long, and quite frankly tedious. It seems as if some members of this forum would only be satisfied if - on paying the entrance fee for the cinema - they had the novel recited to them in their seats! Scenes have to be different, Tolkien did not write LOTR as a screenplay. Different things may be said and done but provided the film stays as close to the book as reasonably possible I will be happy. I will not, however, as this stage proclaim my outrage about a film I haven't seen; there is no sense in it. "

"I loved the book for it's magnitude and depth, but when I watch the film I will be watching it as just that: a film. I acknowledge that some things appear to have been "created" and their effect in the film shall be interesting to see. But such speculation as to the effect of these on the film (as it can only be for the trailer and the odd pictures released are no way near enough to evaluate an entire film) is fruitless. The orc pods for example, if the creation of Saruman, could be entirely justified. Saruman didn't produce such creatures as a mockery of Elves but altered them so as to stand sunlight. The pods therefore could be part of this modification. This, WE HAVE YET TO SEE. Please, people, have an open mind. See the film and then judge. "

Please forgive me for repeating myself in the above two passages, it is simply that the arguements so far contain the same flaws and misconceptions as before.


11-08-2001, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Maclock
God, do you people EVER stop ranting? It is frustrating to read the continuous stream of anti-PJ posts appearing here. Principly because almost all seem to continuously disregard the fact that the film is a SEPERATE work within itself, and isn't (nor could it ever be) a direct recreation of the novel...

I would disagree with you Maclock. That to me sounds like a cop out for a badly done movie. The movie would not be made, were it not for the publication of the book. When the movie is made, it is taking the book and putting it in pictures. The director has the responsibility to be as true to the book as possible. Other wise they could do an entirely different movie with the books title if there is no responsibility to the book. I think that that is a given when you make a movie from a book. It is about JRR. When you stick his name on the title, and put his name in the credits, isn't it quite obvious that it is not a separate work, but an embodiment of the creator of that story?

"It has been mentioned above how it would impossible to fully create Tolkien's work on the screen without extending it to 20hrs in length. I would argue, further to this, that it is not possible to reproduce some areas of the book at all. The literary devices that Tolkien uses (such as the speeches given in the council of Elrond) would simply be absurd if reproduced to true the book. They would be far too long, and quite frankly tedious. It seems as if some members of this forum would only be satisfied if - on paying the entrance fee for the cinema - they had the novel recited to them in their seats!"

Maybe you would like the novel recited to you we wouldn't. Nobody is asking for a word by word quotation, Maclock. We would like the characters, who were made by Tolkien the way they were for a literary reason, and the plot changes which all enhance the story to be left in tact the way Tolkien intended them. Good grief, don't you get it yet?? You do not have to include all the speeches at the council of Elrond, but you should leave the rest as Tolkien intended. Taking the ring out and leaving it on a pedestal for all to gaze at it, then having Gimli try to destroy it with his axe, takes away from the power of the ring over the individual. It was needless, fruitless and takes away from the STORY! The STORY Maclock! There is a story to be followed here. It is not about PJ. It is about JRR Tolkien!! There did not need to be a change here, nor in many other places.

[/B][/QUOTE]"The orc pods for example, if the creation of Saruman, could be entirely justified. Saruman didn't produce such creatures as a mockery of Elves but altered them so as to stand sunlight. The pods therefore could be part of this modification. This, WE HAVE YET TO SEE. Please, people, have an open mind. See the film and then judge. "[/B][/QUOTE]

As stupid as that concept is (all orcs multiply like all other creatures), certain allowances, however annoying and farfetched, for what is not specifically stated can be overlooked. However, Maclock, if you've even been reading our posts or even listening to us, that is not our main beef. If you haven't got that by now, it's not worth babbling about again.

11-08-2001, 06:01 PM
I think what most of us are mad about is PJ spouting off about how true he is staying to the book when in fact he makes these really quite unnessecary changes, like having Pippin knock a skeleton instead of a rock down the hole in Moria. He's being hypocritical.

11-09-2001, 12:28 AM
Ok, ok...cool yer jets kids. Talierin is right, of COURSE a film maker has constraints and obsticles in bringing a book to the screen, and by simply saying "I'm doing my best to bring the book, which is far more then any camera can capture, to the big screen..." P.J. could have saved us ALL a LOT of typing, but he, his press crew or New Line apparently didn't feel the need to take the high ground on this one and forged ahead with Quotes and stories about what a visionary the man is.


Take a look at ANYTHING with the official movie title and you will realize that J.R.R.'s name is NOT on the title. The Tolkien estate put an end to that practice a long time ago after getting an idea of what the film was really going to be like.

I don't see how you would add 20 hours to the movie. I mean, I know that the Books on Tape version is over 13 hours long, but I would bet you that were you to cross out all the descriptions of the setting and the detail to which the author described the action, taking into account that most of this could merely be SHOWN on the screen, you would end up with somewhere between half and two thirds of the original story. Now applying my geeky math to the 13 hour number, and finding what 2/3s of 13 hours is I come up with 8.58, or an average of 2.86 hours per movie...this is not out of the question in this day and age. But none the less...my gripe is not merely with things added or subtracted so much as HOW they were handled and how the changes bring to light the doublespeak comming from the Film Makers as to the skill and care they have applied to create "The closest adaptation of the books possible".

Were it as someone said here "Principly because almost all seem to continuously disregard the fact that the film is a SEPERATE work within itself, and isn't (nor could it ever be) a direct recreation of the novel..." then it is unfortunate that, if you seek out the publicity and where it is published, the information aimed at the average person is claiming that this is going to be a the cinematic embodiment of Tolkien's work, yet the statements being made to the Tolkien Community are ranging from "Certain changes had to be made when transcribed to film", to "If you don't like the changes being made in the characters then don't see the movie", yet never the twain seem to meet. This leads one to believe that it is the desire of the Studio, Production team and Director to keep the general public from knowing what the Tolkien Community has learned about how accurate the films will be, and in what ways they deviate...Now if they were actually PROUD of what they are doing to the story and characters, why take this tactical procedure?

11-09-2001, 01:48 AM
RW, my error on the Tolkien name thing. I could have sworn that the early trailers were portrayed as "JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings".

Everything you've said is what my concern has always been: that the newbies who have never read Tolkien will be falsely lead to believe PJ is doing JRR Tolkien justice and recreating the book as it is...The way he and NLC have been going about the whole promo thing is very misleading to those who don't know better, and to me that is doing a great disservice to Tolkien's fans who want nothing more then for Tolkien and his works to be promoted properly to a future fan base of ME.

Down with PJ!!

Rosie Cotton
11-09-2001, 02:13 AM
I think that we need to stop basing out opinions on the 5 minutes of trailers we have seen, and the rumors that we have been hearing. Take for example the crazed Gandalf: I agree that a panicky Gandalf is not at all like the Gandalf in the book. But we are basing all of our anger about that panicky Gandalf on 3 seconds of footage. It's possible that when seen in context Gandalf won't seem nearly as crazed as in the trailer. A line from the chapter "A Long Expected Party" is "Keep it secret, keep it safe," so by creating Gandalf's line from a line in the book, PJ probably feels that he trully is staying true to Tolkien's book.

Even though I disagree with the extreme purist standings of some of the members, I'm willing to make a truce until we see the movie. :)

11-09-2001, 02:37 AM
Saw this on TORN:
"Ian McKellen, who plays the wizard Gandalf in the upcoming Lord of the Rings films, told SCI FI Wire that Rings author J.R.R. Tolkien was "looking down or up" on writer/producer/director Peter Jackson's film trilogy. "[Tolkien] was always there, just off the set, in every single scene," McKellen said in an interview. McKellen plays Gandalf the Grey and, later, Gandalf the White in three films: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King.
McKellen added, "There were last-minute checks. 'Have we got it right? Is that what he wanted? Is that what he intended?' The devotion to that man, I think, was equal to everyone's devotion to Peter Jackson. It was never, 'Ah good, we've got this storyline, let's see what we can do with it.' Of course, it's Peter Jackson's vision of the films. It's his imagination. It's his response to [the stories]." The three films are based on Tolkien's three Rings volumes of the same name.
The British actor, who's currently on Broadway opposite Helen Mirren in Dance of Death and will soon reprise his role as Magneto in X-Men 2, elaborated further on his strong and positive feelings for Jackson. "When this film comes out, it will just say 'New Line [Cinema] presents The Lord of the Rings,'" he said. "It's not going to be 'A Film by Peter Jackson.' Now, wouldn't you think you'd earned the right, having brought this project to life, to have your name up there? The man you meet is the man we saw every day. He's only got one pair of shoes. He's always in shorts. He's always in the same shirt. He generates such enthusiasm just simply by being himself. He's not a star, but his knowledge is formidable. You can go to him and absolutely get your answer." The Fellowship of the Ring will open on Dec. 19."
What a bunch of BS. How anyone can listen to this guy any longer is unfathomable to me.

11-09-2001, 02:41 AM
Rosie, we are not just basing our opinions on fleeting glimpses of the trailers. Most of these "rumors" are coming from offical Tolkien web-sites which have confirmed a lot of the changes we are talking about.

I for one will not call a truce on the matter because new people are coming all the time who do not feel the way you do and would like to be aware of the plot/character changing that distorts what Tolkien intended. There is principle involved and if fans of Tolkien would rather poo-poo the changes in the movie and sacrifice principle and Tolkien's intentions just to justify their enjoyment of it...so be it. That is their perogative. I for one will not bend over and take it from PJ with a "That's Hollywood for you. What's the big deal?" attitude that many of the people here are taking. I will see it, and probably enjoy many parts. I will not, however, accept it as "Lord of The Rings" and will not promote the movie as "Tolkien". And I think that it is only fair that "newbies" understand the difference between Tolkien and PJ's bastardized version. That is why I shall keep *****ing.

No hard feelings against you, though. I'm sure I'm one of the purists you strongly disagree with. :) Aren't opinions great?

11-09-2001, 02:52 AM
Well, I know this will stir up more words, but, my mom knows a top tv programmer at NBC (basically when the peacock comes up with a message about technical difficulties, his head is in the guillotine). I figure, if I can convince him to run a commercial (RW can make it considering that he's a 3D Graphics Designer) about the movie, we may have something. The general public has absolutely no idea of the changes. So, if we simply make a commercial like this, imagine how many leaves we can turn over...

[A guy pulls his head out of his behind, and it turns out that it's PJ], "Hi everyone, I'm Peter Jackson. I'm currently making my rendition of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. I would like everyone who has access to the internet, visit www.thelordoftherings.com and check out the list of changes that I've made to bastardize [(hey, that's not a curse)] the book. Thanx"

Of course, this would be a good way to get attention, but it would require many clearances from NLC, Mr. D A-P, PJ, et al. Of course, I still need to convince my mom's friend at NBC...

Just speculation :)

Rosie Cotton
11-09-2001, 03:36 AM
Ok, I do agree with you that newbies to Tolkien deserve to know the changes being made. I am also terrified of millions of people becoming "LOTR fans" that don't even know who Tom Bombadil is. All I'm trying to say is that I think (or really want this to be) a very good movie, that portray's Tolkien's world as best a movie can. And I, having read many novels that have been turned into movies, think that PJ is doing as good, if not a better job, then I would have expected. I still say we should calm our debate down some until after we have seen the movie, but I know that I won't be able to keep my mouth shut if I disagree with something. Besides, this is kind of fun. :)

11-09-2001, 05:12 AM
Well I've been thumbing through the Official "The Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring" desk calandar...a gift from our esteemed Web Master, and it is chock full of pictures and quotes and lots of Trivia Questions..."What was Gimli's father's name?", "What is the name of Frodo's sword?" and all that kind of stuff...Now, bearing in mind that this is totally based on the Movie and not the Book, as is evidenced by a quote from Saruman speaking to Lurtz, I thought that I would share a couple of the questions with you to see if anyone can answer them...

1) What do Uruk-Hai start life as?

2) WHat creature does Gandalf speak to while imprisoned at Orthanc, which ultimately leads to his escape?

3) What is the name of Arwen's horse?

I'll be posting the answers soon, no fair peeking...I want you all to research only from Tolkien's writings for the answers..*Snicker snicker GAFAW!*

11-09-2001, 08:47 AM
Here are your answers to these disgraceful questions:

#1 I refuse to answer this question due to the fact that I know the answer will probably be PODS!!!!! STUPID PJ :mad: :mad: :mad:

#2 The creature was Gwaihir, and if this is not right than PJ is in Deep Deep trouble:mad: :mad:

#3 And as for the third question, I as well refuse to answer this abonimible question and scoff in PJ's Face:mad: :mad: :mad:

I hope this shows my true feelings:mad:

11-09-2001, 01:31 PM
I must agree with Rosie's position on the forthcoming LOTR movie. It does seem a little premature to label a film as a bastardisation before any of us have actually seen it. After I have seen the film, I too may share the opinion that Thorin has now, but I cannot accept his position in its entirety before then.

Firstly, the central point that both Rosie and I have made (and Readwyte has alluded to) is that a film cannot, as a genre, cope with the magnitude of LOTR as it is in the novel. It is, prima facie, understandable for a producer to adapt a plot taken from a novel in order to make the production of a film work. I do however share some of Thorin's reservations that perhaps PJ may have gone too far. Many of the additions do seem to stretch the original plot and could endanger the magic of Middle Earth. However,(and this is a BIG however) the available evidence of all the plot changes is not sufficient for me to commit myself to them totally though. I will wait and see the film to gauge the whole effect.

The issue I think that unites this forum is the danger that many individuals will consider, having watched THE LORD OF THE RINGS THE MOTION PICTURE, that what they have seen is equivalent to reading the novel. I accept Readwyte's point that PJ appears to be exacerbating this risk by his numerous press releases. It is quite depressing that, whenever a film is based on a truly awesome novel, cretins will claim to know the plot (etc) without having ever read the book! However, that fact will not reduce the quality of the film - if it's good then it will be so irrespective of the ignorance of others or the ego of its producer.

This is a very interesting forum, :) MAC

11-09-2001, 04:33 PM
I don't like any of the unnecessary changes made to the movie (Tom Bombadil being the only unecessary portion of the book) and I'll never understand PJ's thinking on those particular changes. Yes, I'm outraged! Yes, I hate the changes, and resolutely disagree with them! Yes, if I ever get my fingers around PJ's neck I'm going to ask him why he made those changes, and then strangle him! But...I am going to see the movie, so I can come back and tell you HOW bad it was (or if by some amazing chance *sarcastic voice* it is good).

Some of you may have implied that I had no problem with the changes, but I do. Might I imply that the only problem some of you have with the movie are the pointless changes?

11-09-2001, 05:37 PM
...now that you mention it...

Frodo is too young, Saruman has no color in his hair, Galadriel isn't nearly beautifull enough, and I can't look at Elrond without hearing him say "How are you going to speak Mr. Anderson, when you have....no mouth?" *LOL*

11-09-2001, 07:31 PM
Frodo is too young, Saruman has no color in his hair, Galadriel isn't nearly beautifull enough, and I can't look at Elrond without hearing him say "How are you going to speak Mr. Anderson, when you have....no mouth?" *LOL*

Ah.. that's where I recogniced him from, the Matrix..

11-10-2001, 12:22 AM
YES!! The Matrix!! I knew I saw him somewhere! And he's just as homely as he was on The Matrix!! Except he's supposed to be beautiful as Elrond!! What happened??

I have said right from the beginning that Galadriel was not what she should be..Cate Blanchett?? Don't ask me from what gene pool PJ picked his elves from...

I can deal with the actors' physical appearances not matching the characters, provided that they portray the character (personality) properly. I think the actors who play Sam and Gandalf have the most work cut out for them, and the most responsibility) We already know Ian McKellen's done a lousy job...not his fault, he's a great actor, but PJ's for turning Gandalf into a crazy old man who sputters and yells...pretty sad.

11-10-2001, 01:30 AM
What a travesty!!! Putting out questions in a LOTR desk calendar that CANNOT be answered from the book. What a crock of orc Crud!

11-10-2001, 03:05 AM
heehee Orc crud that is funny:p
Anywho, when are we gonna get the answers to those questions?

11-10-2001, 03:11 AM
ORCS HATCH FROM PODS??????????? What are they thinking!!! I'm not sure I am going to like the movie very much if they add stupid stuff like that. I thought the book was perfect the way it was. Where do these guys get off thinking they can improve the Lord of the Rings!

11-10-2001, 04:41 AM
aaahhh yes a new member. Let me just be the first to apologize for you having to find out about Peter Jackson's rancourous and horrible changes to the book. If you read this whole thread, you will see some pretty horrible stuff. I suggest you look @ everybody's views before you make a desicion of how you feel, we all have some pretty valid points. Sorry this had to be one of the first things that you found out:(

11-10-2001, 07:09 AM
Ah! No! Just listen to me and Thorin! We are right and no one else!!!

j/k :rolleyes:

11-10-2001, 08:18 AM
Ok, I know you are all dying to know the answers you SHOULD Have known if you were REALLY cool Lord of the Rings fans like Peter Jackson is...so heeeeeeere they are!!

1) What do Uruk-Hai start life as?
Answer: Maggots

2) WHat creature does Gandalf speak to while imprisoned at Orthanc, which ultimately leads to his escape?
Answer: A Moth

3) What is the name of Arwen's horse?
Answer: Asfaloth

If you got all three right, I'm really scared for you and hope that you seek the proper professional help you obviously need. Getting 2 right means that there is hope, and that you were just really lucky to have guessed what Peter Jackson is thinking. 1 Right wins you the "Gee, that's remarkable that you could even THINK of that" award, and 0 correct means that you are a real Tolkien Fan and will probably be groaning and heading to the bathroom to wait out the excruciating waves of nausia the moment the credits begin to roll.

Now, for the exciting bonus question, which I think many of you will successfully guess...

Whom does Saruman send to retrieve the hobbits of the Fellowship?

11-10-2001, 08:49 AM

11-10-2001, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by ReadWryt
Whom does Saruman send to retrieve the hobbits of the Fellowship?

As long as it's not some insect...

11-10-2001, 04:09 PM
RW thats aweful! EWWWW! I HATE insects, elves didn't even like beetles and spiders........

11-10-2001, 04:13 PM
What is "A Moth"?

11-10-2001, 04:16 PM
you don't know what a moth is? :eek:

umm its like a butterflie, but it has a bigger body and they are ugly colours

11-10-2001, 04:47 PM
A moth, like Kem said, has a bigger body than a butterfly...but not always ugly colors...Usually, but there are some pretty ones. Moths are those bugs that hang around lights on warm nights. They are white, grey, or brown, or pretty mixes of the two. You know what they are, you just don't call them moths

11-10-2001, 05:01 PM
My question, is....from where does the strength come from for that moth to carry Gandalf away from Orthanc and many leagues across ME...;)

Can you imagine on the battlefield in front of Morannon...."The moths are coming! The moths are coming!!"

(Camera pans over to Gwahir and his flock sitting on the sidelines muttering, "I didn't see this in our contract!")

Well, that is the problem with changes..it's like lies..one leads into another and into another before the truth is left behind. By making the Saruman, Gandalf confrontation in real time, that eliminates any mention or encounter with Radagast, therefore, there was no way Gwahir would have come to Orthanc looking for Gandalf. So he needed a messenger....WHY A MOTH??? What the heck is PJ thinking?? Why not a sparrow, or a carrier pigeon?? A moth? Gwahir would accidentally eat him, never mind listen to a message from him. One ridiculous turn leads into another and another....

Down with PJ! :mad:

11-10-2001, 07:58 PM
YES DOWN W? PJ:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

11-10-2001, 09:12 PM
Oh dear, if all of these changes are true it really does seem that the movie may fall well short of the standard that Tolkien set. I am still clinging to the hope that the film will, despite the changes, be enjoyable and true enough to the spirit of MR to be worth watching. I'll still reserve my final judgement, but I can understand the frustration of this forum's members. Will everyone here still go to see the film? Will you have an open mind, despite what you've read here?


11-10-2001, 11:57 PM
As far as I know, Iluvatar is the only one who says he's not going to go see the film.
I don't think this is a matter of us keeping open or closed minds. I embraced the idea of a movie with an open mind, but the changes that we know, for sure, have been made, the words and actions of Peter Jackson, and the trailers we've seen have led me to despise the whole idea. Keeping an open mind does not mean never making a decision.

11-11-2001, 04:14 AM
Who says that a Moth carries Gandalf away? I suspect that what has happened is this...since apparently from what I can tell there is NO character of Radagast, then the Istari who WOULD have told the Eagles about Gandalf's intentions cannot send them to his aid, ergo since Maggots and Moths abound in Middle-earth, as you would know had you ever spent any time in the otherwise empty recesses of Peter Jackson's head, then Gandalf confides in a Moth who goes and gets the Eagle...it all makes perfect sense if you just were to get in touch with your Inner Insect.

Oh, and never one to leave well enough alone, here is the link to what New Line was going to release as of March 2nd 2001 as a poster according to their official web site. Click here and be amazed! *Snicker* (http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/pictures/fotringfanonesheet.jpg)

Look closely at this and tell me what important feature differentiates it from all the posters made since...

11-11-2001, 05:37 AM
I'm not sure, but at the bottom, it says "Read the novel published by Houghton Mifflin."

11-11-2001, 05:42 AM

Close, but the important change is that it says "J.R.R.Tolkien's" above the movie's logo. You can't find that on anything they have officially published since...I wonder why? Herrrrrmmmmmmmm...

11-11-2001, 08:23 AM
I can see it now: stuffed Frodo dolls and Balrog keychains.

Whats wrong with the Hollywood treatment?
Hollywood seeks money. Art is secondary. Everything else, except in rare cases, is secondary.
Producers and directors are hired to make "shock-value" and attract
audiences. The first thing I noticed in the trailer was Gandalf not being Gandalf. He is in a big hurry and says "Is it safe?" That was my clue that this movie is getting the full Hollywood treament. (On the other hand the sets costumes and such seem to be right on the mark)

What can be done about it?

The writer needs to get mean and face up to the child-like director and marketing freaks. And that means showing up on set occasionally and getting legal papers and secure some authority to pull the plug. The Harry Potter movie apparantly follows the book exactly because at first the author wouldn't let them make it for fear of changes. And she only agreed if no changes were made.

Now in The Lord of the Rings, it seems to me that some scenes should be dropped and some dialouge dropped such as the huge speech at Elrond's or the Bombadil adventure. (although I liked the Barrow Downs part) Its interesting that things were dropped, AND unneccesary scenes were added. So one can't say, "we needed to save time". They wanted to get a larger audience and the director, script writer and other peoples don't feel like they are doing their job if they don't add a head bump and a few Arnold one-liners. If there's a car in a movie it needs to become airborne at some point. A love interest? Then of course she needs to take off her top off at some point or kiss a dying man or become Xena.

I think I will kinda like the movie when I see it, but have a tear in my eye for what could have been. It seems to me that it will be very much like Star Wars Episode I. I had huge expectations that were only lived up to in special effects and a decent, if somewhat lacking, light-sabre duel. I'm also thinking of Dune, which probably should never have been made into a movie since the book has a lot of "inside people's heads" in it. The main idea of Dune came accross in the movie but I was very disappointed.
So I'm going to try to enjoy being in Middle Earth for a while and try to run and get popcorn when an orc egg pops or a brand new character enters the scene. I will enter the theatre not expecting the book or the true characters. 'sniff'

My main complaint is the changing of characters. I feel like I know Gandalf and I just don't want to see him as impatient, bumping his head, or 'dueling'. He was a kind man, even to Gollum. He let Saruman live and that was in his nature. If Hollywood could get away with it, he would have a machine gun in his hand and saying,"I'll be back!" Hollywood should realise that the scene in Moria when Gandalf calmly rests on his staff and says,"you cannot pass" is a very cinematic moment. You don't need the whole place falling apart and everyone running out just in time. And the ring doesn't need to be seen. Frodo clutching at his shirt has a much greater effect than actually pulling out the ring and tossing it around. After all, there is nothing visually interesting about a gold ring. In a ghost movie its the door shutting, the shadow,and the darkness that scares people, not a bloody zombie wanting to eat brains.

For those of you who say,"It's just a Hollywood movie and if Frodo packs an AK-47 all the better" I say fine. Change Frodo's name to Arnold. Change the title to "An Adventure Loosly Based on The Lord of the Rings". Changing anything but the most minor things in LOTR is like changing the Bible thinking no one will notice.

11-11-2001, 09:25 AM
Unfortunately, propping up the corpse of J.R.R.Tolkien in front of the Child-Like Director, Peter Jackson, would only create a Photo-op that would end up being spun as the old man rising from the grave to give PJ his blessings on the forthcoming production.

As for the Screenwriter and Director, they are the self same afore mentioned person, Peter Jackson. Aside from pointing a finger at New Line, something we won't see start until after Return of the King is released it won't happen, there is nobody else to blame for the gross change in the tale. Nobody involved with this project is getting paid in full up front aside from Sub Contractors like WETA and many of the Crafts Persons. The main players are taking a percentage of the Net after the fact, and a portion of money up front. There was not enough budget to pay that many actors and upper level production staff three times the wages up front AND make a movie or three...so there will be little said by anyone involved that could be the least bit harmfull to their own making the most money in the end that they can.

People keep saying that these are little changes, and individually they could not be more correct. If the only change in the film was Arwen's role, it would not be a big thing...outside of the fact that Tolkien himself said in a letter to Forrest J. Ackerman that he would rather see changes made in the plot then ever watch them alter his characters. But the fact that there are so many "little changes" and that so many of them are for no apparent good reason, Uruk Hai growing from maggots and emerging from pods, Gandalf acting crazed, Arwen wielding a sword and riding horseback...saving Frodo from the Nazgul, Gandalf and Saruman having a "Wizard's Duel" before Gandalf coaxes a Moth to help him escape, Boromir getting his hands on the Ring (Even if only the chain the Ring is on, Frodo is NOT in possession at that point), Lurtz, Hobbits having Pointy Ears...Elves having pointy ears...Merry and Pippin bravely facing the Nazgul on Weathertop...it all adds up into a great deal of change when you think that I have really just scratched the surface. These are only the things I could confirm through the Trailer and from Stills released through official outlets.

11-11-2001, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by ReadWryt
Unfortunately, propping up the corpse of J.R.R.Tolkien in front of the Child-Like Director, Peter Jackson, would only create a Photo-op that would end up being spun as the old man rising from the grave to give PJ his blessings on the forthcoming production.

LOL! RW you kill me...'chuckle'.

My burning question for PJ is WHY???? I can see some changes to make it more dramatic (though I highly disprove of them) but why the little changes?? Things like:

- Legolas wearing boots
- Maggot's carrots instead of mushrooms
- moth coming first instead of Gwahir (they could even have had Gwahir stumble on Gandalf accidentally)
- appearance of Hobbits
- skeleton falling in Moria instead of a rock.
- Bilbo and Frodo's lack of reluctance to give up the ring
- Fellowship volunteering instead of being appointed
- Bilbo not being at the Council (even in presence)
- Gimli's little drama trying to destroy the ring with his axe at the Council ( Gandalf made it plain to Frodo that the ring could not be destroyed except by the fires of Mount Doom. Or did PJ cut that part as well??)

And many more I'm sure you could all add.
Why does he feel the need to alter LoTR in the little things? What sense does it make..does he need to feel in ultimate control? Does he have no respect for Tolkien at all???


11-11-2001, 10:54 PM
My guess as to all the silly changes is that P.J. felt like he needed to add something. I work as a stage hand and I have to work with directors and technical directors and such. I've only worked on a movie set once though. What I have seen is that the crew and talent does everything well and often leaves nothing for the director to do. To feel better about him/herself, the director simply looks for something to change. Watch a housewife, sorry ladies, try to decide how to decorate a room and you get my drift.

PJ> "Hmmm, I like the part where Gandalf slams his staff and breaks off a piece of the stone bridge but lets make it more dramatic. Lets have the whole place falling apart and have the party trip over an orc egg just as its hatching. Then lets have Frodo bump his head into an orcs butt. Hmmm yes that would be good for the 2 year olds in the audience."

Its really not much different than a planner saying," Hmmm, lets put that plant over there and gawd that color is all wrong for the napkins!"

As a side note, I can't get my brother to read the books and I know that many people start and then stop. I suspect that many of the people working in and on the movie haven't even read it. It is long story and not all that easy to read. The many names and history lessons made me drop it when I was trying to read it in high school. I'm reading it now for the thrid time and loving it. On the bright side, people such as my brother who needs visual input such as TV and refuses to read anything might be inspired by the movie to actually read the real thing. Lets hope many do read it and see how much better it is than this Hollywood money mill.

11-12-2001, 01:28 PM
Well, except that in this case the Director wrote the Screenplay, and the Screenplay is what got him the money, so the version you are going to see is mostly what PJ created in the first place...Boredom had nothing to do with it.

...and I have NO idea how many times I have seen that stupid quote from Peter Jackson about how he and the actors would read each chapter before shooting it...so we at least know that the Director and Actors read it.

11-12-2001, 11:21 PM
It seems as if this topic is coming to a natural end.... SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING I CAN ARGUE WITH! My days at work are soooo dull without. mac

11-13-2001, 01:19 AM
Ok I will give you somethin to argue w/. Gandalf was not a Mair, heeehee this is of course not true but @ least you can argue it:D

O yea and down w/ PJ, this is the Movie forum after all:mad: :mad: :mad:

11-13-2001, 02:12 AM
Down with PJ *the following distasteful comments censored by Ciryaher*

This is slightly off topic but... I went to DC!

11-13-2001, 02:34 AM
I'm back after three days off with the flu. Down with PJ and the arse he rode in on. I hope he has a celebration party cake that looks like one of the horrid Uruk-hai pods and that it tastes just as bad as it looks.

11-13-2001, 02:36 AM
yes, I swear I'll get kicked out when i see the movie in theaters for..complianing!LOL

11-13-2001, 03:17 AM
Tar...you seem to have gotten an attitude adjustment about this whole thing...I like it!

As much as I don't want to do it...I think I will go back to tolkienonline and see the changes that have taken place with TT and RoTK..I know it will make me angry again, but it will give us more to talk about....

Down with PJ! (Thanks for taking up the cry folks!)

BTW, I went to a dollar matinee and they played the FoTR preview with the crazy, sputtering Gandalf (I hate that scene the most out of all the trailers!!)...I am ashamed to say that seeing that preview on the big screen gave me some chills...curse PJ for dampening my enjoyment of this film!!!

I should be back with more damning changes to report...

11-13-2001, 03:56 AM

More changes, though not as disturbing as FoTR.
The changes here are only those with a credibility rating between 3/5 - 5/5. There are many others with 0-2 crediblility rating that are disturbing. Hopefully they are not true.

Here we go...

The Two Towers

- There are elves fighting at Helm's Deep
- Legolas fights with two knives and a sword in addition to bow
- Uruk-hai have metal plated armor grafted onto their skin
- Elves and Uruk-hai have Samurai-style armor
- Theodred's funeral is shown (with Gandalf present)
- Treebeard smacks Merry and Pippen across the head with a stick before picking them up.
- Faramir roughly cuts Frodo's leather jerkin to expose the ring when Sam accidentally lets it's identity slip (give me a break!)
- Saruman is killed by Wormtongue pushing him onto some sort of spiked wheel where he is impaled. (This has to occur at Orthanc, yet Christopher Lee says Saruman is in all three movies. (?)
- Sam hits Gollum in head with a pan (accidentally, I think, for comic relief)

There is alot of reports about Arwen being involved somewhat in practically EVERYTHING (Helm's Deep, blowing horn of Arkenbrand and I think being in Gondor) Some of them have a credibility of 2 people! and are backed up by TORN. This is truly disheartening.

Return of the King

- Prince Imrahil not in any of the films
- Gondor's soldiers wear plated armor instead of chain mail (giving a Mideval look that Tolkien did not intend)
- There are battles inside Minas Tirith
- The ring chain cuts into Frodo's neck (showing the "heaviness" of the ring) the closer he gets to Mordor.
- Scouring of the Shire shown when Frodo looks into the Mirror of Galadriel, and apparently it is caused by Ted Sandyman instead of Saruman being behind it.
- Aragorn and Arwen's deaths are shown with a voice over by Frodo (Basically what's in the Appendix)

Like I said, there are many others, though there credibility rating is low. Yet, they are all supposedly backed up by TORN. So they could all be true. Check them out for yourself.

11-13-2001, 04:52 AM
"Aragorn and Arwen's deaths are shown with a voice over by Frodo (Basically whats it the Appendix)"

If he screwes this up (which he undoubtedly shall) I vow to murder the man! (Or would if I weren't a somewhat extreme pacifist... :rolleyes: )

11-13-2001, 06:47 AM
MAN!!!! I don;t know if I should even be involved in this thread anymore. It moves me closer and closer to not wanting to see the movie:mad: :mad: :mad:

O WELL:) I will still stay and complain, DOWN W? PJ:mad: (It is kinda becoming a tradition, lol)

11-13-2001, 02:11 PM
I find the comment "Samurai-style armor" a bit disturbing since there are no mentioning of Samurai look-alikes in LoTR..

11-14-2001, 12:39 PM
I would not be too hasty to damn the film, I will watch the film and then comment on how bad it is. Although I do understand how people can be anxious, there does appear to be many superfluous changes to the whole thing. We'll see, I suppose. When does it come out in the UK, is is December 19th? Anyone know?

11-14-2001, 04:06 PM

11-16-2001, 12:42 PM
I'm making a new movie based on the last days of Jesus' life…

It's going to be an astonishingly vivid production that will bring the original story and characters alive on the big screen…well, I WILL be making a few changes in the interest of Cinematic Constraints. For starters I'm having to leave out Harrod because of the time limits, but on the brighter side I'm filming the actual stories in Christ's parables so that the audience can actually SEE the events instead of just hearing Jesus describe them! Oh, and when Christ busts up the Marketplace Mary will ride in on an ass and snatch Jesus up, taking him on a chase away from the Pharasees to the outskirts of the city where she will recite an incantation that will confuse the Jewish Priests and scatter them…

Also, in the interest of making it more exciting, Jesus and Pilate get into a fist fight. Pilate is a bigger player in my version too, and his Roman Centurions will hatch from eggs instead of being born, which is MUCH creepier…And the head Centurion will be a nasty guy, Lurtzimus is his name. Jesus will escape from Pilate by whispering a message to a Locust, who goes and gets help.

There will be a few other changes, but nothing drastic…Judas dies sooner in the story, the Romans wear Samurai armor and one of the Apostles wears boots instead of sandals, little things like that…So it's not EXCATLY like the book, it's more like MY VERSION of the story, but I'm not going to make any changes that anyone would be upset by…

Rosie Cotton
11-16-2001, 10:21 PM
RW, hate to break it to you but LOTR is not up their with the bible and you really can't fairly compare the two. I realize that you were only kidding, but, although I love LOTR, it IS just a book. And to billions of people around the world the bible tells them how to live their lives. If LOTR is that big a part of anyone's life... well... that's not good.

11-16-2001, 11:58 PM
Your comparison is brilliant. The Bible is sacred but distorting it is no different than distorting TLOTR. As a matter of fact, The Last Temptation of Christ was very much just that..... humanizing Christ almost to the point where you don't recognize him as the Son of God. What a great analogy.

11-17-2001, 12:26 AM

I see your point, but then you should know by now that I am an agnostic comparative mythologist and so the two are equal in my own eyes...

Rosie Cotton
11-17-2001, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Grond
Your comparison is brilliant. The Bible is sacred but distorting it is no different than distorting TLOTR. As a matter of fact, The Last Temptation of Christ was very much just that..... humanizing Christ almost to the point where you don't recognize him as the Son of God. What a great analogy.

I love LOTR dearly, but IT'S JUST A BOOK!!!! I realize that to non-christians the bible is also only a book, and that's ok with me. But there is no group that I know of that sees LOTR as something more then a piece of fiction.

11-18-2001, 12:20 AM
Rosie, I, too, am a Christian. My agreement with ReadWryt's analogy has absolutely nothing to do with my faith. It has to do with distorting TRUTH.. There are biblical truths that should not be distorted and there are literary and artistic truths which, to many of us are sacred also and should not be distorted. That doesn't mean that the two works are of comparable worth. The Bible is much more meaningful and important to me personally than are the works of any mortal man; but, the integrity of all works, spiritual and artistic, should be protected and not distorted in the name of the almight dollar. At least that's the way I see it..... but I could be wrong.

11-18-2001, 12:27 AM
Exactly the point, Grond.

I'm so amazed that so many people here miss a point and are lost on analogy...


I am a Christian as well and I believe that RW's comparison had nothing to do with level of importance, but the idea of distortion. Come to think of it, Last Temptation of Christ was to Christians what PJ's FoTR is to Tolkien fans...

1) Scorsese and Jackson have ugly characters playing the beautiful ones (Willem Dafoe), FoTR has Elrond's actor and Cate Blanchett.

2) They have other characters doing things out of character, thus distorting the importance of who they were (Christ imagining himself sleeping with Mary) FoTR has crazy Gandalf and Xen-Arwen.

Amazing what Hollywood will do with the sacred text (whether spirtual or literal). It's even amazing how many people accept it and call it good entertainment...


11-18-2001, 07:14 AM
Rosie apparently can only see one side of the coin. Perhaps she has been accused of extreme fanaticism or high geekdom for her knowlege of LotR at some point and cannot get past the idea that it's equally wrong to change any story so extensively, no matter if it is Fiction, Truth or whoever BELIEVES it to be one or the other, when you are telling huge swaths of the potential viewers of the movie that it is as close to a literal adaptation as is possible.

At least when Marion Zimmer Bradley published "Mists of Avalon", she made it known widely that she was retelling the story from a different perspective, and that changes in the Arthurian Legend had been made in the process. What Jackson is doing is akin to that guy that stands outside the tent at the sideshow who tells you that for a dollar you can see a real live honest to god Unicorn, and when you get inside the tent you realize that what you are seeing is a Goat that only has one horn...

Rosie Cotton
11-18-2001, 07:48 AM
All right, I understand the whole point of the bible analogy a bit better now, and I'll admit that I over reacted a tiny bit. When I first read it, all that jumped out at me was someone comparing LOTR to the bible. I think I undestand the whole point of it better now. But if everyone held true to:

it's equally wrong to change any story so extensively, no matter if it is Fiction, Truth or whoever BELIEVES it to be one or the other, when you are telling huge swaths of the potential viewers of the movie that it is as close to a literal adaptation as is possible.

the world would have a lot less quality movies then it does now.

11-18-2001, 02:03 PM
...uh, maybe...but then, what would be the harm in just comming right out and saying "Hey, I made a bunch of changes in this when I made a movie out of it, but I think it's still really good anyways!" instead of all the two faced, spin doctored bactracking and deception that so many in hollywood do. I mean, even Vanderhoven finally admitted that "Starship Troopers" had little or nothing to do with the original book nearly a year before it came out...

11-18-2001, 04:57 PM
Yeah Rosie. We're are upset with the changes... but much more upset that PJ has made so many statements akin to "JRRT was on the set everyday. We did nothing that he wouldn't have smiled down upon." "We read the chapter each day before we started shooting to make sure we had it right." (These are not exact quotes, but are close enough.) and what I have to say about that is HOGWASH!!!!! (Yeah, I'm shouting.)

If you're going to change something... have the guts to say it is a loose adaptation and not the "real deal". At least... that's what I think and, in this, I don't think I'm wrong.

11-18-2001, 08:10 PM
Yes Grond i would definetely say that you are right, and that you share the same view as many on this forum, PJ is the core of our hatred:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

11-19-2001, 10:46 AM
Here is something you don't see every day...it's a still from the scene where Arwen and Galadriel converse, JUST LIKE IN THE BOOK!!!


...I'll just be over here by the waste basket strugling to keep my dinner down now...

11-19-2001, 07:54 PM
That is absolutely the....hhmmmppp:( :( I think I am gonna....RALLLLPPPPHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!(Throws up profusely)

o yea and DOWN W? PJ!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Rosie Cotton
11-19-2001, 10:21 PM
Not all the photos seen are from the movie itself. Some are just publicity shots, and my guess is that this photo is one of them. I hope it is anyway, I'm finding it harder and harder to defend PJ when I see things like this and learn of yet another change. :(

11-19-2001, 11:21 PM
Unfortunatly, I think that is in the movie. I went to the LOTR day at Barnes and Noble, and they showed just a little bit of that scene. No dialogue, of course, but it looked like it was going to be in.

Oh yes, here's another scene, just like in the book! Elrond and Celeborn together in Rivendell! *puke*

11-20-2001, 12:56 AM
Doesn't Celborn look like an a number one WUSS!! Why couldn't they have picked someone with a little more presence. He looks almost sweet enough to kiss, not the Lord of the Galadrim. Of course, he and Elrond together in Rivendell did occur. PJ was asleep one night not long ago and had a dream in which JRRT told him that this did actually occur. JRRT just forgot to right it down. As for Galadriel and Arwen showing up together in TFOTR, PJ was heard to say, "Well, Galadriel had actually seen Arwen when Arwen and Aragorn plighted their troth in Lothlorien in the year 2980. That's only a difference of 28 years. Twenty-eight years ain't much when considering artistic impression, right??"

(By the way, PJ never really said any of that. I'm just being cute to keep from being physically ill."

11-20-2001, 02:12 AM
That's Rivendell!? I swear they stole that from one of the Elf cities in Baldur's Gate.

11-20-2001, 04:00 AM

What is PJ thinking??? What are Celeborn and Elrond doing together?? What??? Comparing notes???

"I never really approved of Celebrian dating you, you know."
"Aw, but Cel, she was such a hot toddy."
"Of course she is, look at her mother! Helloooh?? Now she is pretty good when...
"Ah, no, don't scar me!"

That should raise some ire...:D

Seriously, though...WHY?? WHY??? WHY???? Why do this?? Why put them together and Arwen and Galadriel together? Its unnecessary and stupid and so anti-Tolkien. If JRR wanted some sort of Elven discourse in FoTR, he would have put it in there!!!

DOOOOOOOOWN WITH PJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

11-20-2001, 04:46 AM
I can't believe PJ is doing this it makes me sick. I have been looking forward to this forever and he has to go and mess it up for every one. I mean come on Arwen looks like a little girl pouting fit and have to have he grammy come and console her. I dont know what it looks like to you guys but thats what it looks like to me. Well I was hoping and praying that they would be a good movie. DOWN WITH PJ!!!!!!!

11-20-2001, 07:30 AM
I, for one, am totally confused by Arwen's attitude. She is rendering an opinion about a book that she hasn't even read. Making a comment that she wishes Tolkien had more action roles for women while she doesn't have a clue other than a few innocent posts on this board.

All the while, ignoring that Eowyn's deeds in TLOTR are among the greatest of any warrior, male or female, in any of his writings. What a crock. Hey, let me form an opinion about Ms. Rowling, I haven't read the Harry Potter books but, gosh, I have seen the movie.

11-20-2001, 10:35 AM
Grond, you lie. Why do you lie like that?? PJ never SLEEPS! He's working twenty four hours a day to make Fellowship the greatest and most entertaining packaging of J.R.R. Tolkien's masterwork that can possibly be made demmit...he actually has a hotline to John Edwards who CHANNELS Tolkien for him, silly!

11-20-2001, 10:02 PM
OK . . . I know I'm going to catch heck for this but I think it needs to be said.

First let me say that I do not agree with many of the decisions PJ has made (at least as well as I understand them from trailers and discussions). I have come to the conclusion that he is probably not a good director (or at least that I don't like his style): he has chosen to add "Action" in lieu of stretching his director muscles and building suspense. Example: the ride to the Ferry is one of the most tense moments of the first book but of course PJ gives us a chase scene instead. Hitchcock, on the other hand, would have kept us on the edge of our seats.

Now with that out of the way let me 'splain something that seems to have escaped many people: Movies and Books are not the same thing.

Movies create meaning visually, Books create meaning with words.
Books take time to set a scene, create a mood, describe a character; Movies (well made movies anyway) can do this in an instant. Books, on the other hand, can use literary devices like metaphor to express deeper meanings and convey more information.

For these reasons and more, a movie can never be an exact replica of a literary work. I think people confuse this because both media "tell stories" but here's an analogy that might set this debate in a different context: Imagine a painting of people dancing. We understand the difference between dancing and painting so we don't rebel at the thought of the painter "misrepresenting" the dance.

We go to movies with a different set of expectations than we read books with and can tolerate long passages of description. When Aragorn tells Frodo of his courtship with Arwen, the reader simply sees this as a natural literary device. A film, on the other hand, can (and must) convey this story visually. If this means putting Arwen in Lorien, then I say so be it!

I hope I've made sense . . . just remember, we don't talk about reading movies and watching books.

PS: Yes, I know that there are gross and unnecessary additions and alterations made in the movie, I don't want to argue about each one since they've been covered in great detail in the earlier posts. But I do hear people confusing the convensions of stroytelling used in movies and books.

PPS: Almost forgot: Down with PJ!!!!!

11-21-2001, 01:04 AM
Scooter... Sorry but I just flat out disagree with you. There are a number of movies that do all the things visually that a movie has to do and yet REMAINS TRUE TO THE SPIRIT OF THE BOOK!!! I'll give you two classic examples 1) The Godfather - written by Mario Puzo and the movie directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Interestingly, screenplay credit goes to Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola. 2)Interview with the Vampire. Much had to be cut out of the movie because the book was very long... but, the essence of the book was in the movie.

Contrast that to the new PJ LOTR and you'll find a movie that palely reflects the book with many things cut out as they might need to be but with many, many things added which are an unnecessary intrusion and distraction from the original work. PJ could easily have remained true to the book and still had a bang up movie with the same cast of characters. If he wanted Liv Tyler to be the action heroine.... cast her as Eowyn. I think that it is ironic that PJ cast her in the tame role of Arwen and casts a nobody as Eowyn. If you're paying Liv the big bucks... then cast her as Eowyn. Oh well!!! Makes no difference now... what is done is done... we can't unmake the movie and the opportunity to create a true LOTR movie is gone forever. At least we'll have the books.........forever.

11-21-2001, 01:35 AM
Grond -- I don't think we're in too much disagreement -- I didn't say that LotR "The Movie" will be true to the spirit of the book and I plan on being disappointed :(. What I was editorializing on was comments like this one (and there are lots of other in this post):

Originally posted by ------
...All of these events do play an important part. The Scouring, Old Forest, Barrow down, Weathertop; all work together to support exactly what you say they don't: a hobbit faced with a seemingly impossible task that he ends up accomplishing. All these episodes build up to just that: it's called character development. Tolkien wasn't just some average Joe-story teller. Tolkien spent most of his adult life forming ME, you don't think every part of it interprets and complements itself? You don't think that he had reasons for every thing he wrote about? Of course altering the story like PJ has done will change much of the meaning of the plot and character. The little things in good literature make a big difference to the story, that's the difference between your average author and those like Dickens, and Tolkien. They wrote it that way.
It's a great analysis of the cohesiveness of Tolkien's writing but can't, in turn be applied to film-making since films are made differently than books.

I know that PJ is no Coppola (if only!) but I'm sure (mostly sure anyway since I haven't read the book) that if applied to the same scrutiny used on this forum, we'd find people dressed incorrectly, saying things not said in the book and acting in ways not originally written, etc. And yet "The Godfather" is still a great movie! and not in spite of the inconsistencies but in many cases because of them -- they enhance the translation to the screen.

I doubt that PJ will have the skill to carry out the same transformation that Coppola did. I think he has made unnecessary changes and I expect the movie to suffer for it.

Rosie Cotton
11-21-2001, 03:39 AM
Wooohooo! :D I finally have another person who sees things the same way I do! PJ stinks, but movies and books have to be different. I thank you Scooter! I've been trying to say what you've just said for the last month. I'm so glad I'm not the only one with a revisionist standing anymore, I was getting lonely! :D

11-21-2001, 02:13 PM
Thanks Rosie! I thought you'd approve . . . though you've taken the brunt of the grief for the position.

11-21-2001, 02:35 PM
Yet again I step in to clarify that which has been posted by most of the people distainfull of Jackson's interpretation of this Literary Work.

It's not WHAT he's done with the film that has most people upset, it's what he's done with the Media in the promotion of the concept that he is making what Coppola did with Puzo's work, as direct a representation of the original work as is possible.

Secondly, the other thing that is annoying beyond New Line and Peter Jackson trying to spin the accuracy and literalness (is that a word?) of the film in relation to the books is that too many of the changes are not abhorant simply because they are changes, or because we have some rediculously tenacious grasp on what Tolkien WANTED the movie to be, although he made his feelings on that subject quite clear in his writings to Forrest J. Ackerman when he was reading the Disney Treatment of their crack at it, it's that so many of the changes like Uruk-Hai being spawned from Maggots and Arwen being all over the movie...like Gandalf talking a Moth into helping him escape Orthanc and Boromir comming into possession of the Ring are not merely cinematic expediencies which were neccesitated by the constraints of taking a book full of deep descriptions and narative to the Film medium, nor do they make any sense in the framework of the STORY, and are not true to the CHARACTERS. They are flights of fancy that the director has seen fit to invent for his own amusement and in some cases actually detract from the logic and fundimental historical fabric of Middle-earth...

This is not merely a complaint by geeky people who have nothing better to do then count the braids in Gimli's beard and decry inconsistency in the wearing of boots by Elves in the Snow, for that would indeed be silly, and it's not some anal retentive gripe fest because someone never pictured Arwen's dress to be a particular color...it's rational dissapointment that when faced with the chance to merely exclude some element that was merely eluded to in the books, like the origin of Uruk-Hai, Jackson has chosen not to bother excluding their birth but instead has invented something ALIEN to the Mythical Universe NOT because it makes for better story telling, but because it sells more toys...Why is it so important for someone other then Frodo to have the Ring? How does it relate the story better to undermine Elrond's flood at the ford by having Arwen in horseback in a place she never was reciting an incantation to wash the Nazgul away? What would have been so wrong with explaining, as they did in the book, that Elrond was behind that event, and to have the marvelous character development of Frodo gaining the courage to face the Nazgul from across the water?

It's not so much the Changes, like giving one person a line that was originally spoken by another character, it's the INVENTION of things that have nothing to do with Middle-earth that are the most prepugnant...

11-21-2001, 04:13 PM
My, why is that so easy to understand? Everybody must be on another wave length, because RW has nailed it right on the head. I can't fully understand why everybody seems to balk at such a rational argument and miss the whole point of it by counteracting it with something way off the mark like:

"Now with that out of the way let me 'splain something that seems to have escaped many people: Movies and Books are not the same thing."


"For these reasons and more, a movie can never be an exact replica of a literary work. "

Both statements, which seem to be the rallying cry of people who are missing the point, MISS THE POINT!

We are not expecting an exact replica of the dialogue, scenery, and costume wear to be what our imagine has conjured up and complain when we feel it misses the mark. Go back and read RW's post again...and again until you get the point...and also remember my previous posts about WHAT book is being taken to the screen and why there should be a bit more sacredness involved in the movie making process.

11-21-2001, 04:33 PM
A few comments:
Readwryt, Can you give your Bible movie a happy ending? I always tend to get a little sad when I read the part where Jesus dies. Maybe, could you let him escape?, shoot his way out? Hey! I smell a sequel! Son of Son of G_d.

Those duckpond pictures are scary. I remind you, those are supposed to be the two most beautiful women in the world. Pouty Arwen! :barf:

Thorin, Willem Dafoe's on the phone. He says he's got somthing to tell you.

Scooter, loved your comments about lazy directing using the ferry approach as an example. I love Hitchcock.

Does anyone know how Jackson got this gig? Did he come up with this idea himself and pitch it to studios?

Who knows what kind of climax RotK will have? Maybe Frodo can put on the ring, use it to cut Smeagol in half, turn it on Barad-dur and blow that up, then take it off and throw it in saying "Later for you!" all the while Limp Bizkit's latest plays in the background (with special guest vocalist ... I don't know, some rapper.) Then credits roll to ..... aw come on ... you know who it is ... think about it ... it's easy ... it's SO simple ... Aerosmith! (When exactly did those guy stop writing real songs and start stamping out that uninspired *&^# anyway?). I exaggerate but sadly, not that much!

I'm still gonna see the movie.

I'm sorry I stopped following this thread. It seems to have gotten interesting recently.

BTW, the false presentation of the filmakers of their devotion to JRRT's story is a lot insulting and I think those of you anchoring your outrage upon that have hit the bullseye. The rest to me is personal preference and opinions. Money isn't the root of all evil, it's marketing.

11-21-2001, 08:59 PM
Hi all. New member here.

My oh my, I had no idea of the volume of changes that are hinted to be in the movies.

I agree with most regarding the change in Arwen's character. Perhaps our reactions are disproportionate to the actual changes we will see on the screen..well..hopefully.

The orc from pods thing is sort of silly, but can be dismissed for the most part imo, but it sounds like the new orc character is a poorly contrived device to create a classic duel between it and Aragorn. By the way, is he known as Strider in the movies?

I had noticed myself the fact that the ring seems to flow around freely in even the trailers. Perhaps at the council we see the longing in Frodo's eyes when it is apart from him, or something to show the viewer the power the ring has over its wielder.

The kiss with Aragorn seemed out of place at the least...love story hype.

The scouring of the shire? I agree it would be anticlimatic in a movie, but it is unfortunate some telling of it could not be done. The growth of the hobbits in dealing with the problems in the shire all on their own was integral to their story.

Isolated encounters regarding orcs and the fellowship, and other liberties don't bother me, as long as the encounter itself is something you could imagine in the books.

As for Gandalf, again, I noticed his personality from the trailers, and was like...gee..he acts like he is insane. From my readings of the books, I imagine him as a non-descript geezer with a beard (though not prone to bumping his head on doorways) until there is need for him to almost increase in stature and draw upon his power. I like Ian as him, and don't even mind him being written as pensive, but not bumbling.

Alas, I am certain I have not read the books as many times as many of the other members posting here, and did not read the history of the elves. I do love the books, and plan to love the movies. I will probably (surely?) love them less than if there were not so many liberties taken, but perhaps those liberties will loom less large in a theater seat with a box of popcorn (does anyone ever finish the box?) than here in our chairs as we type away...

I am not sure why Peter Jackson is such a bastard, though I readily admit he does try and talk out of both sides of his mouth, which is very unfortunate. I think that makes him a seller (liar?). It is yet to be seen if he is a good director I assume he is not making the movie with his own money, or Tolkien's, so perhaps there is pressure from other areas.

My girlfriend has only seen one of the animated versions of The Hobbit. She has not read any of the books. My interest in fantasy has encouraged her to read The Last DragonLord by Joanne Bertin. With the movies coming out, she is sure to read the Lord of the Rings now. I think there may be more fans/readers after the movies. If that happens, I think the movie will be a success. If the ones who do choose to go see the movie are thrilled by it and can escape for a few hours to a world that was at least mostly created by Tolkien, than it is also a success.

Those who refuse to watch the movie can sit at home and read the books again. But maybe one should not make up his mind until someone has actually seen the movie. But downloading a bootleg copy sounds cool... :cool:

Anyway, hope my post contributed in some way.

11-21-2001, 09:32 PM
Now Thorin...hehe. Cool your jets friend. No need to get overly agitated. If you go back and look at the posts I have made in this thread you will note a consitency in my stance and a lack of letting any frustration color my posts and verge on insulting people. :)

Everyone is making good posts for the most part, and I admire Rosie for her point of view. In fact, I'm not urging anyone NOT to see the movie. I have friends who have not read the books, and I have told every one of them to read them AFTER seeing the movies so that they can enjoy the film version as well as the books. I think this is the best way to handle the literacy question, and I'm not at all worried that the Film characterization of the characters will color their mental picture because they will be imagining some decent actors doing and saying what Tolkien wrote them doing instead of what they did in the movie...

As for outside pressure from New Line Cinema on Jackson, I really am getting to feel that there has indeed been more of it then we suspect. I can hear the conversation now...

Jackson: ..other then that how do you like the screenplay?

New Line: It's great Pete baby, but what about the Evil Sidekick..the Uber Lacky, you know...it needs a Darth Maul!

Jackson: Um, there really isn't one...I mean, that's kinda what Saruman was...

New Line: WHAT?! Christopher Lee as Darth Maul, are you nuts?

Jackson: ...I'll see what I can do, and don't call me Pete...

11-22-2001, 01:12 AM
Boo-urns. I go away for a couple of months and now you've got a Poet's Guild and a Wizard's Guild and Eru knows what else. What fun! Sounds like some 9-year-old girls' Beauxbatons club. Don't mind my jealousy...
The revelations in this loooooong thread have been shocking to say the least! Here's my humble opinion to offer to all the Grand High Guilded [fools?]:

No movie is like the book. No movie is better than the book. It's a universal truth. While a great fantasy like LOTR cannot be compared to the Bible, it's not just something that happened to fall onto JRR Tolkien's paper. It's a complete, detailed world that he created thoroughly. He knew exactly how everything should be and Darth PJ should have respected that (or else respected all those irritable fans.)
Picking on small changes, though...! It can't be a clone but those little changes are harmless. I mean, (with all respect) who really CARES if Legolas wears boots instead of shoes? And the skeleton instead of a rock...oh, get over it. You have to expect those things.

Now, as for Gandalf...he's a Maia. Let's hope he's not as goofy as first impressions suggested.
Arwen...hmm. Obviously Darth PJ can't show a movie where the female characters are mostly downplayed and thrust aside. Once again one of those things you have to expect, so it's not too shocking. I expect Eowyn won't decide to become a gardener after proving her warrior prowess. Though perhaps they are putting Arwen in too much.
Did Darth PJ forget that Frodo is 50+ when he starts his quest? Aragorn is 87. (Does he look too young?) Wise, mature characters get replaced by properly youthful actors. Now of course there are no Earthly actors who look as good as Elves. Accept that. Liv Tyler and "Hello, Mr. Anderson" are good enough.
The major plot changes and character changes are the real blasphemies. For one example, the Scouring of the Shire is one of the most important parts of the book, even according to Tolkien (correct me if I'm wrong.) And it is NOT an anticlimax. Picture this. The hobbits get back from their grand quest, back to their own personal heaven, only to discover that Saruman's corrupting and destroying it. It makes the war that much more personal. I'm horrified, I think I may not go to see RotK because of that one omission. If my fellow Tolkienite friends read the thread, they'd be shocked too!
I never cry over movies, and I hope LOTR isn't that one exception.

11-22-2001, 01:52 AM
In regards to ages:

Bilbo made it to 129+ years (3019-2890) b'day. That's with the ring. Old Took made it to 130. So, say the average age of death is 110...So, Frodo was 50, out of 110...that's equvalent 35 in humans' time (assuming average life-span = 75).
Even with this in mind, I admit, he does seem pretty young in the movie...

And as for Aragorn: He was a Numenorian. He lived from (Shire-Reckoning) 1331 to 1541!!! That is 210 years!!! So 79 out of 210 is equavalent to 28 years old in human times...

You really need to consider their lifespans more....

11-22-2001, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by ReadWryt
Now Thorin...hehe. Cool your jets friend. No need to get overly agitated. If you go back and look at the posts I have made in this thread you will note a consitency in my stance and a lack of letting any frustration color my posts and verge on insulting people. :)

My intention is not to insult anyone...forgive me, those who feel a personal assault on them....;)

I do get frustrated because I and others including you, RW, have tried umpteenth ways to explain why we are frustrated with this whole movie and stress the importance of the sacredness of Tolkien's work and keep having to redefend them against arguments that seem to totally miss the point. I guess I may sometimes let that frustration show. :rolleyes:

Everybody, I do respect your opinions...let me tell you where I'm coming from.... (takes pipe and kicks back in rocking chair)..

I have always been a purist, someone who does not like change. I grew up reading. I loved to read. I grew to like the images my mind conjured up and I loved to lose myself in a good yarn while lying in bed (still do!). I watched practically every Stephen King story I read and enjoyed become horrifically massacred by the big screen. In my youth, I dealt with it and came to accept and even like some of the movies. I know that Hollywood distorts and morphs books to its own liking. It is inevitable that it happens. Unlike all the other books I read, however, LoTR stood above them all like a towering giant. I started reading them before I was in my teens (about 18 years ago) and internalized it like nothing I ever did. I LOVED THE IMAGINATION OF TOLKIEN!! And I do not like nor have any desire to read any other fantasy books. That is how much Tolkien affected me.
Now after 18 years (and for others 30 and 40 years...) Tolkien's masterpiece has come to the screen...I faced the concept a year ago with apprehension..what if it craps on it like all the other movies did to my favorite books? But no, SURELY with something this grand with such a HUGE following for over 50 years, it will be handled with care. Now I am let down once again...but the loss is even greater with LoTR than some old Stephen King novel...

Sigh...I think the worst part is that LoTR will never again be the same, people. All the marketing, all the merchandise, all the misconceptions. PJ's movie has changed the dynamics of what LoTR was to society. Imagination will, to some extent, be replaced with different images and some of those images are horribly skewed and distorted. Newbies after PJ will not see the LoTR that we all grew up with.

I guess that it just bothers someone like me who does not like change more than the average person.

The End

Rosie Cotton
11-22-2001, 03:37 AM
Ok, Thorin that's completely fair. Don't worry about offending people, I for one understand that you feel very strongly about this movie and you just want to defend your stand point. I just hope everyone realizes that I'm doing the same thing.

11-22-2001, 08:22 PM
I totally agree, Thorin. In every way.
Except it's been markedly less than 18 years since I first encountered LotR... ;)

11-22-2001, 09:21 PM
Well... If ya really wanna know... it's the whole Arwen thing! SHE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A LINE IN ALL THE BOOKS AND NOW THEY MAKE HER A WARRIORESS!!?!?!?! WHAT THE %*&@!!! Sorry... lost my cool there for a minute.. whew...

11-23-2001, 03:43 AM
i can see all sides here...

One thing is that every person has a different imagination...and what people r scared of is that the imagination that tolkien made as see is no longer going to be there any more. How many people r going to read lord of the rings after the movie and imagine frodo as Elijah Wood and sauman as Christopher Lee. Our imagination is a great thing and it should be treasured...and know this is going to be ruined...that’s what people love about tolkiens work is that he gave as a great imagination...today people use it. They rely on the big screen..and i think that is sad...when we journey through this time we will see kids watching movies all the time and they will forget the word books....I already see it in one of my cousins...i convinced her to read lord of the rings she though it was a great book intill she thought it was boring, she got up to the start of the 3rd book..and now she says why finish the book when i get to see the full thing on screen and it only goes for a few hours...but she does have some sense in her cause she is a fan of Harry potter..and she doesn't want to see the movie..and she is not going to ...cause she doesn't imagine hogwarts as it is in the movie..

After writing that i still want to see the movie...but I am not going to believe that what i am watching was written by tolkien

Sacred Cat
11-23-2001, 11:58 AM
ok, guys, i know many thinks make us all very angry and very frustrated. WHY change the WONDERFUL book if things can be left the way they are SUPPOSED to be? and of course it is not right. however, please do not forget the world we live in now: the truth is, and i think you know it, that the movie is not made for the fans. it is made to make MONEY. it is all about profit.

whatever changes were made to the original story were only made to make the film a BETTER SHOW, so that the raitings are good, and the critisc love it, and more people give their 10 bucks to see it.. maybe not even once. the same goes worrior arwen - people would simply NOT understand why there are all these men doing all the work if we live in the world of absolute equity or rights.. women cant' just sit around and be pretty - if all fight, well, let them fight too! also, imagine, ms. tyler is getting a lot of money for 10 minutes of her screen time - she has to be shown off in all the glory and power.

there are hundreds of thousands tolkien fans all over the world, but there are still more people who are unfamiliar with his work or just plain ignorant. the movie is made to please all one way or the other. fans tend to be picky with every little detail and yet most of them can be satisfied by a wholesome screenplay, with a few minor displeasing things.

we can vent all we want on people like arwen (hi) who ask general questions, but there will be more of them, who never read the book and will very soon be spoiled by the movie. they will like it no doubt - but that's the hard truth of life - i think most of them wil NOT go back to the original novel to see what REALLY happens.

guys, we just have to live with it. do we really have the power to influence PJ or anyone else?

11-23-2001, 12:21 PM
but he is using the thing we love to make money...

Sacred Cat
11-23-2001, 12:32 PM
yes but we cant' do anything about it.... many good things get exploited... but i doubt it is a moral issue for him - think of the millions he will get!
i hear he is a tolkie fan himself... at least that is good. we could have had the film even more commercialized! we could have had arwen in xena outfit - to boost up the raitings! could have asked arnie to play aragorn. lurtz-the-purple-dinasaur is BAD but it all could have been worse...

11-23-2001, 12:37 PM
true...i guess we r asking to much of PJ....we want everything to be right...and no movie will ever be that way...i don't like the idea that Pj is ruining our imagnation and all cause of money...

11-23-2001, 05:45 PM
You are right....it could be a lot worse....


You receive a name tag that would have said "Hello, my name is"
them but it now says "Hello, my word is"

11-23-2001, 09:45 PM
Imagenation awesome I use mine every day. My cousin read the first to LoTR books then when he got to the RoTK he stopped he said it was boring. That is my fav. book and is fare from boring!!!!!peolpe get so if they aren't entertaned every monite they lose intrest. personly I dont think any of the book is boring. I LOVE IT ALL!!!!!!!

11-23-2001, 10:00 PM
I think PJ will make a monumental movie, a movie that will top charts for ages.

I think Arwen will be great I just love the "If you want him come and claim him scene". Very good. I hope she will not fight though and according to PJ she will be very much in line with the book and the appendix.

The one thin I hate is that the Barrow wights is excluded because how will Merry othervise in a good manner get the Sword that could kill the Witch King. It is not a common sword found at any smith or shop....

That is a real bad change..

But I really think the movie will blow us all away in amazement..

11-23-2001, 10:46 PM
Chippy said,

true...i guess we r asking to much of PJ

The official Fellowship of the Ring website says..

Now, the legend that Tolkien wrought is finally being brought to life on the motion picture screen, an undertaking that has required nothing less than one of the most colossal movie productions ever embarked upon. The mythos, landscapes, and creatures Tolkien created are so awesome that it has taken more than four decades for cinema technology to reach the necessary level of sophistication to bring them to life. Such a vast project would require nothing less than a visionary to mastermind it. That visionary is Peter Jackson, who has embarked upon an unprecedented fete to make three motion pictures simultaneously to capture Tolkien’s soaring epic in its entirety.

Peter Jackson said,

"What we are trying to do, as we adapt ‘The Lord of The Rings’ into a film medium is honor these themes; and whilst you can never be totally faithful to a book, especially a book over 1,000 pages, we have tried to incorporate the things that Tolkien cared about when he wrote the book, and make them the fabric of the films."

In a 1958 letter to Forrest J. Ackerman, J.R.R. Tolkien wrote,

"I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speaches characters they will be represented as I have presented them; in style and sentiment. I should resent perversions of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more then the spoiling of the plot and scenery."

It seems that the Scenery has been reproduced quite splendidly in this production, and for that Jackson deserves kudos...and the Plot, Hobbit finds his strength while stopping the dark lord Sauron from obtaining the One Ring, has been maintained. In the process many slight changes have been made in the actual actions involved in the Plot, but the basic struggle of Good versus Evil and the mechanics of the plot remain, so once more, Jackson gets my praise.

But to publish so widely that you are fulfilling the things that Tolkien cared about, when it is available even to lowly Forum Moderators like myself to actually READ what Tolkien cared about, and then to make sweeping changes in the CHARACTERS as Jackson has, the only thing I can conclude is that the only way that I have expected too much of Jackson is that I expected him to be HONEST with the Public about what he was doing in making the films...

11-24-2001, 01:15 AM
Gosh, I don't log on for a couple of days and this thread EXPLODES with comment!

Rosie, I share your opinion about the forthcoming film. Don't feel too alone! It is good to find other members of this forum who share my opinion about the quinticential differences between a film and a book. I've already stated my position on this point and it has been made powerfully by others, so it does not need repeating. The answer to this argument has consistently been that it doesn't matter if the genre of film and novel is different as many changes are unnecessary and their effect, it has been alleged, will be to spoil the depth, mystery, plot, and characterisation within the novel. So much so that, in the end, the imagination of the reader will be sullied by the poisonous imagery of the Demon-lord Peter Jackson...

cue crack of thunder + cackling laughter

... That's the ultimate harm isn't it? If the film does turn out to PANTS then the only really substantial and important thing at risk is that our memory of LOTR will be altered and the view we have of Tolkien’s work will diminish indirectly. This truely would be a crime against humanity. The other perceived harms that may occur I don't consider that significant: If (stupid) people wish to claim they know of LOTR without reading Tolkien then they should be caste in to the same pit (preferably with spikes in) as those who believe they know of Frankenstein before they've read Shelly. If LOTR fans go to the movie believing it to be a true to form recreation - they wont buy the Frodo-doll (shudder), or the video. In my mind and imagination, I believe Tolkien's world is too strong a place to be washed away by the superficiality of Hollywood. A bad movie will be a missed opportunity and be mourned, but as no-one has yet seen this movie I wont be wearing my black vale just yet. It will be of great interest to me to see what opinions the members of this forum have AFTER the movie is released.



11-24-2001, 01:36 AM
Xzizor, one of the most telling and important scenes in the book is Frodo at the Fords of Bruinen. He is almost overcome by the Nazgul blade shard still in his shoulder; feeling the increasing weight of the ring; having the Lord of the Nazgul beckon, nay, command him to submit and at that defining moment, Frodo raises up in his stirrups and says, "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair....you shall have neither the Ring nor me."


At least that's the way I feel.

11-24-2001, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Xzizor
[BI think Arwen will be great I just love the "If you want him come and claim him scene". Very good. I hope she will not fight though and according to PJ she will be very much in line with the book and the appendix.

The one thin I hate is that the Barrow wights is excluded because how will Merry othervise in a good manner get the Sword that could kill the Witch King. It is not a common sword found at any smith or shop....

That is a real bad change..

????? :confused: :confused: On all counts!

How the changing of how Merry got his sword being worse then the butchering of Arwen's character, ESPECIALLY the "If you want him come and claim him" scene, is totally beyond me. I can't even begin to comment on the "according to PJ she will be very much in line with the book and the appendix," comment.

I'm afraid someone less haughty then this dwarf will need to make sense of Xzizor's post...I'm gonna leave it alone....

11-24-2001, 02:14 AM
That sword didn't kill the Witch-King, but I understand.
If They included everything, the movie would have had to have been hundreds of hours long, instead of 8, which is what it will probably be.
If you go to www.theonering.com, (it took me to some site called www.3Tolkienonline or something like that instead) You can find the original casting call for the character Arwen, and I got news for you - she was described from day one as someone that in no way whatsoever resembled the Arwen we should have expected.
It included statements like "She rides hell-for-leather", "Must ride horse and wield sword", "Is the lead Romantic Role" "Lead female part in all three movies" - and some other stuff that described as a strong, take **** from nobody, ass kicker. I would like to have been able to peel the page off of my monitor and burn it.

Liv Tyler is every bit as guilty as Jackson. She volunteered to destroy the character for money. To her it was just another script. And she, rich as she is, decided she would take part in the blasphemy that is what has happened with her character. Any actor with a conscience should have turned that down when they considered the disappointment of fans. I'll bet Chris Tolkien had no idea the story would get so far out of hand when he joined up to be Saruman. Now, I think he's ashamed and embarassed.

Note: I ate at Burger King a couple weeks ago and saw LOTR on the paper bags. I said OH MY GOD out loud. Tolkien has rolled in grave about 1000 times by now.

And as for Arwen. If the movie (I mean all three parts) was made to represent the book as closely as possible, as should have been, women would have had an incredibly small role in this film, and would have been nearly absent entirely. Commoners in the Shire and Bree, extras playing elf women in Rivendell and Lorien, A significant scene with Galadriel (whose role, as small and brief as it would have been, would have surpassed Arwen's), extras again as commoners in Rhohan and Gondor, and Eowyn (who would have been the largest female role). But political correctness (also known as BULLS**T) in Hollywood won't allow that. That VERY plainly explains what happened with the whole Arwen catastrophe.

11-24-2001, 03:23 AM
Dagorlad, my man. It seems to me that they could have made an eight hour movie that was true to the book if they just edited out some of the commentary and showed it visually. Movie length is related to dialogue and I'll bet that there isn't eight hours of dialogue in the whole of the LOTR. My problem with the movie isn't so much with the time constraints but with additional plot. PJ shouldn't tell us he is being true to the original work, all the while adding nonexistent scenes, nonexistent characters and nonexistent plotlines.

Our only hope is that the movie will generate enough interest in the books that we will have many new readers who will see what a travesty has been done in the making of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings!!

11-24-2001, 05:02 AM
Grond, you know perfectly well that that is not going to happen. People, particularly the masses of youths, who see the movie w/out having read it first and then read the book will likely (as usual) find the book to not match their expectations, conceptions, and images. It would never be the same as reading first, then seeing the hollywood butchery. It is always this way. I'm with Thorin on that one.

Now, I'm flabbergasted and fustigated and discombobulated that you would suggest that the whole of the story contains no more than 8 hours of dialogue. I disagree.

I agree completly with you on your opinion of what P.J. shouldn't be doing.

But a should-have-been obvious notion occured to me when I was reading a post earlier written in this thread by Chippy. A real eye opener that I think will vastly save me from some of the terrible anguish and disappointment.

He said: "Having said that, I still want to see the movie, but I'm not going to believe that what I'm watching was written by Tolkien." -Chippy

Now that is simplicity in itself. Brilliant. I will go now, without so great an expectation of seeing the LOTR (I won't be able to quell it entirely, I'm sure), but rather I will simply go see some potentially decent fantasy movie made by some fat, ugly Englishman with a terrible beard. Now, admittedly, this implies that I will view what I'm seeing as blatant plaigurism, which is ultimately what the film will be, but I think I can handle that better than thinking of it as Tolkien's. This will require a very real and prepared concious effort to watch P.J.'s Big Adventure, and not try to see the Lord of The Rings, which it will NOT be. This will be difficult, but I think it will leave me much less disappointed.

Let's just go see a good Fantasy film. If P.J. can even handle making that (I think he's done it).

11-24-2001, 05:39 AM
Oops Dag. I guess I'm just not of the mainstream. I saw The Godfather at the movies and then read the book, saw Jaws at the movies and then read the book, saw Silence of the Lambs at the movies and then read the book, saw Centennial mini series on TV and then read the book, saw Shogun mini-series on TV then read the book. That's just five of many that I saw first and then read. Not all the movies have been up to par with the books. The five I've cited were all well done and stayed within the spirit of the book with some ommissions but no character changes.

Having said that, none of those works have effected my life and imagination as greatly as the works of JRRT. I honestly believe if someone reads the book, they will be unable to dislike it and will have to think it is better than the film. I also firmly believe that there are less than 8 hours of "true dialogue" in the book, but I may be wrong. But... these are just my humble opinions That's what is great about this forum, we express our opinions and still enjoy the company of other Tolkien fans... even when we disagree.

11-24-2001, 05:49 AM
Grond, you may find me a trifle offensive (some think so, but I've been trying to behaive).
I thought Interview SUCT and did grave injustice to the book. And surely, some can watch films first, then read the book and like it better. But I think most people would like the book better still if their view wasn't contaminated by a poor movie rendition. No? That's my belief anyway.

I missed the post I just saw a couple pages back that I'm presently responding to.
In regards to what it is about what P.J. is doing that I find outragous and disappointing:
It is not WHAT he (P.J.) is doing with the media in promoting the idea that he is creating as close a representation as possible, It is WHAT he is doing to the story.

I explain: Why should I care what he says to the media? If the film was true to the story, that's all that would matter. If the film isn't true (as is the case) then it would be that unspeakable discrepancy that would disgust me, not the lies that he told the media in the interim. I haven't watched t.v. in a year. I've no clue what he's said to the media. And yet I am thoroughly disgusted with him. Explain that.

I eagerly await the usual imperious and scholarly explanation from you(or Thorin I suppose) about why I'm missing your point, or this isn't what you were talking about. Probably kind of like the ones I try to make.
You DEFINITELY do not speak for me when you say that the value (or lack thereof) of his words to the media outweighs the importance of the quality of his reproduction of the story. You've expressed that opinion since before I left for a couple months, and I was as confused by it then as I am now. I've read it enough times to gather the same message repeatedly, and I say that I don't care if that guy was a mute, or if he told the media that the gods told him what Tolkien wanted, as long as the movie was right when I sat down in the theater to see it.

11-24-2001, 10:19 AM
I just don't see how one can say that the movies would be so long if they adheared to the original Plot, Characters and Events...I have an experiment for someone to do some time. Take a beat up old used copy of the book, probably some dog eared set of Paperbacks, and use a Hilighter Pen to mark all the descriptions of Scenes and Actions and see what proportion of the text is something that would not be described to the Nth degree in cinematic terms, but instead just shown to the audience. The description of Orthanc is nearly a page and a quarter in my 3-in-1 paperback, but a simple high angle shot of Isenguard flying past the 4 500 foot tall spires of Orthanc and settling on Gandalf climbing the 27 steps to the door would take less then 40 Seconds on the screen...You would not have to focus and let the audience soak up the armament of the Orcs as they lay seige to the defenders of the Light, you just show them attacking and the viewers get the idea of what they are armed with.

Insofar as other changes that would need to be made such as the extensive narative at the Council of Elrond, I applaud Jackson's premise that it is faster and more interesting to show the events as flashbacks, though a Wizard's Duel would not have been on MY personal list of "Must Have" material if I'm trying to keep the length of the movie down..nor would footage of Uruk-Hai evolving from their Maggot state and popping out of Pods like some Cabbage patch kid from Hell.

See, that is where the "Time Factor" argument falls apart, where cutting scenes is concerned they have taken two steps back and one forward again, cutting out things that in some cases would not take much time to portray only to add garbage that detracts from the original theme, history and intent of the book...

Now to Dagorlad, I quote here myself...

It's not WHAT he's done with the film that has most people upset, it's what he's done with the Media in the promotion of the concept that he is making what Coppola did with Puzo's work, as direct a representation of the original work as is possible.

Nothing "scholarly" here, just a statement that if Jackson had said from the start to everyone, Media and all, that he was going to make a bunch of changes in the Characters and add things that never happend, and change the plot some...then I would be of the mind that at that point anyone who wanted to go see a movie like that deserves what they see and that at least the Film maker was honest up front instead of trying so hard to hide what he is REALLY doing. That's all I meant by that...If I wrote a version of the Robin Hood legend and made it widely known that I was making him Gay, then anyone who read it and mistook it for the ACTUAL legend would have no excuse, but there may in many cases never be anyone to tell some of the viewers that this is NOT indeed Tolkien's masterwork...

11-24-2001, 05:55 PM
I take both the opinion of Dagorlad and ReadWryt. I believe that both the changes to the movie and the two-faced messages PJ is sending to the public make for a disgraceful combination in violating Tolkien's masterpiece.

The changes in the film disgust me as a Tolkien fan who knows better....the messages PJ is sending out frighten me as a Tolkien fan afraid for the "newbies" to LoTR and Tolkien. What we have is a butchered story line and characters with the name The Lord of The Rings and a director who gives the public and Tolkien fans the idea that his movie is as close to the book as can be (and yes, I saw the interview where PJ admits reading the chapters before filming them). As I've said before people, though we are disgusted, we can handle it because we know who JRR was and the true story of LoTR and how he himself would have wanted LoTR to happen...the new people don't and some (Arwen here on the forum is a good example) show how PJ can suck in uninformed people to buy into his movie changes.

As for time restraints, another hypocritical stand by PJ....Add up all the time taken to film added and changed plot and dialogue and look at how much time to you have wasted that could have been used on doing LoTR the way it is supposed to be done. Think about that one. Take out:

1) Arwen scenes
2) Lurtz and pod scenes (including the fight between Aragorn and Lurtz)
3) Boromir's encounter with the ring on Caradhras
4) Arwen and Galadriel and Elrond and Celeborn meeting together.

And these are just a few...How much time do you think this could have added to the film to make it properly?

Down with PJ!! :mad:

11-24-2001, 10:40 PM
Errm, quick question. How many of us here have seen the film and can, therefore, fully determine what changes are necessary for it to work as a screenplay?

11-25-2001, 04:09 AM
I've heard all these other things that tick you off but i never heard Tom Bombadil even mentioned. Is he even in the movie? After all he saved them from the Barrow Downs..!!! I think he deserves some kind of recognition. That just peeves me off!!!!