alright. here's your chance to vent & argue!

[Bilbo Baggins57]

What did u guys think about the LOTR movie? I was glad they didn't change it 2 much from the book, but i was bummed when they left out Tom Bombadil & glorfindel. But 4 the most part i thought it was really cool. I'm looking 4ward 2 the sequel!

[Dûndorer]

i thought that they changed it ALOT from the book. it seems the only thing that they got from the book is...plot = destroy ring... they did change it but of course i cant say that i hated it.

[wonko]

i think it was an awesome movie despite the obvious differences from what happened in the book... it is my opinion that we should not compare the movie to the book so much but see it as something separate... i look at it this way: if i had never read the book i'd think it was a great movie

[Eithne]

why does everyone rag on the movie so much? people, it had to be changed. it was already 3 hrs long. they couldn't add anymore in. the majority of the public (including me, i'm afraid) hadn't read the books when they saw it, so they had to make it more user-friendly. besides, the feminists of the world would've ripped them for not having ne strong women in there, w/o arwen, so ya know... maybe i'm alone in this, but i loved the movie.

it is just a movie, remember, and they're just books. :)

[ReadWryt]

it was already 3 hrs long. they couldn't add anymore in.

Someone should have pointed this out to Jackson before he "added" more Arwen, comic relief between Merry and Pippin (the fireworks bit and others), scenes of Frodo flashing the Ring around for no reason, conversation with moths, Pod/muck diving Uruks, long horsebacked chase scenes accross great distance to the ford or any of the other things that were never in the books. See, this is the problem with the argument that the movie HAD to be changed for the sake of the time constraint...Jackson added so much that was not in the books...and so that particular argument falls flat on it's face.

besides, the feminists of the world would've ripped them for not having ne strong women in there, w/o arwen, so ya know...

Galadriel is the most powerfull female character in all of Middle-earth...period. She is in the movie. The Feminists of the world could ***Edited out by ReadWryt before he even posted it due to the graphic nature of the original statement*** if they complain that a movie, being true to a literary work, doesn't contain a female love interest who happens to have been transformed into an elven witch. I don't recall any Feminists complaining and picketting outside "Saving Private Ryan"...it simply didn't happen, and the only female character of any note in that critically acclaimed box office success was the Mother, who was seen briefly in the beginning of the movie. Arwen is notthing compaired to Galadriel when it comes to being a strong female character...Bah!

[Gamil Zirak]

If the femi-nazis wanted a warrior princes, they can either watch Xena or wait for Eowyn to show up and kill the Nazgul. That is such a lame argument.

I really enjoyed the movie. I watched it knowing that things would be different. I don't have a problem comparing the two. I know in my english classes in high school if there was a book and a movie over the same thing we would read and watch them both then write a paper comparing them. You can't watch or read one without comparing the differences. It's freakin' human nature.

[Goldberry344]

i hated it. i saw it 8 times...in other words, i loved it.

they changed it a lot, and a lot of people were saying its sexist or racist. well, tolkien wrote it that way, there are five (counting goldie and rosie) major female characters, only one (eowyn) is warrior like, and there is no mention of people other than whites. so what could they do? the added arwen in TTT for more female stuff, which i dont like, but i loved the movie. PJ did a great job.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by ReadWryt


Someone should have pointed this out to Jackson before he "added" more Arwen, comic relief between Merry and Pippin (the fireworks bit and others), scenes of Frodo flashing the Ring around for no reason, conversation with moths, Pod/muck diving Uruks, long horsebacked chase scenes accross great distance to the ford or any of the other things that were never in the books. See, this is the problem with the argument that the movie HAD to be changed for the sake of the time constraint...Jackson added so much that was not in the books...and so that particular argument falls flat on it's face.

That's a good response to the said arguement, but you seem to be missing half the picture. When PJ said that he would stay as true to the books as possible, he didn't mean that he would be loyal for his dear life. What he meant was that, under the rules for making a good movie, he'd keep as much of Tolkien as he could. Merry and Pippin are badly needed, and quite frankly in my opinion there isn't enough of thier comic spirit. They help flesh out the lighter sides of the hobbits (such as thier remarks about second breakfast). The scenes of Frodo looking at the ring and worrying about it are extremely important. Us readers take it for granted that the ring is important, but for non-readers it can't be stressed enough. The Uruk-hai coming from the ground is a terrifying scene (in a good way), and it helps give shape to who the enemy is. An audience needs to be shows both sides of the spectrum. Quite frankly, I don't see why I even need to defend Arwen being include. She's not even in there for the "female presence". It's a mere plot choice. If PJ didn't include her this early in the story, her role later on wouldn't be as powerful, nor would her dedication to Aragorn be as convincing (without the appendix, would it seem convincing that the daughter of Elrond would forsake her immortality to live with Aragorn? It's important to make that clear, and it couldn't be done effectively with a flash-back).


Originally posted by ReadWryt

Galadriel is the most powerfull female character in all of Middle-earth...period. She is in the movie. The Feminists of the world could ***Edited out by ReadWryt before he even posted it due to the graphic nature of the original statement*** if they complain that a movie, being true to a literary work, doesn't contain a female love interest who happens to have been transformed into an elven witch. I don't recall any Feminists complaining and picketting outside "Saving Private Ryan"...it simply didn't happen, and the only female character of any note in that critically acclaimed box office success was the Mother, who was seen briefly in the beginning of the movie. Arwen is notthing compaired to Galadriel when it comes to being a strong female character...Bah!

Again, Arwen has nothing to do with the "female presence". Sure, it's a double plus, but that's not the reason she's there. And I wouldn't call Galadriel a charachter that's easy to sympathize with. She's more then half-removed from the living world just by the words she uses. And as for Saving Private Ryan, well, there are enough war movies out there with females in them detracting from the plot, and luckily SPR got to the point without all the fluff. SPR was meant to bother you, both with the face of war and the military experience in general. Part of that experience is that there are only men. LotR is a totally different tale. It's not there to pay tribute to hundreds of thousands of fallen men, as SPR was. It's there to tell an epic tale. If that end is achieved, minor changes can be forgiven and even whole-heartedly accepted. It's not nearly as important that Jackson maintain every little detail as it was for Spielberg to maintain authenticity.

[Rangerdave]

Many of my less literate friends have been influenced by the film to read the books. If for no other reasons, this movie is a success.

RD

[Gamil Zirak]

Originally posted by Talimon

Quite frankly, I don't see why I even need to defend Arwen being include. She's not even in there for the "female presence". It's a mere plot choice. If PJ didn't include her this early in the story, her role later on wouldn't be as powerful, nor would her dedication to Aragorn be as convincing (without the appendix, would it seem convincing that the daughter of Elrond would forsake her immortality to live with Aragorn? It's important to make that clear, and it couldn't be done effectively with a flash-back).

What does having her handle flight to the ford accomplish? Glorfindel could have done it and we can figure out who she is with more scenes of her with Aragorn in Rivendell.

Originally posted by Talimon

If that end is achieved, minor changes can be forgiven and even whole-heartedly accepted. It's not nearly as important that Jackson maintain every little detail as it was for Spielberg to maintain authenticity.

Minor changes? Minor changes? You've got to be kidding me. There were major changes in the book. I mean major.

[ReadWryt]

My only problems with Arwen's role in the movie deal with her OUTSIDE of Rivendel, not inside. Nothing she did outside of Rivendel was anything more then an affront to the integrety of the story and an attempt to create something that was never there to begin with.

If flashing the ring around is supposed to make the ring seem more important it fails miserably. "Look, it's the most dangerous thing in all of Middle-earth, so I'll just stand here holding it out showing it to Sam..." If this is Keeping it Secret and Safe then obviously Gandalf had a much different concept of these things then Jackson did. As I pointed out in a previous thread there have been many times in cinema history when an object of great importance was depicted without having to beat the audience over the head with it. Simply having Frodo attach the ring to a chain and showing his vest pocket with that chain going into it would have let the audience know that the Ring was involved in the scene, but they don't give the audience credit for being able to figure these things out. If anything is worth telling the audience it may as well be made as blunt and obvious as possible...because the last thing in the world we want to do is confuse the audience...who by the way when polled left the theatre believing that Arwen brough Frodo back to life and that Gandalf is a Man, not a supernatural being. My point is that if Jackson had spent more time focusing on the Fundimental truths of the tale instead of floggin the audience with the obvious he would have done them, himself and Tolkien a greater service...

[Goldberry344]

frodo did the "hey do you want the most dangerous thing in the world" bit a bit too much, true...

and im not sure if this is in the right place, but does anyone know why they put arwen in TTT trailer??

[Talimon]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
My only problems with Arwen's role in the movie deal with her OUTSIDE of Rivendel, not inside. Nothing she did outside of Rivendel was anything more then an affront to the integrety of the story and an attempt to create something that was never there to begin with.

I thought it foreshadowed Arwen's sacrifice for Aragorn. By risking herself in Aragorn's place it was a great way to introduce what PJ is developing into a major theme. Arwen forsaking her immortality is a strong theme that Tolkien didn't develop too much, but it ties in with the sorrow of the elves. In fact, the want for immortality plays a huge role in the mytho's of Middle Earth. If anything, Jackson is paying tribute to that recurring theme that we find throughout Middle Earth's histories. Now, considering what was sacrificed in place of this change, and what was gained, it's more then worth it. I beg you to lay off judgement on this scene until you've seen how it ties in with the whole tale.

Originally posted by ReadWryt
...because the last thing in the world we want to do is confuse the audience...who by the way when polled left the theatre believing that Arwen brough Frodo back to life and that Gandalf is a Man, not a supernatural being. My point is that if Jackson had spent more time focusing on the Fundimental truths of the tale instead of floggin the audience with the obvious he would have done them, himself and Tolkien a greater service...

One, I'd like to see that poll, that would be very interesting. More interesting would be the fact that, not having understood the plot, they still enjoyed the movie tremendously. All of the "Fundimental truths" are covered. Other then the friendship between Gimili and Legolas, every important theme from the first book is covered, and then some. The Legolas Gimili theme was also written and shot, and will be included in the Extended DVD (don't ask me why it didn't make the final cut). Tolkien has been given the greatest service of them all, more people reading his book!!! There is no place in FotR where it says that Gandalf isn't a man. We know he isn't from the Appendices, but it doesn't say so in FotR. As such, it's all the same. You assume he is something greater in the book, but then again all the reasons you assume it are covered in the movie. As for Arwen bringing Frodo back to life, I doubt more then 10% thought that. Gandalf says pretty specifically that Elrond cured him. If that's not enough, you even see elrond talking in elvish after the screen fades white. About as obvious as it gets.

[Gamil Zirak]

Originally posted by Talimon

I thought it foreshadowed Arwen's sacrifice for Aragorn. By risking herself in Aragorn's place it was a great way to introduce what PJ is developing into a major theme. Arwen forsaking her immortality is a strong theme that Tolkien didn't develop too much, but it ties in with the sorrow of the elves.

Can you explain the foreshadowing affect? I can't see how her taking Frodo on the wild horse race from the Nazgul, riding across the ford, and summoning the water does that. How does that represent her forsaking her imorality?

Also, what about the theme of Frodo stugling against the ring? He proved himself a worthy bearer by standing up to the Nagul by himself.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Gamil Zirak


Can you explain the foreshadowing affect? I can't see how her taking Frodo on the wild horse race from the Nazgul, riding across the ford, and summoning the water does that. How does that represent her forsaking her imorality?

It doesn't represent her forsaking her immortality, but it foreshadows things to come. By her risking herself this early in the film in the place of Aragorn, PJ is already laying the foundation for thier relationship. Like I said, hold judgement until you've seen how it ties in.

Originally posted by Gamil Zirak


Also, what about the theme of Frodo stugling against the ring? He proved himself a worthy bearer by standing up to the Nagul by himself.

The fact that Frodo never opposes the Nazgul is one of my main complaints regarding the movie. I hate to nitpick usually, but I thought it really fleshed out Frodo's charachter in the book. I can't say anything regarding this, but what I will say is that it has nothing to do with Arwen. Frodo could have still resisted them at the Ford with Arwen, let alone Wheathertop. Too bad PJ left this out.

[Eithne]

***wow, um, ok, just to tell u all? when i said that about the feminists i wasn't serious... so let's get over that...***

again: yeah it was different but it had to be. just think, if it had been made in the way that the book was written what people would understand it (if they hadn't read the book)? i don't agree with some of the things they did either, but it was pj's interpretation of the book. i agree w/ the arwen foreshadowing thing. for frodo, they made him look like a wuss yes but i take it as them setting up a contrast for the next movies; more of his character development and strength. or something to that effect.

[Eithne]

did anyone actually like the movie? i've never felt the need to defend a movie this much before... lol... some of u r hypocrites, sry, but it's true. if you don't like the movies then don't go see them! but i bet anything you'll all go see ttt and rotk anyway! (i'm in a very arguementative mood, can't u tell?)

anyway, i'd like to hear opinions. on the movie, not just on people's comments before u, like on all the other posts. it's a certain interpretation of the book; it can't satisfy everyone...

[legoman]

Whether it was perfect to the book or not it was an amazing movie, I know some people who think it is the best film they have ever seen (but come on - starwars!!). The next ones can only get better.