45 Straight Minutes of Helm's Deep in TTT!?!

[Darth Saruman]

This is what I've heard Ladies and Gentlemen! No cutaways!

[Niniel]

Yes, I noticed that too! 45 Minutes!!!!???? What are they thinking? That this is just some other action movie? And then they don't have time to include The Scouring of the Shire??? If they would just shorten the action and take 10 minutes to include the most important chapter in the book, that would cahnge a lot, IMO. (I know that these things are supposed to be in two different movies, but the argument doesn't change).

[ReadWryt]

Actually Nin, the more accurate argument along those lines would be "45 straight minutes of Helms Deep and they had to cut Shelob out of this movie?".

[Talimon]

I was also shocked by this rumour (the person saying it hadn't seen the final cut of the film and so couldn't make an accurate statement). But after further thought, I can actually imagine it coming together. Remember, this movie is going to be 3 hours. 45 minutes is only 1/4 of that. And don't think it will be 45 minutes of straight action. Obviously not. Helm's Deep, even though it happens at the relative beggining of the novel, is in many ways the climax of the second installment.

When you consider what else there is to tell, 45 minutes isn't that much. On Aragorn, Gandalf, and Theoden's side we have maybe 30 minutes leading up to them actually entering Helm's Deep. Then we have another 20 minutes of Merry and Pippin and the Ents pre-Isengard. Then another 30 minutes of Isengard. That more or less settles book 3, the far more active of the two books within TTT. This leaves us with around an hour or so for Frodo, Sam and Gollum, which in my opinion is actually much more then they will need. PJ can spend 20 minutes at most on them before they reach Faramir, and if he really stretches it maybe another 20 minutes there, 30 if he really goes overboard. That leaves us with some extra time to fill in littles holes and so forth.

Also, for the last time, get it into your heads that the reason Shelob is being cut from TTT is NOT due to time constraints. When PJ announced this change he mentined in the same breath that it was due to "dramatic reasons". Now I know how it may seem to us that the current ending for TTT is about as dramatic as they come, but then again we don't know what PJ's alternative is. I don't think PJ would change something so good unless he had a really good reason.

[Thorin]

Yeah, I heard the 45 minute thing too. I don't know if this was your source, but instead of opening a new thread and spoiling it for some, I'll just post this link.

Warning: There are definite spoilers here so watch out.


www.comingsoon.net/cgi-bin/archive/fullnews.cgi?newsid1025976147,86957,

Personally, I think PJ is really doing a disservice to fans of Tolkien and fans of PJ's movies. By moving Shelob, he is really taking away a great cliffhanger...By making it look like Frodo is dead....or is he (??) could have non-Tolkienites biting the seats in frustration and anticipation...Plus it's a perfect place to end the movie. Who knows what is going through is fuzzy head with the making of these movies....

[Darth Saruman]

Originally posted by Talimon Also, for the last time, get it into your heads that the reason Shelob is being cut from TTT is NOT due to time constraints. When PJ announced this change he mentined in the same breath that it was due to "dramatic reasons". Now I know how it may seem to us that the current ending for TTT is about as dramatic as they come, but then again we don't know what PJ's alternative is. I don't think PJ would change something so good unless he had a really good reason. [/B]I believe that PJ's choice may have a logical basis. He's probably going to end the movie with Sam and Frodo at the first moment of their confrontation with Shelob. They'll be scared ****less and the audience will be wondering how in the hell those two lil' hobbits will possibly be able to defeat such a monster. It would be a great cliff hanger. Tolkien's version has merit, and it works great for the book because the last half of TTT needed a battle climax, as it served as the climax for the entire novel. In PJ's version, however, we will probably be given a suitable battle climax in the Ents storming Isengard, then it might cut, at the very end, to Sam and Frodo meeting Shelob. It's possible that if Shelob is put at the end of TTT, it might be too much action "clutter" for the movie. Maybe PJ wants to space the action more evenly, put it at the beginning of ROTK and start that movie with a bang.

[Niniel]

Yes, I'm not really bothered by the fact that Shelob will be in ROTK, as long as it is in the film at all. But removing the Scouring of the Shire is a much graver offense to the storyline. But I hope you're right Talimon, that they counted everything around Helm's Deep in the 45 minutes, then it would be okay. Well, we'll see...

[Lorien]

What do we really need 45 staright minutes of Helm's Deep for? Should've brought Shelob into TTT. PJ is an idiot, a fact which he already established with FoTR and now we'll just have to agonisingly wait for TTT to see how much more can he make Tolkien turn in his grave.

[ReadWryt]

Lorien...please, this is an Open Forum...no need for you to feel as though you must mince words...how do you REALLY feel about it? *Snicker*:D

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Darth Saruman
I believe that PJ's choice may have a logical basis. He's probably going to end the movie with Sam and Frodo at the first moment of their confrontation with Shelob. They'll be scared ****less and the audience will be wondering how in the hell those two lil' hobbits will possibly be able to defeat such a monster. It would be a great cliff hanger.

You're assuming, Darth, that PJ will end it with the hobbits facing big, kaleidscope eyes in the dark and Shelob's luminous form coming out of the darkness. He could easily end it with Gollum leading them to the stairs of Cirith Ungol. Do you know for sure that this is where PJ is planning on ending it, or are you giving him more credit then he deserves?

[Ancalagon]

I am a little confused about this Shelob cut! I have already seen clips and stills of Shelob and a number of references made by the CGI team who created her. Surely they cannot cut Shelob, she is one of the truly horrific and essential encounters that Frodo, Sam and Gollum all have that is integral to the storyline:(

[Thorin]

Do not worry oh great, black, fire-breathing beast,

It is not that she will be cut period, just that her role will be moved to the beginning of RoTK rather than the end of TTT. :)

[Darth Saruman]

Originally posted by Thorin


You're assuming, Darth, that PJ will end it with the hobbits facing big, kaleidscope eyes in the dark and Shelob's luminous form coming out of the darkness. He could easily end it with Gollum leading them to the stairs of Cirith Ungol. Do you know for sure that this is where PJ is planning on ending it, or are you giving him more credit then he deserves? I'm not sure exactly what PJ's going to do with that scene, but that's how I think he should do it.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Lorien
What do we really need 45 staright minutes of Helm's Deep for? Should've brought Shelob into TTT. PJ is an idiot, a fact which he already established with FoTR and now we'll just have to agonisingly wait for TTT to see how much more can he make Tolkien turn in his grave.

Wow, take a breather. theonering.net just had an inside member from WETA go through some of the rumours and deny a number of them.

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1026157737

I think that basically does away with any credibility attributed to those rumours that were sent in.

[Lorien]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Lorien...please, this is an Open Forum...no need for you to feel as though you must mince words...how do you REALLY feel about it? *Snicker*

Lol, RW. If I didn't mince my words I'd be out of this forum I think.;) And I'd hate to get booted from this lovely place just over some moron who can't think for nuts. Frankly, PJ is of no worth to get banned from here, though it is nice to get into frays about his low-level IQ:).

Shelob, Shelob, Where art thou? And why does Eowyn fight with Aragorn so, when its clear that she loveth him so? (Note to self: Improve semi-Shakespearean english!)

[Darth Saruman]

Originally posted by Lorien


Lol, RW. If I didn't mince my words I'd be out of this forum I think.;) And I'd hate to get booted from this lovely place just over some moron who can't think for nuts. Frankly, PJ is of no worth to get banned from here, though it is nice to get into frays about his low-level IQ:).

Shelob, Shelob, Where art thou? And why does Eowyn fight with Aragorn so, when its clear that she loveth him so? (Note to self: Improve semi-Shakespearean english!) If you're afraid being banned then why don't you become a noble PJ apologist?

It is impossible to be banned for believing in such a great cause!!!

[Talimon]

And I'd hate to get booted from this lovely place just over some moron who can't think for nuts. Frankly, PJ is of no worth to get banned from here, though it is nice to get into frays about his low-level IQ.

It takes one to know one, but I'm afraid that I can't even say that about you. It doesn't help ones cause, however, when someone who claims to have IQ doesn't back up thier argument. Then again you aren't making much of an argument, but rather just whining. If you are going to state strong opinions I'd recommend you back it up. Otherwise you come off as being very petty.

[Lorien]

Yes, indeed it might take one to know one. But then again it might not. And I wouldn't call what I said whining, I've gotten into quite a few arguments over PJ's intelligence way back when I'd just joined this forum. Then I got heartily sick and tired of the whole business, now that TTT is approaching release, I'm getting myself worked up again to get into fullblown arguments. Its a vicious circle with me you see? And whoever said opinions require a backing?;)
IMO, PJ started turning Tolkien in his grave by replacing Glorfindel by Arwen (this is not against Liv Tyler if any of you are wondering. As a matter of fact I have a rather soft spot for her especially since I saw her in 'That Thing You Do' and Aerosmith's 'Crazy' video.).
But then I do believe this is not the thread for that bit of PJ's insanity to be discussed so I just left it out and stated an opinion in the hopes that people would see me as one of the Tolkien-purists and already know my beliefs/opinions/arguments.


Originally posted by Darth Saruman
If you're afraid being banned then why don't you become a noble PJ apologist?

Lol, Darth Saruman, you've got to be joking. A purist turn into a PJ apologist? That would require several methods and varying levels of torture to break me.

[Darth Saruman]

Originally posted by Lorien
Lol, Darth Saruman, you've got to be joking. A purist turn into a PJ apologist? That would require several methods and varying levels of torture to break me. To change, you just have to believe my son. Open your heart to PJ, for though you may walk through the valley of the shadow of death you will fear no evil, for PJ with be with you. ;)

[Lorien]

Sure I'd fear no evil, because Satan's No.1 man is walking next to me. I'd either be petrified and feeling nothing or I'd be dead.:)

[4th Age Scribe]

I'm glad its as long as they say it is (the battle). What is more awe inspiring, more heart wrenching, more edge of the seat, than the unrelenting center of a massive life and death struggle on the field of battle? Nothing is quite so dramatic, or emotional. (Think of the consequenses of failure). These are the greatest momoents of the War (and it is indeed a War) of the Rings.

[Darth Saruman]

Originally posted by 4th Age Scribe
I'm glad its as long as they say it is (the battle). What is more awe inspiring, more heart wrenching, more edge of the seat, than the unrelenting center of a massive life and death struggle on the field of battle? Nothing is quite so dramatic, or emotional. (Think of the consequenses of failure). These are the greatest momoents of the War (and it is indeed a War) of the Rings. Agreed, 45 minutes might better convey the serious and clausterphobic nature of the battle. We can't escape its violence until the heroes have finally conquered. It might involve the audience more!

[Legolas_lover12]

i don't really care about the whole shelob thing. as long as he does put her in at the beginning of RotK. now, the whole arwen thing. that really made me mad!!! he should've put in glorfindel. that really ticked me off!!!!!!

[Legolas_lover12]

and 45 minutes of helm's deep is ok w/ me. it's better than seeing frodo sam and gollum wandering around and meeting faramir.

[ReadWryt]

I could totally see Jackson turning the Shelob incident into a cliffhanger ending that gets resolved in the last movie, and in a way it DOES make sense from a cinematic viewpoint...*shrug*

As for becoming a P.J. Appologist, I guess I'll try my hand at it. I'm sorry that Peter Jackson wears shorts all the time...I really am. (Oh wait, I don't suppose appologist means you appologise for the guy's actions, does it?)

[Rúmil]

Be comforted ReadWryt! it doesn't. An it only takes one "P", just as "apologise" :D

[Ecthelion]

45 minutes?!?!?!??!? Nice...............MUAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!!

[Darth Saruman]

I was thinking about calling myself a PJ disciple, but I thought that would be going a little bit overboard.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Darth Saruman
I was thinking about calling myself a PJ disciple, but I thought that would be going a little bit overboard.

You? Overboard when it comes to PJ? Come on, Darth. In RoTK, PJ could put Gandalf coming out to meet Sauron's lieutenant buck naked except for a pennant of Gondor wrapped around his privates and you'd still back him up on it! :D

[Legolas_lover12]

ooooooooooooooooo, bad mental image!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek: :eek: :eek: ;) ;) ;)

[Lorien]

THORIN!! What've you just done? Don't you know PJ's watching us?:D You're just giving him more ideas!!
Hmm, so whats the difference between a disciple and an apologist? An apologist really does make you sound like you're a person who has taken on the highly unenviable task of apologising for PJ's mistakes (which are many, numerous and widespread I should add).

*I'm really sorry PJ thinks he's read LoTR, really I mean I'm really sorry, honest.....*

[LotR_Girl]

Hmmm sorry I jump in like this, I didn't have time to read page 2 and I must say I really really like battle in HD! On trailer you can see Aragorn & Legolas do some fancy stuff with blades...cool! I AM action movie freak, but NO ENTS! Only marching & results of battle, no ACTUAL battle! GRGRGRRRRRRRRR I hate u, Peter Jackson!!! lol, kidding! I heard he will add it on DVD!

[Darth Saruman]

Do not worry LOTR girl, PJ won't disappoint us! The Ents are indeed coming....they're just not ready yet!

How do I know this??? Because I have faith, unlike the purist infidels!! ;)

You? Overboard when it comes to PJ? Come on, Darth. In RoTK, PJ could put Gandalf coming out to meet Sauron's lieutenant buck naked except for a pennant of Gondor wrapped around his privates and you'd still back him up on it!Hmmmm....a disturbing image to be sure.

[Legolas_lover12]

hmmmm....a disturbing image to be sure.

that is what i said. *shudders*

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Lorien
THORIN!! What've you just done? Don't you know PJ's watching us?:D You're just giving him more ideas!!
Hmm, so whats the difference between a disciple and an apologist? An apologist really does make you sound like you're a person who has taken on the highly unenviable task of apologising for PJ's mistakes (which are many, numerous and widespread I should add).

*I'm really sorry PJ thinks he's read LoTR, really I mean I'm really sorry, honest.....*

At least I have the common courtesy to call you a PJ "critic", while you are apparently so insecure in your argument that you must mock those you disagree with every chance you get. But I suppose that's ok, if it makes you feel better.

You have to respect the fact that it is possible to like a movie and still not agree with the way it was made on every single point. I have nothing to apologise for, and I don't think any other fan or critic does. Seeing why a certain change or addition was made doesn't mean you agree with it.

One thing I notice is that PJ critics have much higher expectations of the movie then PJ fans. You rarely find someone who doesn't like the movies and doesn't care. They always feel they need to defend Tolkiens work from butchering. If all the arguments made thus far against the movie prove anything, it's that the movie and the book are different. There is no argument here. Indeed, once this point is eventually settled on in most threads the critics resort to rather petty arguments (in my opinion) relating to the fact that "promises" were made. Were there any merit to such claims I would still call it a poor reason for criticizing the film. But the truth is that if PJ has said anything it has been the opposite: that there is a distinct difference between book and film. More to the point he has said that we should look at his movies as being 3 good movies rather then 3 good adaptations. If the later is accomplished in some peoples eyes then all the better, but it's not the top priority.

Finally, let me state that I have no problem with people disliking PJ's film. What really gets to me is the reasons people give. On all the different Tolkien forums I've visited I haven't heard one argument made against the films own qualities: it's always relating to how it compares to the books.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
One thing I notice is that PJ critics have much higher expectations of the movie then PJ fans. You rarely find someone who doesn't like the movies and doesn't care. They always feel they need to defend Tolkiens work from butchering.

More to the point he has said that we should look at his movies as being 3 good movies rather then 3 good adaptations. If the later is accomplished in some peoples eyes then all the better, but it's not the top priority.


Well Tal, when you are making a movie on one of the greatest books of the 20th century, you should expect a good adaptation and the director should be held responsible for making one. There is more to consider then just your personal preference and "making a good movie". There is 50+ years of myth and millions of followers and fans to consider as well. Don't give me this hogwash that he is only there to create "good movies" and a good adaptation is secondary. He chose it because of what it was. And when you choose something like that, you are going to do your best to pay homage to that. That means a true as can be adaptation which was promised. Can PJ please everyone? Of course not. But at the same time, if he just wanted to make a "good" fantasy movie, he could have chosen some other book series to make it out of. You don't just choose an epic like LoTR and spend 300+ million dollars and three movies on it just to "make a good movie". Come one, give PJ and New Line a little more credit than that. They did this to make it as true as can be. Arwen and cheesy one liner dialogue is not being authentic.

Originally posted by Talimon
There is no argument here. Indeed, once this point is eventually settled on in most threads the critics resort to rather petty arguments (in my opinion) relating to the fact that "promises" were made. Were there any merit to such claims I would still call it a poor reason for criticizing the film.

I believe that the purists have given much more sound and logical arguments against the movie then just "promises". I find that most of the defenses for the movie border on the absurd. Instead of movie defenders saying point blank. "The changes were not Tolkien, but PJ's rendition and liberal interpretation, but I liked it", we have foolish references to Luthien and Arwen's heritage and what COULD have been and what SHOULD have been and assumptions that even a Tolkienologist with a literary magnifying glass would be hard pressed to find in Tolkien's work. To me that sounds like "petty arguments".

Originally posted by Talimon
Finally, let me state that I have no problem with people disliking PJ's film. What really gets to me is the reasons people give. On all the different Tolkien forums I've visited I haven't heard one argument made against the films own qualities: it's always relating to how it compares to the books.

I hope that you are not lumping TTF in with your other forums, because I and many others have judged the movie on it's own basis. Some purists find it great as a movie, I and others find it lacking. Purists on TTF have promoted both views.

[Talimon]

Well Tal, when you are making a movie on one of the greatest books of the 20th century, you should expect a good adaptation and the director should be held responsible for making one. There is more to consider then just your personal preference and "making a good movie". There is 50+ years of myth and millions of followers and fans to consider as well.

Obviously. But you have to respect the fine line between making a good adaptation and a good film. A good adaptation can be a boring film, and history shows us many examples of this. I think for PJ both priorities are up there, but when it really comes down to it he rather make a good movie that will be watched for years to come as opposed to a mediocre movie that will only be respected in the memories of fans. And as for being both, I think that's an incredible achievement for any movie, but near impossible for LotR. Yet what amazes me the most is that those "50+ years" of fans have actually accepted the movie with open arms. Purists aside you'll find that 80% of the readers thought the movies stayed true to the books. Go read the customer reviews on Amazon.com.



Don't give me this hogwash that he is only there to create "good movies" and a good adaptation is secondary. He chose it because of what it was. And when you choose something like that, you are going to do your best to pay homage to that. That means a true as can be adaptation which was promised. Can PJ please everyone? Of course not. But at the same time, if he just wanted to make a "good" fantasy movie, he could have chosen some other book series to make it out of. You don't just choose an epic like LoTR and spend 300+ million dollars and three movies on it just to "make a good movie". Come one, give PJ and New Line a little more credit than that. They did this to make it as true as can be.


PJ chose it because he saw the potential for a good movie. I don't give PJ any more credit then he deserves. I don't criticize him for it, but his main goal all along obviously hasn't been to make it "as true as can be". If after seeing the film you still believe this then you are being naive. You are making your argument based on the fact that PJ tried to make the truest adaptation he could. Were that the case then I'd agree he hardly hit the mark. But obviously that wasn't top priority. Don't make him something he's not, at least not now that the first movie is already released. I hope you go seeing TTT with far different expectations then you went to see FotR. In my case they are higher, but for far different reasons.

I hope that you are not lumping TTF in with your other forums, because I and many others have judged the movie on it's own basis. Some purists find it great as a movie, I and others find it lacking. Purists on TTF have promoted both views.

I'll simply say that a better effort could be made on both sides of the fence to separate the movie side and the adaptation side.

[Lorien]

Originally posted by Talimon
Yet what amazes me the most is that those "50+ years" of fans have actually accepted the movie with open arms. Purists aside you'll find that 80% of the readers thought the movies stayed true to the books. Go read the customer reviews on Amazon.com.


ROTFL, don't tell me you actually fell for those stats Talimon. First of all most stats are easily manipulated. Most of these 'ratings' and 'reviews' are often just faked by companies, and I know this because my uncle has been working in the dot com business for a long time and has worked with Barnes & Noble for their website. And he kindly informed me this time around when he visited that how to boost sales they post so many fake positive reviews. He gave me the general guesstimate (I think I like this word) that about 50% of reviews are actually fake. And then you aren't taking into account that most of those readers didn't actually get hooked the way me and Thorin, us purists, did. Most of them were actually given the book to read during their High School years and I doubt whether they took themselves off the 'magic smoke' long enough to get give the attention the book deserves. They all just read the book with minimal interest and most likely copied the book report off some person who actually read the book and handed it in.


Originally posted by Talimon
I have nothing to apologise for

My question was directed to asking Darth Saruman what exactly he meant by PJ apologist. I just took the literal meaning of the word and followed up one of my several pasttimes, 'ribbing Peter Jackson'. I took the literal meaning and taking the chance to have a little light-hearted banter I said what I did. I'm not 'mocking' my opponents in this debate and I'm sure Darth Saruman, who coined the term 'PJ apologist', didn't take it too offensively (like you have). I asked him a question and included a little joke in it, if he has any problems with that I'll apologise to him and no one else.

[Rúmil]

And anyway, what are statistics? 69.36485% of all statistics are just invented on the spot.

[Parrot]

As a "guesstimate", I would say that the overwhelming success of the movie, and a quick perusal of the majority of opinions on sites such as this, would show the "80%" to be conservative if anything. The opinions of "purists" don't really make for a great sample population; for reasons of both size and bias.

[Lorien]

Well said, Rumil! I suppose that does make my stat unbelievable;) In any case, if you wish to believe what I said go on ahead, but IMO it should be obvious that companies would do something like that to increase their sales. Its a pretty well-known tactic.


Originally posted by Darth Saruman
How do I know this??? Because I have faith, unlike the purist infidels!! ;)

Whee! I'm purist heathen infidel!!:D If we're infidels what are you guys? Maybe you all should be the invaders!!:p

*Tweaks his moustache and fingers his scimitar while eating greasy chicken wearing dirty clothes and a fur hat.*

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Lorien

And then you aren't taking into account that most of those readers didn't actually get hooked the way me and Thorin, us purists, did. Most of them were actually given the book to read during their High School years and I doubt whether they took themselves off the 'magic smoke' long enough to get give the attention the book deserves. They all just read the book with minimal interest and most likely copied the book report off some person who actually read the book and handed it in.

That's basically what I'm saying: The vast majority of those who have read LotR aren't what you'd call purists. They don't remember names or details. They just remember the general just of the books, if that. If you don't trust Amazon.com, then go check out the "Ringer Reviews" section of theonering.net. That's as trustworthy as you are going to get. You'll find that many fans have a very hazy memory of events, and as such get the impression the movie stuck to the books. My point is that you can't just say "There are over 100 million readers of Tolkien". I'd argue that out of readers of the book less then 10% were dissapointed with the movie. Does that mean the movie stuck to the books? No. But it does say something about PJ's perception as to what the majority of readers consider important.

While I wouldn't necessarily make such an argument myself, I can see a very valid point of view in saying that it's more important to please the audience then to stay true to the books.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
While I wouldn't necessarily make such an argument myself, I can see a very valid point of view in saying that it's more important to please the audience then to stay true to the books.

Once again, Tal, you're assuming that staying true to the books is incompatible with pleasing the audience. There were TONS of things PJ could have done closer to the book that probably would have been more effective. There were things that he ADDED that weren't even in the book that came off as cheesy.

I really feel that PJ could have made many areas truer to the book and not only have pleased the more testosterone-Tolkien ignorant who enjoyed the movie but garnered more praise from the ardent purists despite the changes that HAD to be made (i.e. the cutting of Bombadil) and the cuts because of time restraint. I just don't believe that PJ made the ultimate movie that if changed one iota towards the books, would have made it a flop (which some of the more agressive FADs have stated). Anyone who believes that changes closer to the book would have killed the movie are as thick headed as those who say that the movie never stayed true to the book at all. (Luckily, Talimon and I don't fall within either of those categories, I hope!:D Well, maybe Tal....;)

[Talimon]

I see what you are saying, Thorin, but take into account that the type of "good movie" PJ was/is shooting for isn't necessarily what me and you would 100% agree with. I can see a truer movie that I could personally live on, but that's not PJ's vision, and I think that such a movie wouldn't garner the type of popular attention FotR has achieved. I found that many reviewers of the movie that hadn't read the book called it slavish, even as it was. PJ doesn't just want to please the fans, or even the non-fans, but also those who have never heared or cared for LotR. Silly as it may sound, lines such as "If you want him come and claim him", "Nobody tosses a dwarf" (which I have no personal problem with), and "Let's hunt some orc" are, in PJ's eyes, part of what accomplishes this. With the exception of the last one I didn't find these to be out of place with the rest of the film, and as such I don't see it as too heavy a price.

Again, the only scene that I think was done really bad was Galadriels transformation. I'm surprised that the purists complain more about Arwen then this. I thought it was just extremely cheap.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Talimon
I can see a truer movie that I could personally live on, but that's not PJ's vision, and I think that such a movie wouldn't garner the type of popular attention FotR has achieved.

See, I don't agree with that. I highly doubt the popularity of the movie and the level of enjoyment for the audience hinged on the scene of Arwen and the cheesy one liners. To me, those scenes could easily have been kept the way they were and nobody would have been the wiser. Do you honestly think that if PJ had pulled Glorfindel off nicely, that the FADs would be complaining about why Glorfindel was even there? Of course not, because I have never heard anyone complain about the scene in the book before the movie came out.

To me, those arguments are just hindsight. Faulty deductive reasoning, you might say. "The movie made changes, the movie was successful. Ergo, the movie was successful because of the movie changes. Therefore, any changes the movie would have made from what it did (i.e more liberal, or more adherence to the written source) would not have made the movie as successful and popular as it was." To me, that is a cop out because you don't know what reaction other changes, good or bad, would have garnered. PJ could have had Gandalf and Saruman storm the gates of Sauron and the Tolkien ignorant would have thought that was just the best scene in the movie. My point being, that any changes that did not occur cannot be judged as to how good or bad a movie it would have become.

Originally posted by Talimon
Again, the only scene that I think was done really bad was Galadriels transformation. I'm surprised that the purists complain more about Arwen then this. I thought it was just extremely cheap.

I admit, it could have been done much better (I was thinking more on a lesser scale of when the krauts open the ark on Indiana Jones and that spirit comes out and forms the beautiful women...minus the evil skeleton that kills them all of course). And the three voices that you can't understand a word of were pretty bad....But to me, that is just director's interpretation of what the book has already written, in this case, it wasn't what we imagined it would be that's for sure. However, Arwen was an entire cast/role change and distortion that never even occured. It was a bastardization of a great scene that stole the thunder from many characters. Big difference.

[Talimon]

To me, those arguments are just hindsight. Faulty deductive reasoning, you might say. "The movie made changes, the movie was successful. Ergo, the movie was successful because of the movie changes. Therefore, any changes the movie would have made from what it did (i.e more liberal, or more adherence to the written source) would not have made the movie as successful and popular as it was." To me, that is a cop out because you don't know what reaction other changes, good or bad, would have garnered. PJ could have had Gandalf and Saruman storm the gates of Sauron and the Tolkien ignorant would have thought that was just the best scene in the movie. My point being, that any changes that did not occur cannot be judged as to how good or bad a movie it would have become.

That argument goes both ways. You can imagine it as being perfect in your mind, but until someone goes ahead and does it it's nothing more then a fantasy. In many ways LotR is a pioneering film in the sense that it's the first really successful fantasy film. There really haven't been any fantasy films before that have had absolutely no connection with our world (with the exception of Star Wars, of course), let alone successful ones. Perhaps, had many fantasy movies been made before, PJ would have some sort of scale to judge things against. But as it is, LotR is setting the bar in many ways. Commercial reasons aside, I think PJ wanted to lighten the load for non-fans entering the theatre with no idea about Middle Earth. I can make the rather basic assumption that many lines and event that weren't in the book were included to make the movie more accessible to the audience.

[Aranaug]

I'm so glad that we're still discussing the 45minute focus of the Helm's Deep battle!!! ;)

Anyhow, in the whole scheme of things, I don't know that I like the cutting of "Scourering of the Shire" actually I know I don't like it. As for moving Shelob, it will give more to the adventures of Frodo in RotK, though personally I think we need to see Frodo doing more in TT since that was one of the few big points that he had in TT. And we don't need elves at Helm's Deep. It was fine the way it was. But I agree with his cutting of Tom Bombodil. I'm not sure about what I think of the way he changed the time tables of FotR with Gandalf leaving Isengard. He could have done a better job showing 17yrs passing.

But I will not gripe constantly about it because I realize that the movies and the books are two different works. Its an adaptation, as with all adaptations we lose some things and gain others. People should have realized this before hand. There's no way PJ would have taken the entire book and put it exactly as it was into the movie. I mean look at the Batman movies, at The Crow, Spider-Man, MIB, the Ghostbusters TV Show, Scooby-Doo, etc. All of those are some form of an adaptation. If you really want to see cutting and changig of things, look at From Hell. Read the Graphic Novel then watch the movie (talking to adults here not kids, bad kiddies!) That movie had a lot more cut from it than FotR did.

I realize there will be changes because the theatre going audience will want something different than the one who read the book (other than a good movie). Most audiences wouldn't want to hear their main characters breaking out into songs a hundred times. They wouldn't want to sit there and see Tom Bombadil, because it doesn't move the plot along or really delve deeply into the characters, or have any relavations. Having Arwen at Helm's Deep keeps her in the audiences mind, so that in RotK, they don't have to go, "Who is that? -- Oh yeah that elf from the first movie who was left out of the second." Remember there would have been a 2 year period of time between them seeing her. And not everyone will watch the movie on DVD or VHS before they go to see RotK in a year and a half, or however long it is. Though why we need the elves there in reality I don't know, it takes away the sense of despair from Legolas. At that point people might wonder why there aren't any more dwarves about. And from the purist side it goes against Elrond's comment how this is now the battle for men.

What bugs me about the purists is that they bother to watch the movies. Because they willingly go and see the movie despite the fact they know when they get home they are just going to complain that it wasn't a word for word reproduciton of the book. If you really don't like it, don't see it. That's what I said on my comics message boards when people were complaing about Spider-Man. In both cases the movies are great. They may not be 100% the same as what they were adapted from but in their own way they are great.

Ok time to go.