Lord of the Rings Movie

[Nan]

I have read the Hobbit and the trilogy at least 10 times over the years. I love the story and the way it is written that much.

I did not see the movie until I purchased the DVD the day it was on sale at the store. It was a good movie but I was disappointed. They had Arwen playing the part that Glorfindel played. They left out much that happened in Bree, especially how Sam got Bill the pony. They left out all of the Tom Bombadil.

I certainly hope they do not leave out the Ents in the Two Towers.

They left in all of the fighting but left out almost all that was not action.

Nan

[Darth Saruman]

Originally posted by Nan
I have read the Hobbit and the trilogy at least 10 times over the years. I love the story and the way it is written that much.

I did not see the movie until I purchased the DVD the day it was on sale at the store. It was a good movie but I was disappointed. They had Arwen playing the part that Glorfindel played. They left out much that happened in Bree, especially how Sam got Bill the pony. They left out all of the Tom Bombadil.

I certainly hope they do not leave out the Ents in the Two Towers.

They left in all of the fighting but left out almost all that was not action.

Nan
Don't worry about the Ents, they'll be in TTT.

I disagree on your last point. There was plenty of talk; much more than in many other action/adventure movies.

Arwen playing Glorfindel:

Point 1: Having Glorfindel pop suddenly in and out of the movie wouldn't have made much sense, from a dramatic standpoint.

Point 2: If the filmmakers wanted Arwen to have more of a presence in the movie, then this was the logical way, because it solves the Glorfindel problem and it gives her a tangible screen presence.

Point 3: If the filmmakers didn't want Arwen in the movie much, they could have had Legolas do the rescue, instead of Glorfindel. This would also have worked.

But they wanted Arwen to be more involved. I don't blame them. It gives the movie more of a feminine presence to counterbalance the overwhelming testosterone levels. Yes, some movies do well without much femininity, but those are mostly historical dramas which, to be true to history, can't have women play major roles.

If Arwen is Aragorn's betrothed, it sets up more romantic tension when Aragorn and Eowyn develop *some* feelings for each other. I'm assuming it will happen, because it was in the book and it's an interesting opportunity for PJ.

Also, if Arwen's character wasn't developed in the movie, the wedding shown at the end of the movie wouldn't have been a big deal at all. Aragorn would be marrying someone we don't give a damn about. Rather would have been better not to have that scene, which people would complain about anyways.

[Ravenna]

Surely much was left out for time reasons, such as at Bree, it was a very long song. Also in any adaptation, they have to leave out things that, while they may enhance characterisation in a book, do not move the plot forward much, if at all.
I think Darth Saruman has hit the nail on the head re Arwen.
Plus we have to remember that non Tolkien fans will be watching the film too. Too much of the detail we would have loved to see, could confuse people unfamiliar with the original story.

[Nan]

I can understand where you are both coming from. Guess I am a bit of a purist. Tolkien wrote the books, it took him many, many years. They told a story, the story should not be changed.

I don't see the story as a love story, although it does end in the marriage of Aragorn, The King and Arwen. I see it as the struggle of a character, Frodo, to accomplish a deed that could mean the end of life as he and the rest of Middle Earth know it he fails. I see people helping him along the way, help that is unlooked for, help that is very appreciated, help that comes from the heart of these characters in contributing to the success of his quest. These characters are important to the story, the first movie cut out more than just those two scenes.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Nan

[Austin1138]

How could you read the books ten times and not even go to the theater to see the movie? :confused:

[Nan]

How could you read the books ten times and not even go to the theater to see the movie?

It was easy, I had already seen the remake of Planet of the Apes and Star Wars, the story line was lost on both. The glitz and computer generated parts were neat but the story somehow got lost in the makings. Plus I live in a very remote area and going to a movie theater is just to much hassle so I wait till they come out on DVD and buy them.

As I said, I love the books and the story line. Truly a classic good against evil story. If an author writes a truly great classic, what right does a screen writer have to change it for the movie version. In fact, why even bother to do the book, just have the screen writer write his/her own story.

I know there were many battles in the books, but they were just a small part of the story. the quest to destroy the ring and the help along the way was the focal point.

Nan

[Ravenna]

I've yet to see a movie adaptation of a novel that does not have at least a few changes or omissions. If you know of one I'd be interested to hear.
As I've said in other threads, I saw the film with no illusions, and was pleasantly surprised for the most part how close it was to the original.

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

I and probably most others, had a similar reaction on seeing the movie the first time, but still appreciated it for the things that WERE so close to the books. All I can say is, after the 3rd viewing, that all goes by the wayside and you become addicted.