Any Movie Questions?

[Beorn]

This thread is to answer any questions you may have about the movie.

Here are the questions on this thread as of 12/19/01:

Is it true that most of Arwen's scenes in the movie are fabricated?
What parts of the book were cut?
Are incantations used in the book?
What parts of the movie were added?
Do orcs really hatch out of pods? That seems unlike the rest of the movie...
Q. Did Gimli really try and cut the ring with his axe in the book? If it won't melt in a hot fire, it's probably pretty strong...
Who is Lurtz?
Was there really a wizard's duel? It seemed out of context...
Were there any characters missing from the Council of Elrond?
Are there alterations to the characters' personalities?



Q. Is it true that most of Arwen's scenes in the movie are fabricated?
A. Yes. In the scene where Frodo, Merry, Pippin, Sam and Aragorn are walking along the East-West Road towards Rivendell, Arwen does not come to rescue Frodo, but Glorfindel. Glorfindel is an elf-lord, of whom the Black Riders are afraid of. Glorfindel was sent by Elrond because Elrond knew the 5 were coming to Rivendell, and they were coming without help.

Q. What parts of the book were cut?
A. Some of the parts of The Fellowship of the Ring that were cut include: Tom Bombadil, and the Barrow-wights. Tom was a merry fellow in the book, but he was not exactly needed. His character would be much to hard to portray on film because of the complexity of his personality. His wife, Goldberry was a nature-spirit. She was the daughter of the river. Tom and Goldberry lived in the Old Forest. Barrow-wights were...well, I’m not sure. But, I do know that they trapped people in the night. Frodo, Merry, Sam, and Pippin were trapped by barrow-wights, while in an area called the Barrow Downs, just after leaving Tom’s cabin. Frodo woke up after being kidnapped. He sung to Tom Bombadil, and Tom came running to the rescue. The barrow-wights were killed, and Tom brought the hobbits’ donkey’s back. Radagast, one of the Wizards (Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, and the other two…), told Gandalf that he was needed at Orthanc by Saruman. Gandalf believed him and left right away.

Q. Are incantations used in the book?
A. No, but there are elvish sayings in the book. Nowhere is there an incantation. The part where Arwen (who really should have been Glorfindel) says an incantation to make the Bruinen River flood when the Black Riders tried to cross it is made up! Elrond has power over the Bruinen river, like this quote from the book,
’Who made the flood:?’ asked Frodo.
‘Elrond commanded it,’ answered Gandalf. ‘The river of this valley is under his power, and it will rise in anger when he has great need to bar the Ford. As soon as the captain of the Ringwraiths rode into the water the flood was released.

[Grond]

Mike, see if you can answer my question.

Why did Peter Jackson completely ruin my favorite book in the whole wide world?? Can you answer that one???

(Not mad at you... I'm just so peeved about the changes.) By the way, this is a great thread to start. If newbies come in and see this thread, they'll know where we all stand in a hurry.

[Thorin]

Q. What parts of the movie were added?
A. The character of Lurtz, the leader of Saruman's Uruk-hai orcs is a total fabrication by Jackson. Nowhere in Tolkien's writings is there such a character who plays any important part. When imprisoned in Orthanc, Gandalf speaks to a moth to get him out instead of being discovered by Gwahir the great eagle. On Mt. Caradhras, Boromir ends up handling the ring.

Q. Do orcs really hatch out of pods? That seems unlike the rest of the movie...
A. Orcs do not hatch out of pods, but reproduce just like the other races of ME. Orcs were created by Morgoth, Sauron's master, as a mockery of elves.

Q. Did Gimli really try and cut the ring with his axe in the book? If it won't melt in a hot fire, it's probably pretty strong...
A. Gimli does not try to cut the ring during the Council of Elrond or at anytime in the book. As a matter of fact, the ring lies hidden on a chain with Frodo, not in the presence of any of the Council. By keeping it hidden, Tolkien was not only showing the possessive power the ring had on the individual carrying it, but also to not tempt anyone else in desiring to possess it.

Other questions will be answered later by others.

[Beorn]

Q. Who is Lurtz?
A. Lurtz is an orc that was invented by our faveorite person (with note of sarcasm) Peter Jackson to kill Boromir. The Real Boromir, in the book, has a wanting for the ring, as shown by this quote:
'I do not doubt the valor of your people. But the world is changing. The walls of Minas Tirith may be strong, but they are not strong enough. If they fail, what then? '
'We shall fall in battle valiantly. Yet there is still hope that they will not fail.'
'No hope while the Ring lasts,' said Frodo.
'Ah! The Ring! ' said Boromir, his eyes lighting. '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! And I have seen it only for an instant in the House of Elrond. Could I not have a sight of it again? '
Frodo looked up. His heart went suddenly cold. He caught the strange gleam in Boromir's eyes, yet his face was still kind and friendly. 'It is best that it should lie hidden,' he answered.
'As you wish. I care not,' said Boromir. 'Yet may I not even speak of it? For you seem ever to think only of its power in the hands of the Enemy: of its evil uses not of its good. The world is changing, you say. Minas Tirith will fall, if the Ring lasts. But why? Certainly, if the Ring were with the Enemy. But why, if it were with us? '
'Were you not at the Council? ' answered Frodo. `Because we cannot use it, and what is done with it turns to evil.'
Boromir got up and walked about impatiently. 'So you go on,' he cried. 'Gandalf, Elrond -- all these folk have taught you to say so. For themselves they may be right. These elves and half-elves and wizards, they would come to grief perhaps. Yet often I doubt if they are wise and not merely timid. But each to his own kind. True-hearted Men, they will not be corrupted. We of Minas Tirith have been staunch through long years of trial. We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause. And behold! in our need chance brings to light the -Ring of Power. It is a gift, I say; a gift to the foes of Mordor. It is mad not to use it, to use the power of the Enemy against him. The fearless, the ruthless, these alone will achieve victory. What could not a warrior do in this hour, a great leader? What could not Aragorn do? Or if he refuses, why not Boromir? The Ring would give me power of Command. How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!'
.....
'Come with me, Frodo,' he said. `You need rest before your venture. if go you must.' He laid his hand on the hobbit's shoulder in friendly fashion; but Frodo felt the hand trembling with suppressed excitement. He stepped quickly away, and eyed with alarm the tall Man, nearly twice his height and many times his match in strength.

.....

`Why are you so unfriendly? ' said Boromir. `I am a true man, neither thief nor tracker. I need your Ring: that you know now; but I give you my word that I do not desire to keep it. Will you not at least let me make trial of my plan? Lend me the Ring! '
`No! no! ' cried Frodo. 'The Council laid it upon me to bear it.'
`It is by our own folly that the Enemy will defeat us,' cried Boromir. `How it angers me! Fool! Obstinate fool! Running wilfully to death and ruining our cause. If any mortals have claim to the Ring, it is the men of Númenor, and not Halflings. It is not yours save by unhappy chance. It might have been mine. It should be mine. Give it to me! '



The Real Boromir scared Frodo, and Frodo ran away....Boromir was later shot with arrows by orcs. Merry & Pippin were captured too...

[Valinorean]

Oh no! I knew PJ created Lurtz, but didn't know Lurtz kills Boromir. That is so wrong? Does this mean we don't get to see the conflict within Boromir, and his lust for the ring, and his redemption when he defends the hobbits to his death????

[ReadWryt]

Yeah, Lurtz is gonna be "Darth Maul", the disposable enemy for the first film...and he does indeed kill Boromir. It's all buggered up...

[DGoeij]

As far as I know, Lurts only gets to Boromir AFTER he has been tempted by the Ring and Frodo is on the run. In the the book, Boromir is pierced with numerous arrows, in the movie he and Lurtz will probably have a dramatic sword fight, and since Boromir is supposed to die defending Merry and Pippin, so he will.

About Orcs. As far as I got it, Morgoth captured elves early after their awakening and cruelly tortured them, until they were orcs. After that he let them breed on their own. Morgoth was by no means capable of creating live of his own, he could only corrupt that wich was already there.

[ReadWryt]

In the movie the Uruk Hai start life as Maggots...it's really screwed up.

[Stalker]

Sounds nice with all the maggots.

[DGoeij]

Maggots? Uruk-hai ain't the same as orcs, but still. I do not like that, it would wreck my view of orcs pretty much. However I never gave it some real thought. Try imagine a female orc :eek:

[¤-Elessar-¤]

okay, i saw this in a preview, everyone remember the scene of the river crossing in the book where they are saved by elven lords or spritis or something( havent read LOtR in like 2 years, forgive me!)? I could had sworn i saw here preforming that bit of magic! If this is true it is really going to **** me off. It is the only good and powerful sceen in the first book!

[Grond]

Elessar,

At the Ford of Bruinen, "With a great effort Frodo sat upright and brandished his sword...By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair,... you shall have neither the Ring nor me!"

Frodo valiantly defies the Nazgul and then as they step into the water of the river, Elrond calls up the flood to drown the three Nazgul in the water already. They are washed away and at that moment, Glorfindel, in all his Elfin glory, runs out with the rest of the company carrying torches which panics the remaining Nazgul's horses so that they too jumped into the flooding river. At the crest of many of the waves was seen a white rider mounted atop a great white horse. This was an added touch of Gandalf's.

As you can see, allowing Arwen to "steal" this scene, severely injures Frodo's development as a "character of strength".

[Beorn]

Q. Was there really a wizard's duel? It seemed out of context...
A. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Radagast (can someone confirm if he was removed from the movie?) persuaded Gandalf to go see Saruman right away. The follow occurs between Gandalf and Radagast'"Stay a moment!" [Gandalf] said. "We shall need your help, and the help of all things that will give it. Send out messages to all the beasts and birds that are your friends. Thell them to brin news of anything that bears on this matter to Saruman and Gandalf. Let messages be sent to Orthanc."
'"I will do that," he said and rode off as if the Nine were after him.'


There was news of the 9 Black Riders riding again, out of the borders of Mordor. When Gandalf went to see Saruman, Saruman tried to convince him to help him rule the age to come, the Age of Men. Here is an excerpt from the book. It is told during the Council of Elrond, by Gandalf. 'He drwq himself up then and began to declaim, as if he were making a speech long rehearsed. "The Elder Days are gone. The Middle Days are passing. The Younger Days are beginning. The time of the Elves is over, but our time is at hand: the world of Men, which we must rule. But we must have power, power to order all things as we will, for that good which only the Wise can see.
' "And listen, Gandalf, my old friend and helper! " he said, coming near and speaking now in a softer voice. "I said we, for we it may be, if you will join with me. A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Númenor. This then is one choice before you. before us. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means"'
' "Saruman," [Gandalf] said, "I have heard speeches of this kind before, but only in the mouths of emissaries sent from Mordor to deceive the ignorant. I cannot think that you brought me so far only to weary my ears."


Saruman then puts him on top of Orthanc, where he stayed for a while... Gwahir, the wind lord, an eagle, was out flying, and saw Gandalf. Gwahir came to the rescue, "Then [Gandalf] spoke to him and he bore me away

From which point, Gwahir brought Gandalf to Rohan, where he begged for a horse. Rohan was basically the horse store...Anyway, Gandalf took the swiftest horse, which was named Shadowfax. Shadowfax took a day to tame, but Gandalf suceeded in breaking him in. Gandalf rode, and reached the Shire when Frodo was on the Barrow Downs (See "What parts of the book were cut?")

[Beorn]

Since no one seemed to have read my note in my post about Lurtz, I shall repost it seperately, so it might get attention...

Please, Please, Please, answer questions!!! I can't do them all!!!

[DGoeij]

I've read the previous posts, but I can't seem to find what you mean. There was said a lot about this Lurtz character, so what did we miss?

[Beorn]

People aren't answering these questions or contributing...

[Grond]

Okay Mike, you wanted answers and I'll try to give them to you.
Q. Were there any characters missing from the Council of Elrond?
A. One who is certainly missing is Bilbo. I looked in the trailers and saw no minor characters that appeared in the book either. I'm not sure if I remember seeing Gloin (Gimli's father), Glorfindel, Galdor of the Havens or Erestor. Ironically, it appears that there are some additions to the Council as well as the deletions. It appears that Merry and Pippin attend the Council. It is also clear that Celeborn and possibly Galadriel were at Rivendell at some time during the making of the movie and possibly it was at the Council. I am unsure.

Okay Mike B, there's my contribution.

Your friend,
Grond, the evil hammer.

[Beorn]

ANYONE! PLEASE ANSWER THE LAST QUESTION ON THE FIRST POST OF THIS THREAD!

[Greymantle]

Er... the answer to that is a great, resounding YES!
Sorry, I'm too lazy to answer anything properly...

[Grond]

Originally posted by Mike B
Q. Are there alterations to the characters' personalities?
A.

Okay Mike B. Since you asked, I'll answer. There are no real changes in any character's personalities unless we talk about
1) Gandalf - in the movie he's a panic ridden, clumsy oaf who doesn't appear able to find his way out of Hobbiton much less lead the Hobbits anywhere.
2) Merry and Pippin - appear to be Hobbit geeks who "blow" themselves up while being careless with fireworks. Pippin is especially geeky in tipping over a dwarf skeleton, so clumsy that he doesn't just drop the head in but then causes the whole body of the skeleton to fall.
3) Frodo - entirely too careless with the Ring and a wuss. Needs a She-elf-warrior-princess to help him cross the Fords of Bruinen.
4) Arwen - Xena's evil twin sister..... need I say more?
5)Saruman - a raving lunatic. not quite what I envisioned when reading the book.

All in all, Grond likes Strider, Boromir, Legolas and Gimli. Bilbo too seems to be well cast and played. Elrond and Celeborn are different than expected but not too far off. I, unlike most of the members of the forum, like Kate Blanchett as Galadriel and feels justice is done the character. I especially like Samwise as I have always been a big Sean Astin fan since back in the days of The Goonies and Rudy.

Well, there you have it. The final question answered by Grond, Hammer of Melkor... Mallet of Morgoth ... Silver Hammer of Maxwell..... oops thats a Lennon-McCartney work, my bad! :cool:

[Mithrandir]

Are there Alterations to th Charachters Personalities??
Yes, indeed there are. Unfortunately PJ has felt it his Duty to take Gandalf and turn him into a paranoid old man who rambles on and on. As well Strider seems to be this possed man, "YOUR AFRAID NOW< HEEHEE YOU HAVEN"T SEEN ANYTHING YET< HEEHEE," or something to that extent:p

Anyways the final answer is yes alterations have been made and I am sure all they will do is make us mad.

[Beorn]

I will be addressing the following topics within the next day or so

Did Merry & Pippin run into Frodo & Sam?
Frodo and Sam leaving: Distorted time
Gandalf's cruscifiction (sp?) position
Merry & Pippin's Fireworks
I always carry 4 hobbit swords with me!
Of Ponies
Gimli's beard
Synchronous Stalking: the new Olympic Game
5 Riders in the river
Of the Flood
Elves may look pretty on the outside...but not on the inside
Legolas' Weapons
That Balrog Thingy

[Old Man Willow]

In the movie, Lurtz the Uruk-Hai does not battle Boromir head on. Three huge black arrows he shoots at boromir as the man of gondor is fighting off orcs. The uruk-hai then proceeds to finish off boromir point blank with an arrow through the head, that's when aragorn jumps out of the air and battles and defeats the uruk-hai.




BTW- did anyone else notice Aragorn warding off FIVE ringwraiths by himself in the movie, right before Arwen saves the day???

[Fairlite]

>>> Oh no! I knew PJ created Lurtz, but didn't know Lurtz kills Boromir. That is so wrong? Does this mean we don't get to see the conflict within Boromir, and his lust for the ring, and his redemption when he defends the hobbits to his death????

You do get to see the conflict and the lust as he tries to persude Frodo to give him the ring.

[Ancalagon]

I have now viewed the film twice; for reference sake and I may be wrong, but the name Lurtz is never mentioned by anyone in the film. There is certainly a created Orc to whom he speak, but Saruman does not name him. Saruman only refers to him as a fighting Urak-Hai. I am fairly certain of this, though I am sure some-one will correct me if I am wrong.

[Ciryaher]

Gandalf recites several 'spells' throughout the book.

For instance, on the small hill near Moria where the Fellowship camped, Gandalf spoke words of Command to set a branch on fire. Come to think of it, he also used a similar incantation on Caradhras to start a fire. At the West Gate of Moria, he repeated several other Words to try and open the gate.

[druid]

the words gandalf used were

"Annon edhellen, edro hi ammen!
Fennas nogothrim, lasto beth lammen!"
(I am not sure of the full translation of this but the last three words mean "heed the words I speak" or there abouts)

and

"Edro, edro" (open, open)

and then finally

"Mellon"

which is elvish for friend

"Speak friend, and enter"

[Greenwood]

Just stumbled across this thread. It is truly amazing how much angst was expended before anyone ever actually saw the film! Is it any wonder that most (not all) of the people who contributed to this thread hated the movie when they finally saw it? They hated it before they saw it.

Ancalagon is absolutley right, the name Lurtz is never used in the film (as I pointed out in endless debate on the movie section of the forum). In addition there are no pods in the film and as Ciryaher and druid point out incantations are used in the book.

[ssgrif]

This is a reply for Grond who posted a reply back in November about:

"Why did Peter Jackson completely ruin my favorite book in the whole wide world?? Can you answer that one??? "

This one is very easy to answer. Lots of people think that Peter Jacksons movie did not reflect the book. But isnt this the case for every book thats made into a movie?

Peter Jackson had his own personal vision of Tolkiens world and his own interpretations BASED on the book, which were put into the movie.

The book is Tolkiens masterpiece, and the movie is Peter Jacksons.

The only way you would have got a more accurate representation of the book was if you had convinced Tolkien to write the screenplay, produce and direct it himself. But we all know that he hated the idea of LOTR being made into a movie...

Griff

[Grond]

Originally posted by ssgrif
This is a reply for Grond who posted a reply back in November about:

"Why did Peter Jackson completely ruin my favorite book in the whole wide world?? Can you answer that one??? "

This one is very easy to answer. Lots of people think that Peter Jacksons movie did not reflect the book. But isnt this the case for every book thats made into a movie?

Peter Jackson had his own personal vision of Tolkiens world and his own interpretations BASED on the book, which were put into the movie.

The book is Tolkiens masterpiece, and the movie is Peter Jacksons.

The only way you would have got a more accurate representation of the book was if you had convinced Tolkien to write the screenplay, produce and direct it himself. But we all know that he hated the idea of LOTR being made into a movie...

Griff Griff, one should never print an opinion of Grond's that is three months old. Grond is the most wishy-washy member of the forum and his opinions change as quickly as the wind blows. What you say is correct and I have humbly acknowledged that PJ didn't ruin the movie....... too much. :D ;)

[Ancalagon]

Peter Jackson had his own personal vision of Tolkiens world and his own interpretations BASED on the book, which were put into the movie.

I have to admit I find this arguement holds no water at all. There is the book, which in general is not really open to interpretation. There is a film, which is a completely different medium and squanders a great deal of the books magic and quality. Whether you like it or not, this book is not open to interpretation. It has a very definite set of characters, plots, storylines and style which belongs solely to Tolkien. PJ has used the book, plagurised it one might say, to come up with a work that, although based on the book, is simply a scriptwriters version, with a scriptwriters identity.

To interpret the book, would mean that the book on the whole was so extremely complex and challenging that many would struggle to grasp its true meaning. However, Tolkiens 'Lord of the Rings', is really a simple tale, with suspense and magic woven throughout it's volumes. The film looses much of this as it lunges from scene to scen, poorly edited and poorly represented in many areas.

We do not really identify with the characters, nor do we feel the thrill or momentum that builds in the pages. That is understandable to a degree, for to translate a work like this is a very difficult task.

My point is that it is neither an interpretation, nor is it a translation..........it is simply a loose adaption.

[greypilgrim]

I truly believe that LOTR movie trilogy does as much justice to a book that any such movie has that I have seen. To say..."If you knew how to make a movie, then you would go and do abetter job" would to skip the point entirely. If he put everything in the movie, it would be so boring nobody would watch it. And by skipping things and events, he kept a good pace through the movie, and the acting and scenery were EXCELLENT!!!
One thing I will say that really got to me was that he ADDED HIS OWN events INTO the story. That sucked!! Like the flight to the ford scene....Arwen"ifyouwanthimcomeandclaimhim"Evenstar, that was RIDICULIOUS!!!The actual event in the story would have been WAY better.:mad: Frodo will once again tested by the ring, the evil voices of the nine, luring him, his struggle and fear, and then..WHOOSH...the river carries 5 away while elves on the other shore steered the remaining 4 steeds into the water. That would have been the best scene!
We all would have changed something or other in this movie...thats a given. But please don't knock PJ over this one....it goes to show how much fortitude he has to even make an attempt at these movies!

[Grond]

Originally posted by greypilgrim
...One thing I will say that really got to me was that he ADDED HIS OWN events INTO the story. That sucked!! Like the flight to the ford scene....Arwen"ifyouwanthimcomeandclaimhim"Evenstar, that was RIDICULIOUS!!!The actual event in the story would have been WAY better.:mad: Frodo will once again tested by the ring, the evil voices of the nine, luring him, his struggle and fear, and then..WHOOSH...the river carries 5 away while elves on the other shore steered the remaining 4 steeds into the water. That would have been the best scene!...The quoted portion of your post above illustrates exactly why PJ didn't do a great job. I would deem it adequate. He made a spectacle film that kept one's attention and gave one a very good view of the visualization of Middle-earth. His character development would be described as a loose adaptation at best.

[ssgrif]

I agree with the point made by Ancalagon that PJ didnt do such a great adaptation as the book and obviously the die-hard fans deserved. But really, apart from the total agreement by all (point made by Greypilgrim) that PJ's additions to the film, which were never in the book in the first place, were a bad step, I cannot see how any director could have done any better.

Books and movies are totally different mediums, and not just that of paper and film. In a book, the reader is able to use their own imagination (with the help of the author) to conjure up the scenery etc. The reader can take as long as they like, and spend as much thought as they like when reading a book. A moview-goer on the other hand, is expected (by the industry) to only sit in front of the screen for a limited period, you have to use the medium to show the scenery etc. The movie-goer cannot use his imagination. The movie is therefore based on the imagination of its creator, that of PJ.

You will never be able to make a movie, adapted from a book and please everyones expectations. thats impossible.

Griff

[Ancalagon]

It not so much the appeasement of diehard fans that concerns me regarding this adaption. It is more the concentration and dependance on CGI and grand visuals that worries me. I feel the film lost much of Tolkiens character development that could easily have been included. You can't please everyone is generally tossed around regarding the effort put into this movie. However, from a purely critical point of view, not in comparison to Tolkien, there simply lacks real suspense. Hitch**** did not depend on CGI to create atmosphere , yet look at his success as a film-maker. Nor do you really identify with any of the characters, because none of them have any actual substance.

Truly, the role of the hobbits in general is laughable. They are simply portrayed as child-like buffoons which I feel does them a grave injustice. IN addition, there have been arguements that character development will take place over the next two movies??? Why, it's too late, opinions have been formed, so unless they re-write the characters again , it will matter little to most of us.

This is not simply a rant against PJ or the movie, for as a movie it has some excellent qualities. However, it is simply far from the epic it could so easily have been, and for the amount of money spent upon it, I feel the public in general were served a rather trite, rambling piece of film-making that vaguely resembles the original spirit of the books.

If that pleases the public at large, so-be-it, but many will never really know what magic they could so easily have witnessed.

[Grond]

Originally posted by ssgrif
...You will never be able to make a movie, adapted from a book and please everyones expectations. thats impossible.

Griff And I give you The Godfather. A perfect adaptation that added nothing and deleted plot lines that were not essential to the whole of the book experience. Never has a movie held truer to the book or rendered a visual experience which reflected the book. Too bad Coppola couldn't have done The Rings. He would have gotten it right.

[ssgrif]

And I give you The Godfather. A perfect adaptation that added nothing and deleted plot lines that were not essential to the whole of the book experience.

I dont mean to split hairs here but you've just made my point exactly. By excluding scenes from the book in his final adaptation of the book, he's not meeting the expectations of the readers of the book!

I'm sure he annoyed someone with those deleted plot lines.

Coppola is the same as PJ in that they pick out the best bits, hopefully, for you and me, they pick the majority of the book. PJs biggest fo par was to add his own bits in (Arwen etc).

[Grond]

ssgrif, I think it you'll reread this thread and others, none of us purists are criticizing PJ for making plot deletions. Deleting Bombadil was necessary. For one thing, it would have been totally confusing to the viewer as most of the chapter is written in narrative.

The main complaint is the changing of characterizations which flew in the face of the book for the sake of cinemazation.

[7doubles]

i belive tom bombadill is pehaps the most curious part of lor being myre and having his own text. surely he deserved a part in the movie if only out of tolkins fondnes!
:o

[ssgrif]

I agree with Grond, removing Tom Bombadil was necessary as although his part didn't affect the overall storyline of LOTR, leaving him in would have made people lose the plot a little.

One item I do have to add here is the evidence that PJ cut a scene from LOTR where Aragorn and the others bumped into the Trolls (the ones which Bilbo met in "The Hobbit"). North of the road, between the Last Bridge and the Ford of the Bruinen

was that in the LOTR book? I cant remember. I'm sure it wasnt.:confused:

[DGoeij]

O yes it was. I do not have the books here, but after the Weathertop, Aragorn and the Hobbits are walking through this part of the land and suddenly Pippin of Merry (or both) come running back, shouting: Trolls, we've seen trolls! or something.
Then Aragron sneaks forward, starts laughing and they realize it are the stone statues of the three trolls from Bilbo's journey. While resting at the spot, Sam recites a poem about trolls.

That was definitely in the book.

[ssgrif]

Well it certainly wasnt in the film I saw. dont recall the trolls in any scene. And I've seen the movie 3 times so far.... oh well, a fourth beckons I guess

[Grond]

Originally posted by ssgrif
Well it certainly wasnt in the film I saw. dont recall the trolls in any scene. And I've seen the movie 3 times so far.... oh well, a fourth beckons I guess Go see it again. If you'll look in the background after Weathertop and about time Arwen makes her appearance, you'll see the stone statues of the Trolls in the background. They are not mentioned but do appear. ;)

[Beorn]

Originally posted by ssgrif
was that in the LOTR book? I cant remember. I'm sure it wasnt.:confused:


YUP!

Outside the door they all halted. There was a cave or rock-chamber behind, but in the gloom inside nothing could be seen. Strider, Sam, and Merry pushing with all their strength managed to open the door a little wider, and then Strider and Merry went in. They did not go far, for on the floor lay many old bones, and nothing else was to be seen near the entrance except some great empty jars and broken pots.
'Surely this is a troll-hole, if ever there was one!' said Pippin. 'Come out, you two, and let us get away. Now we know who made the path -and we had better get off it quick.'
'There is no need, I think,' said Strider, coining out. 'It is certainly a troll-hole, but it seems to have been long forsaken. I don't think we need be afraid. But let us go on down warily, and we shall see.'
The path went on again from the door, and turning to the right again across the level space plunged down a thick wooded slope. Pippin, not liking to show Strider that he was still afraid, went on ahead with Merry. Sam and Strider came behind, one on each side of Frodo's pony, for the path was now broad enough for four or five hobbits to walk abreast. But they had not gone very far before Pippin came running back, followed by Merry. They both looked terrified.
'There are trolls!' Pippin panted. 'Down in a clearing in the woods not far below. We got a sight of them through the tree-trunks. They are very large!'
'We will come and look at them,' said Strider, picking up a stick. Frodo said nothing, but Sam looked scared.
The sun was now high, and it shone down through the half-stripped branches of the trees, and lit the clearing with bright patches of light. They halted suddenly on the edge, and peered through the tree-trunks, holding their breath. There stood the trolls: three large trolls. One was stooping, and the other two stood staring at him.
Strider walked forward unconcernedly. 'Get up, old stone!' he said, and broke his stick upon the stooping troll.
Nothing happened. There was a gasp of astonishment from the hobbits, and then even Frodo laughed. 'Well!' he said. 'We are forgetting our family history! These must be the very three that were caught by Gandalf, quarrelling over the right way to cook thirteen dwarves and one hobbit.'
'I had no idea we were anywhere near the place!' said Pippin. He knew the story well. Bilbo and Frodo had told it often; but as a matter of fact he had never more than half believed it. Even now he looked at the stone trolls with suspicion, wondering if some magic might not suddenly bring them to life again.
'You are forgetting not only your family history, but all you ever knew about trolls,' said Strider. 'It is broad daylight with a bright sun, and yet you come back trying to scare me with a tale of live trolls waiting for us in this glade! In any case you might have noticed that one of them has an old bird's nest behind his ear. That would be a most unusual ornament for a live troll!'


Sorry for the long post...

[7doubles]

i would like to know how turin became orodreth's lead counceller in nargothrond?

[Grond]

7doubles, was Turin in the movie????

[7doubles]

lurtz, sounds like a play on words "lutzburg" didn't grishnak realy kill boramere? or posibly shagrat.

[7doubles]

sorry grond.


anyone know the date on the next movie?

[ssgrif]

not the actual date, but its expected to be released at the end of the year, same as the first one I think (december).

[7doubles]

thanks

[greypilgrim]

2 questions:

1. has anyone seen the next trailer? (for the Two Towers?)

2. anyone know where i can print out cool pictures from the movie off my computer? websites, etc.

[Bill the Pony]

Originally posted by greypilgrim
2 questions:

1. has anyone seen the next trailer? (for the Two Towers?)

2. anyone know where i can print out cool pictures from the movie off my computer? websites, etc.

1. this (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=2571&highlight=trailer) guy has.

2. have you tried this (http://www.quintessentialwebsites.com/lordoftherings/home/index.htm) one?

[DGoeij]

Wauw, retegaaf. Thanks very much Bill. May your fields ever be green.

[greypilgrim]

what an awesome website.....awesome!
thanx!

[brettleasure]

they will start to play two towers trailers at march playings of fellowship, its what i heard

[ssgrif]

I must be stupid coz I went to the www.aint-it-cool.com website and still couldnt find the link for TTT trailer, please help :)

[DGoeij]

I didn't even know there was a trailer out yet. I saw a thread wich contained a link to a description of a trailer of TTT. :confused:

edit: bingo, it's over here:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2571&highlight=trailer

[ssgrif]

The penny has finally dropped!

I guess the "Trailer" is just the account of someone on the forum who has seen it. Oh well, I'll just have to wait until it comes out on the Internet, or in the cinema's...

boo hoo

[Prince Legolas]

Originally posted by Grond
Elessar,

At the Ford of Bruinen, "With a great effort Frodo sat upright and brandished his sword...By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair,... you shall have neither the Ring nor me!"

Frodo valiantly defies the Nazgul and then as they step into the water of the river, Elrond calls up the flood to drown the three Nazgul in the water already. They are washed away and at that moment, Glorfindel, in all his Elfin glory, runs out with the rest of the company carrying torches which panics the remaining Nazgul's horses so that they too jumped into the flooding river. At the crest of many of the waves was seen a white rider mounted atop a great white horse. This was an added touch of Gandalf's.

As you can see, allowing Arwen to "steal" this scene, severely injures Frodo's development as a "character of strength".


I agree with this! I was very anoyed to see that this scene had been changed so much. It undermines both Frodo's stregth of character and the power of Elrond.

[ssgrif]

This very issue with the film adaptation is what has sparked probably most (if not all) of the Movie threads in this forum. Its the biggest fo-par PJ's done against what the book depicts. There are plenty of people out there who have opinions o this, so look out, you've opened up a can of worms now!

[greypilgrim]

In the animated version of the LotR, the Flight to the Ford scene is portrayed accurately, and even on the cartoon you get the feeling that poor little Frodo was ready to fight all nine Nazgul, and you feel for him. This scene would have been great in the new adaptation, but it's altered.
One for Hollywood!

[Gary Gamgee]

I agree there's no reason why he couldn't have left this scene in AND developed the Arwen character. Frodo loses so much by that not being.

Shame.

[Harad]

G^3:
I agree with the first part of your thought but not the second. Frodo is abundantly brave throughout, before and after. It would have been nice, but I wont throw out the film because of it.

[markrob]

Originally posted by greypilgrim
In the animated version of the LotR, the Flight to the Ford scene is portrayed accurately, and even on the cartoon you get the feeling that poor little Frodo was ready to fight all nine Nazgul, and you feel for him. This scene would have been great in the new adaptation, but it's altered.
One for Hollywood!

If you are refering to the Bakishi version than you are 100% wrong. He used Legolas instead of Glorfindel. Frodos part was done better but what is up with Glorfindel being replaced all the time?? Maybe Thorin has the answer. Just FYI.

[Harad]

Glorfindel is a tool of the establishment and should never have come back from the Dead.

[baraka]

Originally posted by Harad
Glorfindel is a tool of the establishment and should never have come back from the Dead.

Why should Glorfindel never have come back from the dead? I know that he is somewhat out of sorts in the TA, but he´s definitely an elf i would like to have on my team.

[Harad]

Youre right about that. I just dont like his attitude. He should have been saying to Elrond "Let me in Coach, I feel hot. I can scorch those Nazgul, and if you run into a Balrog, hey, who better?" Instead he took early retirement.

[baraka]

I don´t know why Glorfindel didn´t insisted on being in the Fellowship. He would have been a great asset.

[aragil]

Perhaps Glory was opting for the Michael Jordan approach: Let the fellowship languish around in sub-par ratings, and then come out of retirement to save the day! Unfortunately for Glorfindel, the league was disolved while he was still training for the comeback.

[baraka]

I don´t think that Glorfindel needed to train. He alredy fougth with a Balrog.

[Chymaera]

The Wizards Battle makes sence to me.

Gandalf discovers in his discusion with Saruman that Saruman is a Traitor. Gandalf is not going to let himself be taken prisoner without putting up a fight. Saruman is one of the few that could capture Gandalf ( concidering how he faired against the Balrog )

The story of Gandalf's capture was told as a flashback - Gandalf telling the story to Frodo in his sick bed. Gandalf would not tell Frodo any more then he had to know at the time.

[Grond]

I personally had nothing at all against the Wizard's Battle as a part of the movie... I just thought it was very poorly done. It was like something out of Crouching Tiger... Had they done a more magical encounter with less physicality, I would have probably appreciated it more.

[ssgrif]

Going on from the fight between Gandalf and Saruman in Orthanc, remember that Gandalf lost his staff to Saruman during the fight and was then expelled to the roof-top.

After a while, Gwaihir came to save Gandalf from Orthanc, but how come later on in the film, say in Moria, his staff had returned? Is this supposed to be another staff? or maybe an oversight by PJ and the continuity team?

[Mithiril]

Thank you, Grond, that is exactly how I felt about the wizard's battle. The idea of a conflict between the two makes sense, I just thought, as I've said before, that two wizards fighting would be more cerebral than physical. I guess that is a bit hard to bring to the screen, though. I suppose the way it was done appeals to some, I just thought it was below Gandalf and Saruman.

[Gary Gamgee]

ssgrif,
I really think it was a plain mistake on pj's part, I know alot of people say Gandalf could have just made another but that doesn't satify me. In the book Gandalf never let's his staff out of his sight, remember at Helm's Deep he refuses to give it up. I know it's not the holder of Gandalf's power but he certainly seems to think it is of some importance.

[Inzilbêth]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Yeah, Lurtz is gonna be "Darth Maul", the disposable enemy for the first film...and he does indeed kill Boromir. It's all buggered up...


A really good comparison!!

[Úlairi]

I must agree, good one!

[Chymaera]

Originally posted by Grond
I personally had nothing at all against the Wizard's Battle as a part of the movie... I just thought it was very poorly done. It was like something out of Crouching Tiger... Had they done a more magical encounter with less physicality, I would have probably appreciated it more.


A little more Industrial Light :D

that is why PJ likes working around the edges of the book, he has more leyway with parts of the story that have not been nailed down.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Chymaera
A little more Industrial Light :D

that is why PJ likes working around the edges of the book, he has more leyway with parts of the story that have not been nailed down. Unfortunately, in this Humble Hammer of Hate's opinion, PJ has worked so close to the edges of the story that he has completely fallen off the book and now is entering a realm of fantasy that the author never intended to visit. ;)

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Grond
Unfortunately, in this Humble Hammer of Hate's opinion, PJ has worked so close to the edges of the story that he has completely fallen off the book and now is entering a realm of fantasy that the author never intended to visit. ;)

I disagree Grond, yes, PJ didn't stick to it entirely, but he did the best he could. He stated that FotR was a nine hour movie. IMO, he did a very good job of compressing it into three hours. Perhaps you could elaborate on the point that he is:

Originally posted by Grond
...entering a realm of fantasy that the author never intended to visit.

[Grond]

Ulari, in another thread we are debating character depth versus character development. To me, PJ did a horrendous job of both. This is so because we have composite characters (as Harad liked to call them) that consolidate many of the character's traits and attributes. This is extremely damaging to the characterizations that Tolkien created and is leading to the development of additional stories and plots that the author never intended. This additional development is out of PJ's own mouth as he feels the TT doesn't have enough plot line.

If this is not butchering a story, then you say potaeto and I say pototo.

[Talimon]

Is this post some kind of joke? What kind of twisted forum moderator places a permanent post bashing the movie at the top of a forum that's meant for discussion? This is just ugly.

[Úlairi]

I'd leave it alone Talimon, you do not know what you are getting yourself into. Grond is entitles to his opinions, just as you are entitled to yours. Do not attack the poster, attack the post.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Talimon
Is this post some kind of joke? What kind of twisted forum moderator places a permanent post bashing the movie at the top of a forum that's meant for discussion? This is just ugly. Funny that no one ever reads the entire thread before jumping to conclusions. I have repeatedly stated I loved the movie for what it was... a loose adaptation of a book that I hold near and dear to my heart.

BTW Talimon, Moderators are entitled to our opinions. Especially a movie about the subject of this forum... which is the works of J. R. R. Tolkien... note it is not the works of P. J. J. Jackson! Most of the Tolkien purists on this forum have little use for the film when comparing it to the book.

I'll say it one more time. I watched the movie three times. I'll buy the DVD in August. I'll buy the expanded cut DVD in December. I'll see all the movies as the come out. I'll continue to read the books twice a year as I have for the last 30 years. The movie will never supplant, exceed or replace my relationship with the book. It isn't grand enough.

[Talimon]

Not only do I agree that you are entitled to your opinions, but I am also quite interested as to hearing them. What I am suprised at is the fact that you made a permanent post for them.

[Grond]

I'm confused. By a permanent post, do you mean this thread itself? Or is it something I said within the thread? This thread was originally started by Beorn (the poster formerly known as Mike B)and he is not a moderator.

BTW, you may feel free to start a thread on most any subject relating to the LotRs in this forum. If you hate the book... start a thread. If you love the book... start a thread. If you hate the movie... start a thread. If you love the movie... start a thread. All you need do is place it in the proper category. If it's about the movie... post it in the movie category. If it's about the book... post it in the appropriate book category. Our rules are simple, attack posts and opinions... just don't attack posters personally. You are definately entitled to your opinion about book or movie as am I, whether I am a moderator or not.

[Talimon]

I'm not attacking anyone specifically...I got you mixed up with Beorn. I was just saying it's slightly wrong to have a thread that's stuck at the top of a forum (a froum for discussion on the movie) be clearly founded on criticizing the movie.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Talimon
I'm not attacking anyone specifically...I got you mixed up with Beorn. I was just saying it's slightly wrong to have a thread that's stuck at the top of a forum (a forum for discussion on the movie) be clearly founded on criticizing the movie. Well Talimon, feel free to start a thread called Any movie questions in support of the movie? By the way, welcome to our forum. Notice the name is "The Tolkien Forum" and not "The Jackson Forum". :)

[Thorin]

Talimon,

If you read all the posts, you will find that the thread was initially started to answer and discuss questions folks had about the movie....It was in no way started to bash the movie, though that is occuring along with support of the movie. That's what this forum is here for.

It was stickied up top so "newbies" to the forum could find it quick.

If you are complaining that people are going off topic, well, show me one of these threads on this forum that hasn't! ;)

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Beorn


Do orcs really hatch out of pods? That seems unlike the rest of the movie...
Q. Did Gimli really try and cut the ring with his axe in the book? If it won't melt in a hot fire, it's probably pretty strong...
Was there really a wizard's duel? It seemed out of context...




Questions like those aren't asking for a very positive answer :). By the way, in response to the second one, Gandalf even says in the book that Frodo's fire couldn't melt real gold.

[Úlairi]

Exactly right Talimon.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Talimon
Questions like those aren't asking for a very positive answer :). By the way, in response to the second one, Gandalf even says in the book that Frodo's fire couldn't melt real gold. Originally posted by Beorn
Originally posted by Beorn
Q. Do orcs really hatch out of pods? That seems unlike the rest of the movie...

Q. Did Gimli really try and cut the ring with his axe in the book? If it won't melt in a hot fire, it's probably pretty strong...

Q. Was there really a wizard's duel? It seemed out of context...


Talimon, why would there be a problem asking any of those questions and why would they be deemed negative????

Please show me where any of these three things occur in the book. This thread was started well before the movie opened and all we had to base our opinions on were the trailers and previews. We saw something that looked like "orcs hatching out of pods" (not in the book). We saw a dwarf striking at the One Ring on a podium at what appeared to be the Council of Elrond (not only not in the book, but Frodo only showed the Ring to the Council, he never took it off.) We saw wizards engaging in a Crouching Tiger type of battle (not in the book). Is it any wonder we were confused and questioned what Peter Jackson was doing? He had stated repeatedly that he held the book in reverence and thought it was the greatest book written in the 20th century. I fail to see your argument. It should also be noted that on this thread, all of the positive elements of the movie have been discussed as well.

[Thorin]

quote
Q. Do orcs really hatch out of pods? That seems unlike the rest of the movie...

Q. Did Gimli really try and cut the ring with his axe in the book? If it won't melt in a hot fire, it's probably pretty strong...

Q. Was there really a wizard's duel? It seemed out of context...
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hmmm....Isn't the name of this thread "Any Movie Questions?"? I fail to see what the issue here is, Talimon.

Movie questions both positive and negative and the discussions that follow are entirely relevant and acceptable...

I don't get it...:confused:

[Talimon]

There's nothing to get. I got the reply I wanted, and am satisfied. I'm not making any arguments.

[shadowfax_g]

I learned that Legolas was 2,931 years old from the Official Movie Guide. Is there any statement about his age anywhere in the works of J.R.R Tolkien as well? Or any idea how they figured it out?

[Gollum/Sméagol]

Incase someone already posted this(I really couldn't have been bothered reading ALL of the posts), you all do know that lurtz IS IN THE BOOK???

[Beorn]

Not specifically being referred to as Lurtz...

[Talimon]

That aside, I was wondering where the name "Lurtz" came from. It's not used in the movie, and I haven't heard PJ use it in any of the interviews. Is it a name give by the fans?

[Theoden]

If you placed this thread at the top so nebies could read it... you done god. I read it and it has made me think of alot of tuff.

thanx
:)

-me

[Úlairi]

Lurtz is in the book, however, he is not referred as directly to.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Ulairi
Lurtz is in the book, however, he is not referred as directly to.

:confused: Where did you read that? The only leader orc that was named (in TTT, not FotR ) was Grishnahk....There was not any hint to any sort of character named Lurtz.

[Talimon]

Yeah, that was my impression too. If I remember correctly, Boromir was actually shot by numerous orcs, not any one orc.

What I'm curious about is HOW do people know that Lurtz name is Lurtz. It's in the credits, but where did the name come from, and more importantly why does he have a name to begin with? :)

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Thorin


:confused: Where did you read that? The only leader orc that was named (in TTT, not FotR ) was Grishnahk....There was not any hint to any sort of character named Lurtz.

Sorry, I must clarify with you people what I meant by not being referred as directly to. It is subtextual, and if you take the phrase, 'not referred directly to' out of context, you will see that I mean the name Lurtz is not referred to directly as in LotR, but is under another name, however, the same creature. You are right Thorin, it is Grishnahk. My apologies.

[zeuqirne]

where do wizards come from and are they mortal men like Aragorn?

[Úlairi]

Wizards are Maiar (Ainur of lesser degree than the Valar), and they come from Valinor, Aman.

[aragil]

Originally posted by Ulairi
Sorry, I must clarify with you people what I meant by not being referred as directly to. It is subtextual, and if you take the phrase, 'not referred directly to' out of context, you will see that I mean the name Lurtz is not referred to directly as in LotR, but is under another name, however, the same creature. You are right Thorin, it is Grishnahk. My apologies.


Rrrrr! It was not Grishnakh that led the party from Emyn Muil to the eaves of Fangorn. It was Ugluk! Ugluk the magnificent! Uguk of the Uruk-hai!

Whether or not Ugluk led the band to the Emyn Muil is not specified in the books ('We came out of Isengard and led you here'). If PJ wanted to have a different Orc (named Lurtz in the credits only) lead them to the Emyn Muil, then he was not doing anything against the word of Tolkien. In any case, Lurtz is clearly neither Ugluk nor Grishnakh.

[Úlairi]

aragil, I believe your right. My apologies. I never took that much notice on Orc-lore, not as fascinating as Ring-Lore and Bad-gu- Lore (save the minor bad guys such as Orcs).

[GorhendadOldbuk]

oh kay i dont kno if anyone asked this but i really wanted to see Tom Bombadil in the movie....also the barrow wight too........it really peeved me....(btw i went from the first page directly to the last so i don't kno if someone addressed these but anyways peter jackson should of had some reference to me?.....Gorhendad Brandybuck.....i mean Oldbuck

[Auratus]

Hi!

Well, I just finished reading this long thread... seems there's a number of experts of this stuff... so...

I was a youth when I read the LOTR books; the best read ever to date. It's been a long time. I'm thinking of going to the book store to see if they're available. Anyway, as I watched the movie I noticed a few things that seemed different, but I can't quite place my finger on what those differences were:

1. The mine "short cut." If I recall properly, the telling of this in the book was long and interesting, but in the movie it seemed amiss. How was this part of the film different from the book?

2. The wizard battle: did that happen in the book? I did see some discussion of it in this thread, but I missed the answer to my thoughts here. The tower he was set in after the fight: that wasn't one of the towers at Mordor was it? It looked pretty evil in the film.

As far as the arguements in the thread; well, my feeling is the movie was made for entertainment as fiction rather than as a documentry (copy) of the LOTR books. I see it as a seperate creation based on the LOTR, subsequently I don't care too much if there are differences if I was successfully entertained; and, of course, I was! I think to spend so much time to find faults to the point of being pratically angry is really pointless, but that's me; each to his own. I really expect these three movies to be every bit a "generation marker" as Star Wars was to me in my youth, but that's a guess, I'll admit. I enjoyed this film far more than the Harry Potter film (mention elsewhere in the forum), and the latter was actually a bit disapointing me, but I still enjoyed it overall.

Edit: one last thing: if I had to be a critic, lol, I 'd say Sam's and Frodo's close and deep relationship was really not developed very good, but I did get a good sense of that at the end, so I wasn't too disappointed in that aspect. The close friendships of the characters in the books is the aspect, I think, that has so many people liking the LOTR so well; so I instictively looked for it to be brought out in the movie.

:cool:

[Talimon]

Keep in mind that Sam and Frodo's relationship becomes much deeper in the TTT and RotK, at least in the books.

[Legolas' Girl]

please, please, PLEASE answer this question for me to the best of your abilities!!



:confused:


Okay. In the movie, the council of Elrond was much shortened, and much fabricated. Barely any of the original lines got through, but of the few that did, one was given to a different character so oddly it startled me.

When Boromir was ranting about how he could bring the ring back to Gondor, and Aragorn said, "You cannot wield it. None of us can." and Boromir retorts with, "And what would a mere Ranger know of this matter?"...


LEGOLAS , Legolas of all elves, stands up and defends Aragorn. Now don't get me wrong, any scene where Legolas gets screenage is great in my opinion, but after just reading the book, this was confusing.

FURTHERMORE, after Boromir and Legolas exchange a few lines, Aragorn says softly, in what I can only guess as Elvish, "Sit down, Legolas." Though it is not shown, Legolas is sitting in the next shot of him.

Why, WHY, WHY was Legolas given Elrond's lines? Obviously, from the exchange above, Legolas and Aragorn know each other.

Did I miss something? Did it explain their friendship ANYWHERE in the book(s)?

Please answer to the best of your knowledge. Thankyou.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Grond]

My best guess would be that Elrond is portrayed as so "ANTI-MAN" in the movie that it would be out of character for him to come to Aragorn's defense. Instead, PJ picked another more "involved" member from the soon to be Fellowship to defend Aragorn.

As to why PJ chose to change the basic characterization of Elrond... you'll have to ask him that one. I haven't a clue. But when you start messing with one characterization... it will ultimately effect many other characterizations. It is as unavoidable as the changes are unnecessary.

[Legolas' Girl]

Thanks for the input, I never thought about Elrond that much:rolleyes:

But still, (and this may never get answered) the more burning question was how Aragorn and Legolas knew each other.:(

[Grond]

Originally posted by Legolas' Girl
Thanks for the input, I never thought about Elrond that much:rolleyes:

But still, (and this may never get answered) the more burning question was how Aragorn and Legolas knew each other.:( To answer your burning question, Aragorn had recently left Gollum in the care of King Thranduil (Legolas' father). Surely Aragorn, heir to the throne of Gondor would be well known in the realm and would likely have been welcomed to the Halls of the Elven-king by both the King and his son.

Just a guess!!

[Legolas_sheila]

I read that Legolas is 2,931 too. I really don't know how they found it out. In what book would they have mentioned that in it, anyway? But, I suppose Legolas is an elf, and elves do live for eternity, and I am sure that he would be that old or something like that...does anyone know for sure??
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Legolas_sheila]

I think that the movie really wasn't made as well as it could be, but it depends on time.
I saw the Harry Potter movie and I think that it was done a bit better because it was shorter. If LotR was longer, not as many people would watch it (but i would- over and over and over and over etc, etc.) but some people like long movies, like me. But, I think that the fotr movie could have been based on the movie a bit more.
But people have their own opinion, and I respect that.

:) Legolas_sheila:)

[Talimon]

Ideally it would be the longest of all three movies, since it includes the most content.

[Parrot]

Confusticated, I had the same question about the ring coming off of Frodo’s neck so easily. I think that one possible explanation or theory is that the ring, especially the movie ring which seems to be even more sentient and self-actualizing than portrayed in the book, might have wanted to go to Boromir, recognizing him as the most susceptible to its seduction and corruption and the key to breaking the Fellowship. Anybody think this holds water?

[aragil]

In the movie the Ring itself 'speaks' the lines, chanting while the council dissolves into a foo-for-all (whoo-hoo! new word). I liked the bit- at least as ominous as Gandalf speaking the lines.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Confusticated
That could be. I don't knnow if PJ had that reason im mind or not. All the same it annoys me a little. I also think that Gandalf should have left the Ring in the fire a bit longer. Which also reminds me: It's too bad that Gandalf did not speak the words on the ring in the language of Mordor at the counsil. I liked that part in the book. It's something I actually think PJ and them could have pulled off very well.

Then you'll be happy to hear that that very part in the council was shot and will be edited into the Extended Edition.

[malazac]

i cant wait for the second lotr

[Talimon]

Hooray! ...I trust you on this. I wonder why this is the first I've heard of it though.

Here you go. It was in Empire Magazine a while back. Note that these are only some of the scenes included, and there will be more:

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/2/1027698148

[joxy]

Mirrormere certainly appears in FOTR;
it's just that no-one says anything about it or says its name.
PJ often explains too much, but occasionally doesn't explain at all!

[CloakedShadow]

I know we are all excited about Two Towers coming out December 18th...let the party begin. I heard that November 12th is the date the second FotR extended 4-disc whoop-la is going to be released, but I'm not sure if that's the exact date. All I know is I have it circled big on my calendar...:D


I have one question that I would like multiple answers to:
Is anyone as mad as I am that they cut Glorfindel out?

Who does PJ think he is changing that?! God forbid Arwin and Aragorn don't get married...they could have done it a different way...:mad:

Anyways, please feel free to be as violent as the rules allow in expressing your sadness over the loss of the "late-great" Glorfindel!

Until then...
The Cloaked Shadow

[CloakedShadow]

Many thanks do I bestow upon you and yours...

The Cloaked Shadow

[Dragon Hunter]

Um..................I got a question! If they put every-thing from the book in the movie, how long do you think it would be???

[Grond]

Originally posted by Dragon Hunter
Um..................I got a question! If they put every-thing from the book in the movie, how long do you think it would be??? That argument has already been made time and time again and already answered a dozen times. The movie could have maintained the integrity of the book and still been made within the time allotment.

Newbies should read threads in their entirety before asking questions that have been asked several times before in the same thread.

[mr underhill]

yes....

but i think that if they included everything it would seem ridiculous ( tom bombadil isnt film material anymore.... he belongs in films like mary poppins ).

[Grond]

mr underhill, had you read this thread in its entirety, you would have seen that very few Tolkien purists were advocating keeping in Tom Bombadil. The complaints are the blatant changes in characterizations and including scenes that never happened or didn't happen the way PJ portrayed them. He made a good movie that conveyed the "feeling" of Middle-earth.... it just didn't tell the same story.

[mr underhill]

yes i know and i dont justify some of his changes... ESPECIALLY boromir. Hes made out to be evil and thats not the case.

[Éomond]

But Boromir redemed hemself in the end.

[Talimon]

Originally posted by Grond
That argument has already been made time and time again and already answered a dozen times. The movie could have maintained the integrity of the book and still been made within the time allotment.


That answer has never proved satisfactory. The fact is, until a fantasy movie is made as true to it's source material as possible (and that source material is as complex as LotR), you can't say anything. It is pure speculation. Could the movie have been truer? Yes. But would it have been as good/better? Would it be as appealing to non-readers? Not to mention, would it have made as much money? All we know with assurety is this: PJ has a made a movie that is good, loved by readers and non-readers alike, and has made an insane amount of money around the world. Most importantly, in my opinion, there is very little about the movie that is formula material. It is all very original for the film world. And yet it gels.

[Grond]

I suppose good Talimon that we are destined to disagree. I cannot prove that the movie would have been better had it maintained a truer integrity to the book. You can't prove the movie was better because it's director chose to make significant changes to the characterizations and plotlines of the movie.

I am pleased with the Cinematography... the "feel" of Middle-earth was just right. The action and interaction were well done and well acted. But... I feel cheated that PJ has changed the very love story of Arwen and Aragorn. He has amplified and intensified it beyond what JRRT had done and on the other hand made it both more and less.

I appreciate the movie. It will bring and has brought thousands of new readers to the works. After the Bakshi fiasco of 1978, I just had hoped for so much more.

[Talimon]

Are you saying it's not "so much more" then the Bakshi fiasco? Even if it's not perfect in your point of view, there is no arguing that it is the best adaptation of LotR so far.

[Grond]

Talimon, the presentation of PJ's Lord of the Rings exceeds that Bakshi production by leaps and bounds. There is no doubt that the atmosphere and "feel" of the movie is better. In actuality the Bakshi film stayed just as true to the plot (or should I say varied from the plot) in much the same manner as the current film. It may have even stayed truer. (I was so disappointed that I've only seen it twice.)

But... after the Bakshi movie, I hoped for one that not only gave the "feel" of Middle-earth but also gave the "story". It appears you and I disagree on what the "story" is.

[Talimon]

I doubt we disagree what Tolkien's story is about. There is very little about it that's controversial. Say rather that we disagree on what a cinematic adaptation of that story should accomplish and cover. The more I think about it the more I find that that is the underlying issue behind all this argument: People having different visions. While I couldn't really care whether people enjoyed the film or not (more power to you if did), I would suggest this if you didn't: Try and accept the fact that there can be different versions and visions of the tale, and that they might not all be so alike. Of course, that leads back to the core question presented by many purists: What right does PJ have to alter Tolkiens tale to begin with? I don't know where this defensive attitude comes from, but I can't accept that it's from such a deep love of the book. I've said this before and I'll say it again: It should be well within a fan of the books capacity to understand the fact that the books greatness, legacy, and story are infinite and untouchable. There is nothing, let alone a movie based on them, that can change that. I accepted this a long time ago, and as such see the movies in a much different light. If anything I'd argue my expectations for purity are lower, and thus my enjoyment greater. I find that many people who passionately trash the movie see it as the be-all-end-all version of LotR. It's not, and doesn't claim to be.

[Grond]

from Page 7 of The Lord of the Rings Official Movie Guide
"Since starting this movie, says Jackson, "I have read this book hundreds of times, literally word for word... Indeed, before I film a scene, I usually go back and read the chapter from the book. It is very inspiring to walk onto the set with that stuff in your head and then shoot that very scene."

The same can be said of many other people working on the film - in front of and behind the camera. There may never have been a movie adapted from a book in which so many of the artists and technicians were as devoted to the material they were attempting to put onto film. "From that point of view," adds Jackson, "the films are very much a labor of love: made for fans of the book by fans of the book..."Sounds to me that before the first film's release, PJ was touting it to be exactly what you say it isn't... the be-all-and-end-all version. There are many other quotes similar to PJ's from other members of the film team as well as many other quotes that PJ made prior to the first film's release which focused on the sanctity of the work. It wasn't until trailers started to hit and show Arwen at the Fords of Bruinen that PJ changed his tone and started defensively arguing that it was, indeed, his adaptation of the book.

Talimon, I again tell you how much I enjoyed the film. I simply thrust all memory of JRRT's Lord of the Rings from my mind when I view the film and enjoy it for both what it is (great entertainment based on the greatest fantasy story ever written) and what is isn't (a very good adaptation to my mind).

[Éomond]

I got a question, here it goes:
Why is Sam called Fordo's servant?

[Grond]

That would be because both Gaffer Gamgee and Samwise Gamgee were employed by Frodo at Bag End as gardeners; hence, both Gaffer (at one time) and Samwise were servants (in the service of) Frodo Baggins.

[Talimon]

While you have the guide out, go to the last page and give me that quote about this being three good movies rather then three good adaptations. I have always taken that "for the fans by the fans" as more regarding the sets/constumes/acting then the actual script. Of course it's always hard to tell, but let's just put it this way: seeing as how a lot of major talent has worked on the team, especially those devoted to Tolkien (voice coaches, artists) I can't accept the fact that the movie wasn't true because those who made it just didn't "get it". To me that is silly. You just can't argue that Frodo resisting the riders wasn't dramatic enough for PJ. I'm sure PJ got the original tale, and I'm sure it would have been very easy for him to copy it as much as possible, were that his goal. But the way I see it he has a different vision, with different goals. What are these? We'll know eventually, no doubt. At least so far we can distinguish one of these: to tell the tale to a modern audience that hasn't grown up on the books. To me many of the changes come from this point of view.

[Grond]

And you are absolutely right Talimon. I just don't understand why PJ had to make those changes and in doing so, IMHO, the story he tells is not the same story. I hope one day that he will write a book about his sojourn in making the films. I will be the first one in line to buy it. I am not an anti-PJ fanatic. I just wonder why he felt the need to change a magnificent story.

I would be very interested to find out the degree of input NLC had in some of the more major changes in the movie. I wonder whether it was PJ who made the decision to have Arwen at the Fords rather than Frodo. PJ may have many explanations as to why he did what he did.... I would love to hear them.

Once again... Peace good Talimon. I enjoy the movie (I've already watched it too many times to count since the DVD is out and have the Extended Cut already ordered). I will concede that PJ has made a monumentally epic film which I'm sure will stand the test of time. I just wish he had chosen to adapt it in a way that effected characterizations less. :)

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
I can't accept the fact that the movie wasn't true because those who made it just didn't "get it". To me that is silly. You just can't argue that Frodo resisting the riders wasn't dramatic enough for PJ.

SOME of those who made it just OCCASIONALLY didn't get it.
Whoever wrote the carrot and the skeleton down the well didn't get it- those scenes and others jar with the other 95% which is so brilliant-
the actions and the words just do not fit the rest.

Who's arguing that Frodo resisting the riders wasn't enough for PJ?
Frodo doesn't get the chance to resist anything at the ford in the film.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Grond
I just wonder why he felt the need to change a magnificent story.

I just wish he had chosen to adapt it in a way that affected characterisations less. :)

So do I, and so do I!

[Talimon]

Good, some sort of agreement :).

You won't have to wait for PJ to write a book. There will be 4 commentary tracks on the FotR DVD alone, not to mention loads of special material. I think the first extra DVD, "From book to vision", will answer a lot of our questions. If the DVD tries to act like the movie is the perfect mirror of the book then I will admit defeat. But I just cannot see it doing that, esspecially on the commentary. I am dying to see what kind of commentary PJ has over the Galadriel transformation scene. I'm sure on some of the commentaries that aren't by PJ we will hear a few snickers :). If you hear PJ talk he just doesn't sound like the type of person that is in denial or anything. I'm sure he'll be very straight-forward about things.

In the newest fan magazine there is a very long interview with PJ about the Extended cut. I was surprised to read some of this stuff, considering this magazine is supposed to be "official" and all of that. But the fan magazine has actually surprised me many times. It is very honest and to the point. It puts in both the good and the bad of what people thought of the movies. Worth the price of admission if you are interested.

Anyway here are some good parts from it (though certainly not all, as I have only so much patience when it comes to typing :)):

How did you go about putting the extended DVD version together?

We were actually talking about it all the way through the editing of The Fellowship. Whenever we would look at a version of the film, and we would sort of agonize over whether we were going to cut a scene out, we would often say to ourselves, "Well, if we cut it out of here, it will be great for the DVD." Which actually helps soften the blow! As a filmmaker, you do feel a certain amount of emotional attachment to everything you've shot. You know that a two-minute scene in the movie represents a day's worth of work and that you were working very intensely with the actors to try to create the best performance and with the camera crew to get the best shots. You spend a day of your life crafting a scene, and suddenly, nobody is going to see it. It has a certain emotional blow attached to it when you have to cut it out. I love the fact that, as long as it is a worthwhile scene, then the DVD concept actually helps ease the pain.

As we were cutting the theatrical version, we would say, "We'll do a short version of this moment here but let's make sure we keep this footage and put it to one side for the DVD."

Are scenes cut out for pacing purposes as well?

Actually, scenes cut out for pacing purposes are generally quite nice. Often, there are scenes involving intimate moments between the charachters or a little bit of back-story or development, and those are usually the ones that are taken out for pacing purposes. They are often the very scenes that are good to have back in the DVD because they are for the people who have seen The Fellowship of the Ring and have seen Legolas or Pippin or Frodo and would like to see more of them. That's what the extended edition DVD can provide. We did shoot things that we didn't put into the DVD...there are deffinitely more scenes from 'Fellowship' that hit the cutting room floor and stayed on the cutting room floor. We only put in scenes that we felt actually enhanced the movie for the DVD viewing.

Which of the new DVD scenes was the hardest for you to cut from the theatrical release?

There is a scene that I regret cutting, but we were under a lot of pressure from New Line to bring the film in under three hours. As it was, it was two hours, 58 minutes, so we just scraped by on that. This three-hour mark was a psychological thing...nobody wanted to say that the film was three hours long. We worked very hard to achieve that goal. The last scene that got cut (which would have tipped us over three hours) was a scene involving Viggo's charachter, Aragorn, and the four hobbits in the Midgewater Marshes going from Bree to Rivendell. Then there is a scene at night where Viggo is sitting by the campfire by himself, and the hobbits are sleeping. That was about a three-minute sequence that stayed in the theatrical cut right up until the last minute. It was a scene that the film would ultimately do okay without, but it does nice things for Aragorn's charachter. And, quite frankly, it feels, at that point in the film, that it is a nice moment for that particular scene to happen. That was probably the one that was the hardest for me to cut out.

Regarding the Gift giving scene

...We were now into our final act of the The Fellowship, heading toward our climax, and it became a bit of a problem to actually stop the film for this gift-giving scene. That was actually a conversation I had with New Line at the time, because we all recognized what the problem was. To be honest, the gift-giving scene actually dictated the date that the extended edition DVD was to be released. I said to New Line, "Look, I will cut the gift-giving scene out, but you realize there are gifts that they are given that they use in The Two Towers. I will be prepared to take it out as long as you can guarantee and promise me that you will release the extended DVD before the release of The Two Towers." They went away and came back and said, "If we promise to do a November release so that the fans and the people who are interested have a month to buy and to look at the Extended DVD before they go into The Two Towers, is that okay?" And I said, "Sure, that would work." That was a negotiation that happened before we agreed to to take the gift-giving scene out. They had to guarantee me that people would be able to see it in place in The Fellowship before they went to see The Two Towers in December.

[Grond]

I await the extended version with bated breath and I still hope to read a book on his thinking. Thanks for going to the trouble of typing all that material. It is much appreciated.

[Talimon]

I think some of that shows what went between New Line and PJ. Too bad it had to be under 3 hours though. I just heard that New Line might be cutting half hour from TTT just so that they can release an extended edition. That would be sad.

[Talimon]

No, but of course they'd never make it public. They'd just say that the film had to be a certain length, regardless. How are they going to get folks to buy both editions if they don't have different footage? I really hope they let the third movie go longer though. I am expecting a much more intense emotional ride. Which is odd, considering the fact that it really isn't much more intense then FotR in the book. But that's the advantage of having PJ change stuff: he can make the movie more engrossing.

[Legless]

Peter Jackson plays a cameo role in the movie. When the Hobbits walk past him on the streets of Bree, he is eating something.

What is it?

[Talimon]

He's eating a carrot :).

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
He's eating a carrot
LOL!!!!

[Talimon]

Is it true that most of Arwen's scenes in the movie are fabricated?

What parts of the book were cut?

Are incantations used in the book?

What parts of the movie were added?

Do orcs really hatch out of pods? That seems unlike the rest of the movie...

Did Gimli really try and cut the ring with his axe in the book? If it won't melt in a hot fire, it's probably pretty strong...

Who is Lurtz?

Was there really a wizard's duel? It seemed out of context...

Were there any characters missing from the Council of Elrond?

Are there alterations to the characters' personalities?



Do people take this seriously? I mean, by the replys it seems as though people were trying to have an nice, unbiased debate here. I hate to be pushing it, but isn't this thread just a little bit out of context? Do we really need it stuck at the top of the forum? Were it to actually educate people on the movie then yes, I could see it's use. But what kind of questions are these?

Do orcs really hatch out of pods? That seems unlike the rest of the movie...

Did Gimli really try and cut the ring with his axe in the book? If it won't melt in a hot fire, it's probably pretty strong...

Was there really a wizard's duel? It seemed out of context...

Talk about being subtle. ;)

[faeley]

when frodo is stabbed by a ringwraith what does strider call the blade..."he's been stabbed by a ....blade"
i thought i knew but obviously i cant make it out correctly and i need to know to gain access to a site...correct spelling is needed too.
any help would be appreciated
THANKS

[Legless]

Good Luck

[Anamatar IV]

not nazgul. not nazgul at all. "Hes been stabbed by a morgul blade..."

[Talimon]

not nazgul. not nazgul at all. "Hes been stabbed by a morgul blade..."

ROFL...That just reminded me of the way Bakshi did that...Aragorn hold is up, we hear a corny "ZOING", and the blade just dissappears... Aragorn is almost as surprised at how corny this is as the audience...;)

[Anamatar IV]

I WANNA SEE BAKSHID!!! Ive heard it sucks but i wanna see it! I never have! Or the hobbit cartoon.

[Legless]

Having discovered the hobbits location the ringwraiths encircle and trap them with the ruins of weathertop. As they slowly advance Samwise Gimgee yells at them in fear.

What does Samwise yell at the approaching ringwraiths?

[Talimon]

"Back, you devils!", I'm pretty sure.

[Legless]

That quote is correct.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Legless
That quote is correct.
Now who can tell me how many times T wrote "devil/s" anywhere in LOTR.
I'd take a small bet it's as many times as "she-elf"; ZERO.

[Grond]

Originally posted by joxy
Now who can tell me how many times T wrote "devil/s" anywhere in LOTR.
I'd take a small bet it's as many times as "she-elf"; ZERO. Or "Let's hunt some orc!!" :D;)

[joxy]

Originally posted by Grond
Or "Let's hunt some orc!!")
Thanks Grond, as I've said before, that line comes so close to ruining the end of the film, especially compared to the scenes immediately before it which are so moving- and mainly so original-, that I have to fast forward it every time!

[Gimlison]

Does anybody know what happened to www.imladris.net ???

[Longshanks]

On the whole , I truly enjoyed this film. The images were beautiful and the acting was top notch, Elijah Woods, Ian Mckellan and Sean Bean especially. I find the quibbles about straying from the original source to be minor, in that one can't be competely true to one medium while working in another, some things HAVE to be adapted. One moment is was sorry that didn't make it into the movie was the reforging of Narsil into Aundril. To me, that has always been the forst step in Aragorn reclaiming his heritage. In terms of the film, I think it would have made a nice counterpoint to seeing the orc armies of Sauraman preparing for war by seeing the Elvish smiths reforging Narsil. I've been hoping that we'd see such a scen in the extended DVD, so maybe I'll get my wish yet!

[Anamatar IV]

the reforging is in TTT. But I dont see what the difference is (please dont give me a purist opinion)

[Celebthôl]

well in the book Aragorn never had a second sword he always had the shards of nasil in his scubbard so he had to have it reforged in the book but in the film he needed a sword early on really coz you can't have an amazing action scene with some guy bradishing sticks which have been set alight to fight off the evil critters, it just wouldn't work (i hope that is what you meant).

Celebthôl

[Talimon]

There is a scene in the EE where Elrond asks Aragorn if he'd like to reforge Narsil, and Aragorn says that he doesn't. True, this contradicts the book, but PJ is having Aragorns charachter develop in that way. Rumour is that Narsil will be reforged at the beginning of RotK. In my opinion it being reforged should symbolize his acceptance of his heritage, something PJ specifically doesn't want him to have in FotR. It is a very interesting charachter arc, and in my opinion deepens Aragorn considerably.

[Celebthôl]

Now you put it that way it sounds a lot better thx for clearing that up

[Anamatar IV]

I thought Arwen was going to bring the reforged narsil to Aragorn in helms deep because she saw in the mirror of galadriel that he would die.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Talimon
In my opinion it being reforged should symbolize his acceptance of his heritage, something PJ specifically doesn't want him to have in FotR. It is a very interesting character arc, and in my opinion deepens Aragorn considerably.
So we have it. Tolkien took twenty years to decide, along with everything else in his works, what Aragorn's character should be. But, PJ doesn't want that, and T thinks it's not "deep" enough, whatever that means, so we have to pay to see a film that uses Tolkien's title, and see something completely different from what he wrote. Discuss....

[Celebthôl]

Dude u need to chill

[joxy]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Dude u need to chill
If that was to me, may I have a translation please?!
We're in the same country but speak two different languages- very strange....

[Thorin]

It means that you need to take it easy and cool down..:)

However, I agree with you.

The more and more I think about it, the more I agree with Mrs. Maggot. Aragorn is being portrayed in the typical Hollywood, warm-hearted stereotype of the person who encounters all odds and first doubts and then discovers his true potential and acheives it by the end of the movie....Not what Tolkien intended when he wrote Aragorn.

It is unfortunate with the EE that the whole reforging of Narsil continues to make Aragorn a no-self confidence, doubting, wishy-washy wimp just to fit that "underdog" Hollywood character. The Aragorn I see in LoTR is confident but hesitant concerning his heritage, not the "I don't want this and can't do it, but I will if most of you force me to" character that PJ has portrayed....

Once again, PJ has taken it the extreme just so he can make it his own, rather than trying to emulate the master writer.

:rolleyes:

[Celebthôl]

how do you know what Mr Tolkein intended i mean all you have is what he wrote, you saw Aragorn how you wanted but if PJ made the characters out exactly how everyone pictured them then he would be like god or somthing (it's impossible) so he works on what the most popular heros are like in the movies at the moment and builds on it, it's good for ratings and usually what the public wants!

Celeb

[Anamatar IV]

think of Celebs last sentence. What the public wants. my point exactly. If you want lord of the rings read the books. If the public wants an entertaining NOT BORING movie then watch this.

[Celebthôl]

Thank you

[Talimon]

It is unfortunate with the EE that the whole reforging of Narsil continues to make Aragorn a no-self confidence, doubting, wishy-washy wimp just to fit that "underdog" Hollywood character. The Aragorn I see in LoTR is confident but hesitant concerning his heritage, not the "I don't want this and can't do it, but I will if most of you force me to" character that PJ has portrayed....


Hollywood? Are you saying it's more Hollywood to have a charachter with some depth, rather then just have your plain old fearless hero? I think you are cheapening PJ's Aragorn by describing him as just an "underdog". There is a whole issue there of Isildur, Aragorns past, his heritage. I'm not saying Tolkiens charachter wasn't right, but I certainly can't take it against PJ for adding some extra layers. Those scenes make him far more humane. I think there is a fine line here between having courage in battle and courage about ones own past. The movie Aragorn is fearless when it comes to battle, and a natural leader (notice his scene after Gandalf's fall). However, behind that battle-scarred face there are actually some doubts. To me that is a much deeper charachter then just your average, hard-boiled fantasy warrior.

[Parrot]

posted by Thorin
Not what Tolkien intended when he wrote Aragorn.
What exactly did Tolkien intend when he wrote Aragorn? That he have no introspection? That he has never stopped to consider his lineage or doubted at any time that he has exactly what it takes to be a King? This does not seem quite the Aragorn we know. Along with being courageous in battle, Tolkien’s Aragorn is also intelligent and wise; not some headstrong, self-assured-to-a-fault, he-man, ala Boromir. Though it is not written, I would think that Tolkien’s Aragorn would have taken a personal inventory, and yes, faced (and overcame) similar doubts on his road to wisdom and the notable decision to reclaim the crown of Gondor. In the book we merely see an Aragorn that is farther along this road, IMO. If you can accept this reasoning, then does it not make good movie-making sense to try and add an "extra layer" to the character by actually showing some of these internal battles and more of how he comes to be the man he does? I think it does; and I also think that, provided he ends up in the same place, the travails enhance rather than diminish the end character.

posted by Mrs. Maggott
As a result, he was both an "old friend" of Frodo, but, more imporantly, he was IN SERVICE to him (he was his servant). This - especially in the British understanding - makes their relationship unique and one wherein Sam would have been expected to be loyal and true to Frodo. Theirs was NOT a simple "friendship", as was Merry and Pippin's.

In my opinion, for PJ to have hit heavily on the “more imporantly, he was IN SERVICE to him” angle, would have been just as misleading as you claim the Merry and Pippin portrayal is. Maybe others don’t see it this way, but I always felt that Sam actions were predicated on love, respect, and almost reverence for Frodo rather than just “part of the job”. I would completely turn your statement around and say that yes, Sam was IN SERVICE to Frodo but, “more importantly”, they were old friends. Yes, he has some duty, but that duty is not what really drives him, as I see it. To ascribe Sam’s loyalty to his being “expected to be loyal”, over his heart-felt love of Frodo, greatly cheapens the character of Sam and his deliberate decision to leave the Shire and accompany Frodo into danger, in my opinion. Am I saying you’re wrong? No. That is how you, and others I’m sure, see it. What it does do, is illustrate quite clearly, the tightrope PJ had to walk in adapting these characters, their relationships, and their motives.

In the book they are loyal friends who put their life on the line for Frodo. In the movie, they are scatterbrained sneakthieves who accidentally stumble upon the situation.
… and eventually put their lives on the line for Frodo even after being presented ample opportunity to return home and even after the enormity and danger of the quest has been made clear beyond all doubt.

At the end of the day (not that it is the end because we still have two movies to go) what is the real difference here? They did not make their decision in the same way, or the same time, as in the book, but they made it all the same. They make a conscious decision to go on after Rivendell, then fully informed as to what is at stake; how does that not trump their originally being “caught up by accident”?

[joxy]

Originally posted by Parrot
… and eventually put their lives on the line for Frodo even after being presented ample opportunity to return home and even after the enormity and danger of the quest has been made clear beyond all doubt.
The problem is that they start out far too "scatterbrained" and stay that way almost to the very end of FOTR, waving their arms around to attract the orcs. OK, so it was a brave thing to do, but it was not what they did but the way that they did it! They're so boring, so childish, that way, and the character leap is much too great from there to the moment when they, at last, are allowed to show maturity, as the orcs carry them away.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
how do you know what Mr Tolkien intended I mean all you have is what he wrote
The second half of your sentence answers the question in the first half!
"All" we have? That "all" is 20 years of work by JRRT; what more does anyone need in order to know what he intended?
We know what he intended because he told us, and we have read it, in FOTR, and for many of us, in the other books which fill out FOTR even more.

[joxy]

Originally posted by Anamatar IV

What the public wants. my point exactly.
If you want lord of the rings read the books. If the public wants an entertaining NOT BORING movie then watch this.
This question has been asked so often: How do you KNOW what the public wants? I'll answer it, "You don't know".
And let's get this clear: if the film's characters were nearer in character and behaviour to those that JRRT wrote, then the film would be boring - have I got that right? It's what you've just said.

[Talimon]

First of all, I have to agree with Parrot. Even if the details of some events are changed, the events happen nonetheless, and most importantly the meaning behind them is captured. Unlike many other adaptations, PJ is fully aware of the meaning and role of each scene in his movie. There aren't scenes there that are just "for the authors sake". If PJ doesn't see the importance of a certain scene in the context of the movie, it's not going to be there. If it's there, however, you can be sure he's going to pour all his energy into it. This result, the way I see it, in a film that absolutely stands on it's own. If I can watch the movie and separate it from the book, I'm sure some person who has never read the book can do so as well. Many adaptations of "fam