I agree I have watched the movie a lot and all I can say is now that I have read the book what was P.J thinking Tolkien said it was Glorfindel and Arwen bearly got mentioned in the first book!!!!
When you say stuff like that it makes die hard book fans want to punch you in the face ok so omit the stories and the songs that they tell/sing omit the days of training and the months of sitting not only in rivendell but also the month of sitting on their buts in lothlorion skip the feasting forget about the fact that they walked for 4 days in moria forget that it took a week to reach the forest of lothlorion forget that it took another week just to make it to the city at the heart of the woods forget about the fact frodo bore a shard of the witch kings blade in his shoulder for 17 days before reaching imladris forget that Aragorn got lost on the way to imladris ALL of that stuff is in the book for a reason and I get how that stuff doesn't all fit into the movie but for the love of sanity Glorfindel rescued frodo NOT ArwenActually, there ARE some very valid reasons why LOTR, if translated near-perfectly from the printed page to the big screen, would not have had the same appeal among people who had never read the novels. Some books work really well when transferred near-perfectly onto the big (or small) screen, while some things don't. LOTR is one of those things that wouldn't have worked. It is way, way too massive in its scope. Jackson needed to change/omit some things to create a story that could appeal to both the fans and non-fans. Also, you can't fairly compare Harry Potter to LOTR because HP is not nearly as massive in scope and construction as LOTR, which means that it is much easier for the HP novels to be translated near-perfectly onto the big screen.
or Aragorn his personality is mistchivius when u first meet him in the bookFirst off, I really can't see nearly everyone who worked on LotR being huge Tolkien fans, one would think they would have swayed it closer to the books.
Dear Lord, please don't let MM or joxy find this post.
Many of the changes were unnecessary! Period. There is no denying it. You want a big example? Theoden. Give me one good reason why they changed his character to a manic-depressive old man, so willing to abandon Aragorn at every chance? Why? There simply is none.
Ahem, pardon the rant. Also, please don't mistake my true allegiance. I am a die-hard movie fan, but I admit there are changes, quite a few to the detriment of the films.
You can see my argument agreeing with the substitution of Arwen above.
Welcome to the Forums!