Fellowship movie makes me ill......

[ThorinOakenshield]

Truly, I would like to make it through Fellowship of the Ring, but inevitably I reach a point where I feel the grip of nausea and must hit the STOP button. You see, it's not just a matter of inaccuracy, or "hollywoodizing", or foreshortening due to time restraint on the part of the director and screenwriters...it's a matter of ouright, blatant re-writing of perhaps the greatest literary works of all time! Specifically, any LotR scholar will note the following (in no particular order):
1) Gimli at no point attempted to destroy the One Ring during the high council meeting in Rivendell.
2) Gimli did not cry upon seeing Balin's tomb, but rather covered his face.
3) The Cave Troll was not the one who struck Frodo with a spear, it was clearly an Orc Captain.
4) An absolutely gripping moment was omitted from the film:
Gandalf, in The Chamber of Mazarbul, warning against shutting the East door. Had they done so, they would have met the very same fate as the dwarves before them.
5) Glorfindel, an elven lord, was omitted in favor of Arwen. It was Glorfindel who bore Frodo to the ford, and he should not lose his place merely to contrive a rather watered-down romance.
6) In Moria, Gollum is never spoken about directly.
7) Orcs cannot climb pillars, at last I checked.
8) Too many Orcs! Balin's reclamation party numbered a mere 75 or so. It is wholey unnescesary for so many Orcs to be about.
9) The scene with the stairs crumbling and the party jumping the gulf never occured.
10) Alot of things about the birthday party are not quite right, but that's nit-picking :p
11) Frodo never lost the One Ring momentarily, only to have Boromir pick it up and Aragorn reach for his sword (bunk!)
12) Legolas is a skilled bowman, but cmon! The use of his bow as he was, with trick shots and double arrows launched at once, were way too much.
13) It's not like Gimli, a dwarf, would have referred to Khazad-Dum as "Moria". This was a westernesse term for the mines after the unearthing of the Balrog. Gimli would have called it my its proper name.
14) Yes, technically, Galadriel's gift to Frodo was light from the star of Earnedil, BUT, it wasn't called that. Her gift is properly known as the "Phial of Galadriel".
15) Merry of course joined the three other Hobbits at the Buckleberry ferry, not in some corn field at the movie's beginning.
16) No freakin' way are you gonna sneak up on a top-notch Ranger of the North, king in exile, from behind in the woods, elf or no elf. Yet, Arwen somehow did.
17) By the way, Aragorn traveled alone, and quite some distance, to find the herb Athelas with which to help Frodo. Not right around the corner, and no mention of Samwise being there is made.
18) Much of the dialogue from the High Council of Elrond was pretty much ad-libbed. Complete re-write here.
19) Elrond's little speech about "Humans have no strenght, humans are to blame, blah blah blah," and his little crack against the Dwarves not caring about others...mmmmm, never happened!
Nor would it. Elrond, of all people, knows that all races have made errors, and would not place such blame. He is more noble than that. The comments were out of character for him.
20) Arwen cannot, ahem, cannot nor did she in the novels, summon up the waves of the Ford. This was Elven magic of the eldest order, and controlled by Elrond. Not that Arwen was even involved in thise scene anyways. Glorfindel!

Alas, I really could go on. I could speak about the wondrous visuals, or prehaps nag about the shoddy, convuluted Battle Scenes where who the hell knows what is going on.....but perhaps I'll save all that for another time. If the above upsets you, please forgive. But I doubt a true blue LotR fan would be upset. Many of you noticed such things, and many more, for yourselves long ago. Long live the Dwarves! *ThorinOakenshield*

[Blackboar]

Yeah well, What do you expect from Peter Jackson?

I thought the movie was quite good but it was very different from the book!:)

[Arathorn]

I enjoyed it because I only expected to see images that reminded me of the book and was pleasantly surprised. I also like to read spoilers so I knew what to expect when I watched it.

My advise, if you plan to watch TTT, is to borrow it from a friend and to stay close to the exit and stay away from objects that you can throw at the TV given your take on FOTR. The severity of changes between the FOTR movie and the book are miniscule compared to those for TTT. ;) :)

[Gerbil]

To be honest no-one here seriously believes that PJ has produced Tolkien's ME.

It's an old topic that keeps recurring simply because of the passions behind it.

What I find funny is that those who reckon PJ did a bad job come up with numerous explicit examples, while those who reckon he did an accurate job simply say 'well I liked it!'.

What many have found helps, is if you simply ignore the fact that PJ's films have anything to do with the books, and enjoy them in their own right, and they ARE enjoyable.

I know it's hard to ignore the connection, especially if you love Tolkien's works so much. But it's well worth the effort, I promise :D

[Kalimac]

I understand your pain, but the fact is the movie is an "adaptation" . . . a word that means 'change'.

But, I am not a purist . . but I enjoy Tolkienism . . a term I use to describe every avenue of Tolkiens work, from the languages, to the maps, the the material, to the themes, to the various movies (including Jackson's, but not limited to) to spoilers, pictures, to the recent 'new' manuscript found at Oxford, and yeah, even the popcorn boxes. Ha! There are a few of us out here. :p

Loved reading your list though, ThorinOakenshield . . it is quite interesting the various opinions and disparities between people over Tolkiens work.

[Sister Golden Hair]

5) Glorfindel, an elven lord, was omitted in favor of Arwen. It was Glorfindel who bore Frodo to the ford, and he should not lose his place merely to contrive a rather watered-down romance.Yes, this was a part that was upsetting to me also.

Just a little nitpick here. Glorfindel did not bear Frodo to the ford. Asfalath did.:p

I have to say that when I saw this movie the first time, I was not happy with it. After watching it several times on dvd, it grew on me. After seeing TTT, even though it is not all accurate, it was good. I think you have to go into the movies with an open mind. I know what really happens cause I read the books many times, and eventhough the movie alters much of that, I have to accept it for what it is. A pretty good movie.

I doubt that anyone else at any time could have done any better than PJ. I don't think you are ever going to see a movie that is 100% JRR Tolkien. It's just not possible, but this movie gets an A for effort in my book.

[Ërendil]

I agree with both Sister Golden Hair and Gerbil. No movie could ever be 100% like the book.
Some adaptation have to be made, even if some of them don't happen in the book at all.
The book is something entirely different to the film.
The film is great, and the book is great, but even though they are both LOTR, they are both different. That porbably doesnt make sense, but if you just watch the movie without comparing it all the time to the book, you will enjoy it much more.

[Varda Oiolosseo]

That's what i did! I read the book after i had seen the film!
I noticed lots of differences! But i loved them both!
I understand that making a film exacly like a book can be hard but he did miss some important things out that he could have easily put in. like some of the things you were saying!
Even though things were left out I still loved the movie! :D

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by ThorinOakenshield

5) Glorfindel, an elven lord, was omitted in favor of Arwen. It was Glorfindel who bore Frodo to the ford, and he should not lose his place merely to contrive a rather watered-down romance.



20) Not that Arwen was even involved in thise scene anyways. Glorfindel!
I agree! But I suppose I'm a little biased about that, considering I'm betrothed to Glorfindel back in Middle-Earth.

I also agree with everything else. It makes me a bit ill too, come to think of it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't agree with you on some of those, but yes on most. But you left out my personal favorite part that he left out....

Tom Bombadil!

If you react this strongly to FotR, then either don't see TTT, or close your eyes and plug your ears whenever Faramir comes on the screen. :rolleyes:

[Sister Golden Hair]

Good advice there Gwaimir Windgem. Faramir is a big mistake and disappointment.:(

[Elfhelm]

All points are correct, but why don't I hear people screaming as loudly about what the Hildebrandts did to Tolkien, or worse, Ralph Bakshi! To my taste, Jackson/Walsh/Boyens preserved more authentic material than any previous film or animated version. I think the only truly faithful artist of any medium has been Alan Lee, and if I look closely enough, I'm sure I could find some way to fault him as well.

Tolkien did not think the drama was the proper genre for fairy tales. Understand, he was arguing across time with Shakespeare himself! Why should we, accept Tolkien's elves over Shakespeare's fairies? And must we choose between them? Seen from a mythological stance, Tolkien himself could be called to task for distorting ... say ... Noah into the fall of Beleriand or ... hmmm... the little mermaid into Luthien... or the medieval heirarchy of heaven into the Valar and Maiar.

I don't mind that Tolkien borrowed all that material from myth and changed it to his purposes. But I do mind when Bakshi has Frodo say "I don't know why Bilbo didn't just kill Golllum when he had a cahnce" and Gandalf replies "I don't either"!!!!!!!!!!! You want to scream at something? Start there! oy!

Personally I think what David Lynch did to Dune was far more distorting than what PJ did with LotR. I won't watch Dune again, but I do enjoy these movies. They are the best yet.

[Yazad]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I don't mind that Tolkien borrowed all that material from myth and changed it to his purposes. But I do mind when Bakshi has Frodo say "I don't know why Bilbo didn't just kill Golllum when he had a cahnce" and Gandalf replies "I don't either"!!!!!!!!!!! You want to scream at something? Start there! oy!
[/B]

Elfhelm,

You know, I'm gonna have to disagree with you (and just about everyone else) on the Bakshi v. Jackson business. IMO, Bakshi was far, far more loyal to the story and the language, not to mention the mood, tone and literary feel than Jackson was.

Plus the quote you gave is not in the Bakshi film.

From Bakshi:

Frodo: What a pitty that Bilbo didn't kill that vile creature when he had the chance (throws rock into the stream)

Gandalf: Yes, it was pity; pity and mercy. pause But now the decision lies with you. What will you do with the One Ring?

Frodo: I'll give it to you...

if memory serves.

Again, not to say that there weren't problems with the Bakshi film, but in my book it towers over the Jackson rendition. I'm glad to have both, mind you, but IMO, Bakshi's film is an utter masterpiece. Jackson's is a fun little jaunt.

I know, I know, everyone on the planet disagrees with me. I'll crawl back into my cave now.

Yazad

[akutach]

Just imagine, The Lord of the Rings film where the producers use the books as the screenplay.
It would only run about 30 hours plus an extra 10 hours of apendices that would be necessary for it to make good sense.
It would include far more characters that enter the story for one or two scenes only to leave and play no role in the remainder of the film than central cast members. Many of the characters that would recur, appear in installments 1 and 10 - nine years apart on the 30 hour film edition!!!
The dialogue would be campy and absurd even by 1950's standards (sorry, Tolkien's strength was definitely not dialogue)
The bottom line is that about a thousand people would actually see every installment (many of whom subscribe to Entmoot).

Thorin, I agree with you on #7 about rock-climbing orcs, and #19 about Elrond being portrayed as an elf with a chip on his shoulder. As for the other 18, I think they were very craftilly merged, ommitted or re-written. It takes a lot of hacking to go from 30 hours down to 9.

There is much talk of how empty the glass is when it is worth considering that PJ first sheepishly asked production companies to support a 2-film project. He was offered money to do a single film from one US company and he refused before New Line generously suggested that he should do it in 3 films. Has anybody on the list ever ponied up 300 million dollars before seeing what was going to be done with it? There are an incredible number of places where the story could be nipped shorter or changed to eliminate whole elements of the story where the choice to be faithful to the story drove the decision making. If they stuck by the book 100% it would might make you reconsider whether you really liked the books. If you want to see the books exactly the way you imagine them, then I suggest that you read them again.

[WallRocker]

Originally posted by ThorinOakenshield

5) Glorfindel, an elven lord, was omitted in favor of Arwen. It was Glorfindel who bore Frodo to the ford, and he should not lose his place merely to contrive a rather watered-down romance.
But I doubt a true blue LotR fan would be upset.

You're right. The 'flight to the ford' scene really made me upset. But you almost have to look at the films as aninterepatation of the books, not an actual re-telling of the best books if the 20th century. Also, I've seen FotR about 15 times and TTT four times, but I don't think that makes me any less of a Tolkien fan. But hey, if you don't like the movies, I would say, simply, just don't watch the :D

[WallRocker]

Originally posted by ThorinOakenshield

5) Glorfindel, an elven lord, was omitted in favor of Arwen. It was Glorfindel who bore Frodo to the ford, and he should not lose his place merely to contrive a rather watered-down romance.
But I doubt a true blue LotR fan would be upset.

You're right. The 'flight to the ford' scene really made me upset. But you almost have to look at the films as aninterepatation of the books, not an actual re-telling of the best books if the 20th century. Also, I've seen FotR about 15 times and TTT four times, but I don't think that makes me any less of a Tolkien fan. But hey, if you don't like the movies, I would say, simply, just don't watch them :D

[Firekitten2006]

The best I can do is like the movie for what it is. A movie. The book and the movie are two totally different things.

[obscenename]

Please respond as to why I keep seeing the same point about Fellowship being more true to the book than Two Towers. In FOTR, we find:
1) Character replacement for absolutely no possible good explanation (Liv Mercury as Glorfindel)
2) Out of character buffoonery (Merry and Pippin were not even at Bilbo's party)
3) Elves talking so slow they sound like they are on acid
4) Bridges defying gravity and all laws of physics
5) Orcs with apparent suction cups on their claws
6) Gratuitous falling down in the face of danger (Why did Frodo drop his sword and fall down like a damsel in distress on Weathertop. Hobbits are supposed to be quick on their feet
7) Gratuitous and awkward character introduction
8) Gratuitous feet exposition (We got it at the beginning they don't wear shoes and their feet are hairy. Why does Jackson stick feet in our face throughout the movie
9) Bilbo wiggling his ear?
10) Traveling with no sense of time passing or the history of the land
11) Aragorn the Ranger being p-whipped by his girlfriend
12) Frodo being a wuss from the time he leaves the Shire
13) Narsil not being reforged into Anduril
14) Missing characters (e.g. Fredregar Bolger, Gildor, Framer Maggot, Bombadil, Butterbur (virtually), Bill Ferny)
15) Missing fight scenes (e.g. Wargs in Hollin, Wights on Barrow Downs)
16) Missing memorable lines (e.g. You shall have neither the Ring, nor me, Ai, ai! A Balrog has come)
17) Short shrifted scenes and completely missing chapters (e.g. Council of Elrond, Elves in the Shire, leaving Bree, the Old Forest)
18) Horrible morphing of Gandalf and Galadriel (Galadriel was supposed to be "beautiful beyond enduring", not creepy. And Gandalf was "tall and menacing", not like someone being goosed. Theoden's subtle change was much more effective.)

There's more, but I've blathered long enough.

Someone will respond:
You can't make a 3 hour movie and include all that
It's a movie, you <u>have</u> to make it visual
You couldn't have done any better
Liv Tyler is a great actress
You have to make the movie for the average non-Tolkien fan
I don't know why I like it, but I do, so stop complaining
No one made you go see it or buy the DVD

To get back to my original train of thought. I'm sure that a detailed analysis could be done to see which deviated more, but the point is moot. You can debate it if you like, but, in my opinion, TT was no more off-track than FOTR was.

I place much of the blame for the god-awful decision to feature the character of she-who-will-not-be-named and many of the other deviations on the female screen writers, primarily, and on Jackson for listening to them. Perhaps that should be the topic for another thread. "How would the movies have been different if Walsh and Boyens weren't involved?"

In general, there was a lot of script and plot changes that we were stuck with in FOTR too. I've only seen Two Towers once so far, but the only scenes that I wanted to retch at were those where Arwen appears. Every single second of her on the screen is excruciating torment to me. Yes, Faramir is not the book-Faramir, Frodo should never have faced down the Nazgul, and Aragorn's plunge was as contrived as contrived can get, but I have to say that I was stirred by Helm's Deep, both the battle and the people of Rohan (especially the young warriors). The Ents' destruction of Isengard was great. Gollum was very well done. And I'm going to start a petition to have Jackson re-edit ROTK and let Arwen sail away and have Eowyn marry Aragorn at the end. She was awesome.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No, that would be awful. The movies are far enough from the books as it is; I'll cling to what similarities there are, thank you very much.

[Gerbil]

Yes, funny how someone can bitch about the changes and then suggest a much larger one.

[Eglantine Banks]

Originally posted by obscenename

[16) Missing memorable lines (e.g. You shall have neither the Ring, nor me, Ai, ai! A Balrog has come)

And I'm going to start a petition to have Jackson re-edit ROTK and let Arwen sail away and have Eowyn marry Aragorn at the end. She was awesome.

The two memorable lines in FOTR that I wish had been included are:
"I cannot read the fiery letters." - Frodo (after putting the Ring in the fire)
"A madness took me, but it has passed." - Boromir (after his attack on Frodo)

As for Eowyn instead of Arwen marrying Aragorn, the movie Eowyn is so great I can't understand why the movie Aragorn still wants that humorless Elf lady. I think Eowyn would be far more pleasant to live with.

-Eglantine[B]

[Gerbil]

As for Eowyn instead of Arwen marrying Aragorn, the movie Eowyn is so great I can't understand why the movie Aragorn still wants that humorless Elf lady. I think Eowyn would be far more pleasant to live with. Indeed - which goes to show how different both are from their book personalities.

Eowyn had to witness her uncle's death, nearly die herself, and all of Faramir's compassion before she finally lost her cold hard shell to become a warm human in the book. Here she's just a bird with a bit of a leaning towards action.

Like Aragorn, Eowyn is acted beautifully, but only within the god-awful roles PJ has ensnared the characters in.

[markedel]

To fool us maybe Jackson can use some of the older versions ofLOTR that Tolkien rejected-suddenly make Eowyn die or make Treebeard evil.

Note: I haven't actually read those volumes of HoME thoroughly but it would sill be grimly amusing.

[zavron]

Oh, quit NitPicking!! Peter Jackson did the best he could to make it that a Modern audience would like it!!!:rolleyes: I thought the Troll was better than an Orc. It was more interesting and showed you more How strong Mithril is. At some points I do agree. I didn't like them getting rid of Glorfindel and replacing him with Arwen. After all Tom Bombadil does get left out of Most Things. he was missed out of The BBC Radio Audio Book.

[obscenename]

"Yes, funny how someone can bitch about the changes and then suggest a much larger one."

As long as sacrifices have to be made to fit time constraints, why not make one more? I was trying to defend TT not so much as ranting yet again on FOTR. Neither film was true to the books. If I suspend belief for both movies and simply watch them for entertainment, I enjoy Two Towers more. FOTR had too many things wrong with it as a movie, in my opinion

[Hasty Ent]

Have to agree with Thorin Oakenshield. Saw FoTR because I was thrilled when I heard that it was made by Tolkien fans. I especially loved hearing PJ refer to Hollywood as "Mordor" in one of his interviews. Although it was marvelous visually, and I enjoyed seeing Middle Earth made real, the movie (definitely NOT a film) was typical Hollywood tripe. Needless to say, I have no intention of seeing The Two Towers. I'll probably buy the extended edition DVD once it's out, though, but fear that's due to a masochistic tendency.:o

[middleEarthStar]

hello!

I agree with you SOME.....it was different from the book at many parts ....That thing with Arwen saving Frodo am I soooo sick offfff!!
BUT, I think that Peter jackson did a great job, putting this whole world into the screen.
It is verry hard I thing knowing that it can´t be soo long...you know???

I love the books but the film is worth all!

[middleEarthStar]

its me again.
I just have too say that the last thing I wrote "I love the books but the film is worth all!" I didnt mean that i like the films more ! cuz that I dont!!!

i love the books MORE but the movie is worth all it gets i mean!

[Gerbil]

I thought the Troll was better than an Orc. It was more interesting and showed you more How strong Mithril is. Yes - strong enough in it's chainlink form to stop Frodo being crushed to death. That makes sense.
Almost as much sense as the cloaks of Lothlorien not only shielding Frodo and Sam, but making everyone pretend they'd never seen the rockfall in the first place.

IE, neither makes any sense whatsoever.

Think about it - Mithril could well not be split or damaged by the thrust, but it doesn't prevent the crushing action. Frodo should have died from that trident - it was pushed by a monster strong enough that two of them can open one of the Gates of Mordor.

Note in the books, it's merely a big orc that lobs a spear - and Frodo gets wounded from this because the mithril gets pushed into his skin.

Tolkien's Mithril = Realistic, makes sense.
PJ's Mithril = Unrealistic, badly thought out.

A fairly simple equation I'd think? :rolleyes:

[Yazad]

Tolkien's Mithril = Realistic, makes sense.
PJ's Mithril = Unrealistic, badly thought out.

I never liked that stupid looking troll, but that's off topic. Doh.

I (can't believe I'm defending Jackson) think that Jackson's Middle Earth is waymore "magical" than Tolkien's. Tolkien's world is like ours with some subtle differences, some hints of magic below the surface or in the air, if you see my point. Jackson's Middle Earth is almost as "magical" as Oz. I half expected to see lollypops growing in the fields of Rohan.

Anyway, in Jackson's Middle Earth it's possible that beyond being tough enough to stop the piercing of the troll's thrust, Frodo's mithril coat was also was magical enough to stop it's momentum or something. No need to explain it with physics. It's magic, you see! (e.g.Phillip J. Fry: "I gotcha - it's magic.")

Yazad

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by Yazad
I half expected to see lollypops growing in the fields of Rohan.
That's good?

There is, or should be, no "magic" in ME. Remember, it's our world around 6,000 years ago. The Istari did not have "magic", they had the same kind of power that gods or angels have, which I wouldn't classify as "magic". It should be a realistic world, not sprouting electric blue flames or lollypops.

[Yazad]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
That's good?

Gawd no! I meerly mean that Jackson has made another world, not represented the Middle Earth we know. I thought he killed Middle Earth, personally, and launched Frodo & Co. through a Kansas tornado. I thought it was horrible. On the plus side, though, Frodo won't have a very hard time finding Orodruin. He'll just follow that bright yellow road.

My point was just that Jackson is not working with the same "rules" that Tolkien was. He's chosen a flashier, more crowd pleasing set that can dazzle the eye.

Still, I do think that there is *some* magic in Middle Earth (Tolkien's), beyond the "angelic" powers of the Istari. I think Sting is magical, the rings are magical, the Palatiri, the elves have certain magical powers, etc. But it's subtle, and could be something that might exist in our world, but that has been lost or forgotten.

Just my thoughts.

Yazad

[WallRocker]

Originally posted by obscenename

6) Gratuitous falling down in the face of danger (Why did Frodo drop his sword and fall down like a damsel in distress on Weathertop. Hobbits are supposed to be quick on their feet


actually, in 'unfinished tales' in 'The Hunt for the Ring' section it says(while talking about the Nazgul)

... In that hour, Wormtounge came near to death by terror...

which says to me that the Nazgul could inflict serious fear upon people, almost bringing them to death. Also, Frodo was a Hobbit, and, even thought he had Tool blood in him, he was still not an experinced warrior. Okay, that's my opinion, and yuo don't have to accept it if you don't want to. No hard feelings, okay?:)

[Elfhelm]

oh come off it!

The books cost less than the movies. The books are detailed and filled with awesome description. The books are supported with other books filled with myth. The books have poetry! You can re-read the books without spending any more money.

If you love the books, as I do, post in the Books forum.

If you don't like the movie, fine.

But if you are participating in an unspoken contest to find the most deviations from the book in the movie just so you can win some sort of prize, frnkly I wish they had a separate forum for you, because it's been going on here for a lon time. There are at least a hundred similar threads.

Some of us can appreciate both. You aren't "better" because you can only appreciate the books. But there is a special forum for talking about the books. Why not go there and say something positive?

[Gerbil]

Are you telling me you don't get any posts in the book forums asking why the book is different from the film?
What do you do when they ask? Send 'em over here? ;)

[obscenename]

First of all, no hard feelings intended.

Merry, Pippin and Sam didn't have any problems facing down the riders. It's standard movie practice to have the woman run backwards without looking and fall down or get her heel caught. Frodo was continually cowering and in need of rescue.

I felt it was too trite.

Secondly, I wouldn't get any fun out of agreeing with everyone in the book forum about how remarkable the trilogy is and how much it changed my life. Here is where I get to disagree and be disagreed with.

And don't tell me to come off it. My mother scolded me once. Once.

[Soothand]

Personally, I liked the movie but it wasn't the book. Let's face it at the beginning of the movie it clearly states "Based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien" BASED should be in bold, fiery letters and underlined.
The whole love triangle thing is understandable. Read the book. There are few major female characters (does shelob count? ;-) )
I think that Liv Tyler (In my opinion a woeful actress) was there to get women in the door. It's a fact in the movie industry that Women loathe "guy flicks" a lot more than men hate "chick flicks" so they need some feminine element to get them into a seat. And without strong female characters, this falls into the category of a "guy flick".
Things I liked about the movie;
The Shire. (looks very hobbit-like)
Rivendell (great architecture!)
the cave Troll (Looks like a well tempered creature whipped into savagery)
Khazad-Dum. (beautiful and terrible at the same time)
The Agonath (just fantastic!)
The Scenery! (forgot that one. Now I HAVE to go to NZealand!)

Things I hated about the movie;
Liv Tyler (Couldn't PJ find someone who could act as well as look the part?)
The absence of Tom Bombadil (ok I understand why he was left out but I can still hate the fact right?)
The absence of Glorfindel (nuff said)

[Blackboar]

I'm glad Tom Bombadil is in the pc FotR game though:D

I'm sad about Gorfindel but I think it was an exellent choice to film it in the New Zealand:D The landscape was lovely:D :D

[Elfhelm]

Use the search button. You will see that this topic has been posted many times. This post is just your collection of differences. We all know what they are. Many deviations from the books are not in your list. People have thouroughly discussed the matter. Sorry, but you didn't win the "Tolkien's ultimate purist" award. Someone else won that a year ago. (j/k)

If you love the books, read them and share them. They're good books.

I like the movies. I have read the books many times over 25 plus years. I like the movies. I read the Hobbit to my children, but left it to them to read the trilogy when they were ready. They both read it after seeing the movie. And my step daughter, too. The movies are generating readers. Good for them!

Might I recommend some of Tolkien's poetry, too? I notice you aren't complaining about the lack of poetry in the movies. Sam is supposed to recite the oliphaunt poem. I guess I'll just have to READ that myself.

I'm off to see TTT for the 4th time.

No hard feelings, but it would be nice to see something positive instead of this self-righteous trashing of other people's creative efforts.

[obscenename]

"No hard feelings, but it would be nice to see something positive instead of this self-righteous trashing of other people's creative efforts."

Who's being self-righteous? For the third time now, the reason I submitted my admittedly un-exhaustive list was to point out that FOTR the movie was just as off-novel as TTT. There seemed to be a recurring theme in many of the threads. I was simply refuting what I perceived to be an unjust indictment of the The Two Towers.

Please don't hang an insult on me as it just makes we want to respond in kind.

I believe that I did have positive comments in my original post. I was much happier with The Two Towers. I'm no longer a Jackson-hater. I am still extremely p.o. though.

[Elfhelm]

I guess it's easier to criticize than to be criticized. Don't be too caught up in being p.o.'d to realise that there is merit to what I'm saying.

For every hundred people in the theatre, there's always one or two who think they are superior to the rest of us because we supposedly don't realize how much different from the books the movie is. In fact many of us longtime Tolkien fans are fully aware of the changes and we just let it slide. I know, in the flesh, four other fanatics who like myself have re-read the books many times, and who like myself have sought out sources in old english poetry, icelandic myths, history of middle earth series, etc. And the most any of us does is laugh at some things we disagree with and go back to watch it again!

So don't be p.o.'d. Just take it easy and enjoy things instead of looking always for the bad stuff. please!

[ThorinOakenshield]

Greetings all! Your comments and insight are very much appreciated. As can been seen, I'm quite passionate about the films. I have come to realize these films are likely to be the only one's of LotR that may ever come out, and holding J.R.R.'s masterpiece so close to my heart, it is only natural that I would feel so strongly about the imperfections of his movies. I am attempting to adapt my tolerances to PJ's unique vision, but alas, this is proving the better of me. Damn it all! As far as TTT is concerned, I haven't a clue what I shall do. To watch, or not to watch, that is the question. Do I dare? I have heard of the butchering of Faramir's character, which would strike me deeper than any wound of sword. Odd's are Ill buy the video, as I did with Fellowship, and try to watch it. Thanx again for all your comments, everyone who posted on this thread. Long live the Dwarves! *ThorinOakenshield*

[obscenename]

"I guess it's easier to criticize than to be criticized. Don't be too caught up in being p.o.'d to realise that there is merit to what I'm saying."

You're right. I see you've got the hang of it.

[Elfhelm]

Well, well... at some point the poster named obcenename took personal a general comment I made to all the people who list the differences, side with the book, and get on their high horse. I never directed that at a particular individual. My comment - if you like the books so much, why don't you come over to the books forum - was not directed at obscenename in particular. His replies lead me to believe that he was the original poster and my subsequent replies - why don't you just enjoy the movies for what they are and stop searching for bad things - was therefore completely misdirected.

I'll have to take the blame here for not paying close enough attention to who said what. I meant no harm, but it was a dumb thing I did. Sorry. Peace.

I see, obscenename, that I actually agree with you, for the record. Again, sorry. Mea culpa.

[Yazad]

Hiya everyone!

I don't mean to rile everyone up yet again, but I think that either I or others are misunderstanding the reason for this (entmoot) forum.

I think we come here first as Tolkien fans. I don't think the Movies section is meant to be a "Jackson movie fans'" section, but rather a place where Tolkien fans can discuss the Jackson version of LotR. I think, as such, I would expect at least as much criticism of the films as praise. I would think that pointing out differences and similarities, things that we thought he and his crew got "right" as well as things he got "wrong" were equally valid.

If this sub-forum is indeed a "Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy Fan Board" then I admit, I'm wrong and I'll avoid posting criticisms here. But if it's a board to discuss, as Tolkien fans, what we think of Jackson's work, then I think the negative posts are very valid, and discussion inspired by them is valuable and interesting.

****

Now, onto another note - Again, my main problems with the Jackson films aren't that they suck - They're actually pretty good visually, and exciting in parts. My main problem is that they're being so insanely worshiped by fans while other productions and attempted productions have been systematically bashed to death by the same fans who are worshiping Mr. Jackson. I would expect to see a bit more critical and varied dialogue from a crowd who had been so critical in the past. In my book the Dramatizations go

0. Rob Inglis reading of the books (not really a dramatazation (or is it?)) - BEST
1. Mind's Eye Radio Drama of The Hobbit
2. Mind's Eye Radio Drama of The Lord of the Rings
3. Bakshi Film
4. BBC Radio Drama
5. FotR by Jackson
6. TTT by Jackson
7. The Hobbit by Rankin Bass
8. The Hobbit BBC Radio Drama
9. Return of the King by Rankin Bass - WORST

I'd expect to see lots of opinions like this on a Tolkien Fan board (not my list, but other folks with differeing opinions), but all I see is

1. Jackson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2. BBC Radio Drama

Not to mention the abuse poor M. G. Zimmerman has suffered for the past 45 years, and that doubtless John Boorman and Rospo Pallenberg would have suffered had their film been produced (or the Beatles'!)

Doh! Rambling again!

Yazad

[Lizra]

I enjoy the Rob Inglis readings. I really, really wish I could have had that "job"! Can you imagine the joy!

[Elfhelm]

There is a soft spot in my heart for Glenn Yarbrough. Not only was he among the first to actually sing Tolkien's words, he *blush* even sang Rod McKuen! So I must disagree with your choice of WORST. I think the Bakshi was the worst, if only because they never completed the project!

[azalea]

I am closing this thread because:
1. There is already at least one other thread where people can post their opinions on TFotR movie. (Look here. (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2604) )
2. It has now gone off topic.

BTW, the reason that people only talk about the movies in this forum is because it is the LotR MOVIE forum!;)