'An attrocious movie which is a despicable insult to a wonderful book'

[Cazoz]

Yeah, I was thinking about the old performances with Ian Holm as Frodo, sure as anything they were abridged. Never mind anyway.<P>Yeah I think everyone confused Sauron and Saruman the first few mentions!<P>And I won't go into my Tolkien annoyances (which aren't numerous at all, by the way, and mostly disappeared after reading the Sil) here because it's not the right place.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

A lot of my friends who have only seen the movie are annoyed that Saruman's and Saurons names are so similar.

I think that the books are better then the movie's but i thought the film as still exellent.

[Frodo Baggins]

Well now,<P><BR> It is very VERY true that the movie could have been a lot better.<P>Fifthy's right, If you can enjoy both, and be able to enjoy them without the two conflicting each other, then you have the best of both worlds.<P>(By the way, Lush, your title "Fair and Cold" always makes me think of Eowyn. Specifically a certain line from TTT, but thats another story.)<P>I was terribly disappointed by Faramir, the young, bright, kind student of Gandalf (Who also was much better than his brother, I don't know what on earth Denethor saw in Boromir!) was kidnapped and exchanged for Boromir's younger evil twin. A power hungry man who keeps hobbits tied up in the basement for kicks!<BR> And now for one of my infamous tangents......<P> Our dear little David Wenham has naturally blonde hair and makes a rather good Faramir. HOWEVER in the books it distinctly describes Faramir with dark hair, Gondorians are Numenorians and thus are predominantly dark haired. Now, Karl Urban, on the other hand actually has dark hair. In my opinion, they should have switched a few things and had a naturally blonde Eomer and a dark haired Faramir! It seems to me that in the movies all humans with the possible exceptions of Aragorn and Wormtongue have blonde hair! Middle-Earth is full of dumb blondes! (well, it seems that Aragorn is the only man that isn't a little on the dippy side.)<P>You say it was better that they cut Glorfindel. EXCUSE ME! In the book, Glrofindel appears at leat two more times than Haldir, and Glorfindel gets totally cut while Haldir gets this HUGE dramatic part!<P>Cazoz, you may have confused Sauron and Saruman but be glad they didn't do like in the Animated version where half the time uts Saruman and the other half its Aruman.<P>Well, the notorious rambling is over, you can un-stop your ears now. Suffice to say, PJ and co. did stray a little too far for my tastes, but I'm still watching the movies, and I'm still here.<p>[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Frodo Baggins ]

[Lalaith]

Haldir, Haldir, Haldir. <BR>I keep asking for explanations as to why he has such a following. But no-one ever does. <BR> <BR>He just looks like a plump drag queen to me.

[Diamond18]

I have no idea either. Must be the Boba Fett syndrome. They want to be different?

[Cazoz]

Heh, quite possibly. I suggest we all rush out and buy Haldir memorabilia and stash it!<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You say it was better that they cut Glorfindel. EXCUSE ME! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Was this directed towards me? I didn't know. I don't think it was <I>better</I> that they cut Glorfindel, I love Glorfindel, he's one of my favourite characters. What I was saying was that I understand <I>why</I> they cut him, and how it might have been beneficial in trying not to confuse newcomers to the story, who have to deal with learning many new characters of various races. But I would have loved Glorfindel in the story, and Erestor too. Dammit, the Council was a shambles.<P>And with Arwen, I think half of her appeal in the books was the enigma behind the whole love story. We know next to nothing about it until we read the appendices. It's mysterious, as is she. Who is this elusive Elf who Aragorn's pining over, is she really almost Luthien-hot? It's a tease, it's fun and intriguing. Not having her as some bloody Amazonian warrior chick, stealing Gandalf and Elrond's Bruinen tricks.<P>But, going back a bit, in the Extended dvd, I would have liked those Elves passing through the woods to be Gildor and his posse, and that they had interacted with Frodo and Sam. But they're simply more names to digest, names which aren't crucial to the story.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well. I would just like to say that I have just played the Lord of the Rings X-Box game, and I am utterly appalled. <P>It was nothing like the book. Many of my favourite scenes were just left out, or changed completely. Aragorn never had to fight any Trolls at Weathertop, so where did that come from? And they had Frodo stealing mushrooms from Farmer Maggot!!! The character development was dreadful and they were nothing like the characters that I had grown to love and cherish. All they ever seemed to do was run around fighting things and picking items up. This game really is attrocious and fails to bring across any of the spirit of the books. It has spoiled the books for me completely, and I can never read them again ...<P>... although I will carry on playing the game ...<P>...

[Cazoz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This game really is attrocious <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Hehe, nicely done.

[Iarwain]

Indeed, its a stupid game, but its fun all the same. It goes on forever though! Oh, what a game. My name's Iarwain. I felt so much pain. when they beat me with a cane and I was so shamed. Out of the movie last year! PJ is lame. I'm done with this game. <P><BR>My name's<BR>Iarwain

[Lush]

"Stop rhyming and I mean it!"

[Grimbold]

I'd just like to throw in here that I don't think you can call Two Towers an atrocious movie. It really was an excellent adaptation of an "unfilmable" story, with some changes made to the script, not so much the plot, for the sake of making an excellent film as well as a wicked adaptation. I haven't gone into any depth here, but the only reason you can call the changes made "atrocious" is if you are a hardcore book fan and are overly-obsessed with the exact events of the book on film. The Two Towers was awesome, and any misjudgements on the part of the makers were not horrible.

[Darkside]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I haven't gone into any depth here, but the only reason you can call the changes made "atrocious" is if you are a hardcore book fan and are overly-obsessed with the exact events of the book on film. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think "overly-obsessed" is taking things a bit far, don't you? We are all entitled to our opinions, without trying to insult the people whose opnion is not yours. A couple of my friends didn't like the movie and they haven't read the books. What are they? My brother liked the first movie until he read the book. Now he thinks the changes were stupid. What is he? Too each his own, I say.<P>I hope that didn't sound too cranky. <p>[ January 30, 2003: Message edited by: Darkside ]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I personally thought that the worst change was making Elrond this sorta harsh, hard guy. He was one of my favorite characters in the books and I'm not saying the actor was bad or anything, just really different than I imagined him.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I personally thought that the worst change was making Elrond this sorta harsh, hard guy. He was one of my favorite characters in the books and I'm not saying the actor was bad or anything, just really different than I imagined him.

[Purple Monkey]

My friend Shona pulled off the amazing trick of skipping the FotR movie and sat through TTT with me having to explain everything. "Is he good or bad?" and the like. Lol. She got it though. Granted, she called Saruman "Sour-man" and when Theoden was talking of his forebears, she took it literally, and said loudly, in the middle of my group of devout Tolkienites "Sure look at all those graves! He must have a lot more than four bears!" <BR><p><BR>It seems really weird, but I hope they keep Ioreth in RotK. She's the only new character that struck me in that book, though her role is terribly small.

[Grimbold]

Sorry, "over-obsessed" was a little over the top. I guess all I have to say is that for the purposes of most people, the movies were probably a real cause for celebration and excitement. I know many thousands if not millions of people really enjoyed these movies because those people enjoy the kind of story in this genre. The changes were mostly acceptable IMO. I guess I'm a little sentimental about the movies. The thing that makes me love the movies is that the people who made them love the book by Tolkien, and if real Tolkien fans made the changes themselves, I find more reason to justify those changes to myself.

[Lostgaeriel]

I have to confess that I like Jackson's 'The Fellowship of the Ring' less and less each time I view it. I was gushing with praise after the first time I watched it. At first, I forgave PJ's changes; I understood some were made for cinematic reasons. But now, the wholesale changes of the characters' fundamental natures - especially Frodo, Aragorn and Arwen - get me upset. <P>Frodo is not a cowardly wimp; he defies the Enemy and actively defends himself in all attacks upon his person - at the barrow, at Weathertop, at Bruinen, etc. <P>Aragorn is not afraid of his destiny; he's been fighting Sauron in every corner of Middle-earth for almost 70 years to prepare for his own kingship. Afterall, he cannot marry Arwen until he is King - that's supposed to be a big incentive.<P>Arwen is not the warrior/healer/magician; by giving her those attributes, PJ has stolen them from Aragorn, Elrond and Gandalf. He's reduced those characters. (Not to mention Glorfindel!)<P>These character 'modifications' change the essential nature of the story. There's a difference between interpreting Tolkien's work for film and re-writing it so unfaithfully. And some of these changes were made to get cheap laughs. The dwarf-tossing and 'it's still sharp' jokes really aggravate me.<P>I haven't yet gone to see 'The Two Towers'. I know I'm going to like it less than the first installment. I want to like it - really. I'm afraid to see what other unnescessary changes have been made. (I've been avoiding spoilers.)

[maikafanawen]

Ooh, Ooh, Oooh!! Lostgaeriel!! You're from Toronoto!! (Barrow Wight please don't eat me for getting off topic) Isn't there supposed to be a HUGE convention there in December for the premiere(sp?) of ROTK? Do you know anything about that? If you do PLEASE PM me. Thank you so much. Sorry guys, proceed. <P><BR>P.S. I realized I could have PM Lostgaeriel to start with, but sometimes people never check their PMs so I just thought to Post it. REEEEEEEEALY sorry. Namarie.<p>[ January 31, 2003: Message edited by: maikafanawen ]

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

I really loved the second movie and thought that all the changes, though some of them were a bit annoying. Also, I thought that the real importance of the movie was in the Middle Earth feel of it, not the bad stuff even though I enjoy finding it. Still, I can understand those who critisize it... No I can't! But it's your opinion.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The dwarf-tossing and 'it's still sharp' jokes really aggravate me.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Everyone ought to know by now what I thought and why I thought it, so I'm not going to waste all our time by repeating myself. I agree with you on most of your points, but I saw the "it's still sharp" comment as one of utter amazement that a sword should keep its edge for so many years; thus explaining to the especially dense that Narsil was something very special indeed. I don't think it was supposed to be funny.<P>For the benefit of those who still think it's worth debating what the <I>Daily Mirror</I> thinks of anything, if its front-page headline managed by some miracle to avoid sex, celebrities or immigrant bashing for long enough to say that the sky was above the ground I'd have to go outside and make sure. That newspaper has one of the worst records of inaccurate, frivolous and inflammatory reporting in the entire history of journalism, and anybody who has ever written so much as a sentence for it should be ashamed of themselves.<p>[ February 14, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

[Cibbwin]

It's great that you have your own opinion, but did this one critic seriously change your mind? Honestly, your taking a CRITIC's word to heart? I personally liked the movies very much, they CAN be better, but they're still very good.

[Diamond18]

I doubt anyone is going to get an answer from davem about his post. He wrote it about 3 weeks ago and has not returned once. Let it go; he certainly has.

[Cibbwin]

I like the new Flight at the Ford personally. I mean, think about it, putting Glorfindel in wouldn't have been a very good idea for those who have never read the books.

[Duncariel]

After getting past wrong hair colors, Pathetic lines, and stupid Dwarves, I thought the movies were great! <BR>No, really. I liked them a lot, and will see them many more times before I tire of them. If we all think really hard, maybe we can come up with some good things about this movie. Or maybe not. They had to give Arwen a bigger part in FoTR or else no one would have any clue who the heck she is. PJ put elves in Helm's Deep because his pathetic Rohirrim couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with an arrow. (Even though the old guy did kill on orc, at the wrong time) Just my Two Cents. <P>Namarie<p>[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Duncariel ]

[Erulasto]

Let's take a deep breath. Repeat after me:<P>Tolkien... is not God.<BR>LOTR... is not the Bible.<P>Now that that's out of the way, on to the movie.<P>Why on earth is it so important that the movie slavishly follows the book? I for one was glad that the elves were written into Helm's deep, because I got to see them in action. The shot of them marching there, accompanied only by the sounds of their weapons, their footsteps silent... that alone was worth the price of admission.<P>The shot of a veiled Arwen standing by the dead King Elessar took my breath away.<P>The sight of the Rohirrim charging against the Warg Riders, along with the music, insipred awe.<P>The camera panning around Éowyn, the nordic fiddle playing the Rohan theme, as the banner of the Mark flies off in the wind... pure gold.<P>Legolas' gravity-defying mounting of the horse - epitomizing everything I thought an Elven warrior was - quick, light, nimble, superhuman strength. My mother, who hasn't read the books commented that the scene made her think elves must be really light. PJ pulled off conveying this without a single word needed.<P>Théoden reciting the 'Where is the horse and the rider' poem. Pure brilliance (pun not intended, mostly). Sure, it's not the original verbatim, but it carries the <I>spirit</I> of the Rohirrim perfectly.<P>Never in my wildest dreams could I hope for such a magnificent portrayal of Middle-Earth. I don't understand how anyone cares about the details of the narrative. That was never the magic of Tolkien, nor his main incentive in writing the story. I see the minor plot changes of PJ, FW, and PB as a GOOD thing, not because they're better than Tolkien's version, but because the WORK on the screen, and I get at least some sense of surprise from the movies.<P>Never did I dream that the people adapting the movies would work so hard in getting the things that mattered right:<P>They got the accents right. And I'm not talking about the various english accents. No, the ELVISH accents. Speakers of Sindarin sound like Welshmen who've lived in Ireland for ten years; Saruman's Quenya chant sounds like a Finn singing a verse from Kalevala. They coached Christopher Lee to sound like a Finn, for 5 seconds of dialogue.<P>The Shire looked like the Shire, to the last little detail, and they planted crops a YEAR beforehand to make it look authentic, for chrissakes.<P>The Orcs look a bit different from what I imagined (they were more Warcraft/Warhammer influenced in my mind), but they FELT right. The Rohirrim both look and feel right. The first time I saw Gimli's helm, I smiled in delight because it was just PERFECT for a dwarf.<P>The land in the movie IS Middle-Earth, more than any cartoon or drawing or rendition has ever been. I am incredibly thankful that this movie was made by someone who cared about the right things - the world, the feel, the sense of culture and history, the emotional weight of the work, not pedantic regurgitation of every plot line and character á la Columbus's Harry Potter movies. If you want the book word by word, read the damn thing! That's why Tolkien wrote it!<P>At first I got mad at people yelling stupid things like 'abomination' and 'travesty' and 'sacrilege'. Now I just feel pity for them - pity that they have such small, unimportant lives that warrant this level of fury over a movie; and more importantly, pity because I wish they could see the movies as I have seen them - with utter wonder and gratitude to truly feel like I was finally walking in Middle-Earth.<P>edit=<BR>PS. How could I forget 'Forth Eorlingas!' and Theoden, Aragorn, &co in full armour, riding out of the Hornburg, mowing through the Orcs like so much warm butter. Amazing.<p>[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Erulasto ]

[Erulasto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> These character 'modifications' change the essential nature of the story. There's a difference between interpreting Tolkien's work for film and re-writing it so unfaithfully. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Okay, explain to me the 'essential nature of the story'. What is it? How the hell does it matter who floods the Ford? How is Glorfindel essential to Lord of the Rings? How is Tom Bombadil essential to Lord of the Rings?<P>Here's the definition of 'essential':<P>es·sen·tial (adj)<BR>1.Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent. <BR>2.Basic or indispensable; necessary: essential ingredients.<P><BR>Here's the <I>essential</I> Lord of the Rings:<P>"A young Hobbit named Frodo Baggins comes across a ring, which the wizard Gandalf discovers to be the One Ring of the Dark Lord Sauron that can cover all of Middle-Earth in darkness. Aided by his gardener, Sam Gamgee, and his relatives Merry and Pippin, the hobbits flee from the Shire to destroy the ring in Mount Doom, in which it was made. On the way they get three more companions, Aragorn the man, Legolas the elf, and Gimli the dwarf. Rejoined by Gandalf, who escaped the clutches of corrupt wizard Saruman, they head towards Mordor. After having problems crossing the Misty Mountains, they go through the mines of Moria, where Gandalf falls to his doom into a chasm with a Balrog, while the rest of the company escape. Boromir, who desires the Ring, attacks Frodo, who escapes with his friend Sam. The remaining company is attacked by Saruman's orcs, who kill Boromir and capture Merry and Pip. Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas go looking for them, while Frodo and Sam stumble on Gollum...<P>...yadda yadda yadda, Gollum bites Frodo's finger off and falls into Orodruin. Aragorn rules Gondor, marries Arwen who just popped up from somewhere, and most of the characters sail off to Valinor.<P>The End."<P>I think we can all agree this is a pretty adequate summary of the essence of the story.<P>Here's what's <I>essential</I> to convey the previous story:<P>1. Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin<BR>2. Gandalf and Saruman<BR>3. Aragorn, Boromir, Denethor, Faramir<BR>4. Legolas and Gimli<BR>5. Gollum<BR>6. Sauron<BR>7. The Ring<BR>8. Treebeard<BR>9. MIDDLE EARTH (the most important aspect)<P>It's quite possible to leave out or replace:<P>Bilbo (Frodo found the ring)<BR>Galadriel, Elrond, etc. (they don't do anything except explain, and Gandalf can handle this)<BR>Rohan and everyone in it (written out completely, Ents save Merry and Pippin)<BR>and many many more characters and events<P>You'll still have the <I>essential</I> story I summarized above.<P>Glorfindel is about as essential to LOTR as Greedo is to Star Wars.<p>[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Erulasto ]

[Darkside]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>At first I got mad at people yelling stupid things like 'abomination' and 'travesty' and 'sacrilege'. Now I just feel pity for them - pity that they have such small, unimportant lives that warrant this level of fury over a movie; and more importantly, pity because I wish they could see the movies as I have seen them - with utter wonder and gratitude to truly feel like I was finally walking in Middle-Earth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Erulasto, I don't want your pity. I do not have a small, unimportant life, nor does anyone else here at the Downs. It is fine that you liked the movie. I could say that I pity you for that, but I don't. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. AS IS EVERYONE ELSE! We all come here to post our thoughts without trying to hurl insults at each other. Please be aware of that and try not to do it. Thanks! (and we don't yell - we type loudly)<P>As far as finally walking in ME goes, I feel that way each time I read LotR. I didn't need a movie to make me feel that way.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I don't understand how anyone cares about the details of the narrative. That was never the magic of Tolkien, nor his main incentive in writing the story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>How could you not care about the details of the narrative? I love his works because of the details of his narrative. Without the details it would just be another story of Good vs. Evil. Tolkien spent years of his life creating the details of not only LotR, but the history of Middle Earth. What on ME would you say his "magic" was?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why on earth is it so important that the movie slavishly follows the book? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's not important to "slavishly" follow the books. It is important to follow them enough that the book is recognizable on screen. The TTT was hardly that. The storyline was mutated to the point of absudirty, in my humble opinion. I am not going into a diatribe about all the changes (Faramir, Treebeard, the Elves at Helms Deep....). They have been discussed elswhere.<P>I think that's all I'm going to say, for now. I have a headache. <P>Just remember, play nice and keep your posts insult-free. <BR>Thanks.<P><BR>O.K. I must have been slowly posting while you were writing your next post. I still have a headache, so this will be short.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:<BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> These character 'modifications' change the essential nature of the story. There's a difference between interpreting Tolkien's work for film and re-writing it so unfaithfully. <BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>Okay, explain to me the 'essential nature of the story'. What is it? How the hell does it matter who floods the Ford? How is Glorfindel essential to Lord of the Rings? How is Tom Bombadil essential to Lord of the Rings?<P> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think that Lostgaeriel was referring to the script changes that were mentioned in her (his? sorry ) post. Please read it again, carefully. No one is asking for a literal interpretation. We would just like to see the characters potrayed the way Tolkien intended. Not "Hollywooded" into mere shadows of themselves.<p>[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Darkside ]

[Erulasto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Erulasto, I don't want your pity. I do not have a small, unimportant life, nor does anyone else here at the Downs. It is fine that you liked the movie. I could say that I pity you for that, but I don't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You pity me for getting delight from something? It doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. I pity the people who were disappointed by the movie, who are angered by it, who feel that they have to go out and rant about how bad it was. I wish they could have seen the magic that I did. I have something more than you - I have the book, AND the movie. I wish you did too.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. AS IS EVERYONE ELSE! We all come here to post our thoughts without trying to hurl insults at each other. Please be aware of that and try not to do it. Thanks! (and we don't yell - we type loudly)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm sorry, but I find the tone of some of the people bashing the movie to be less than civil. If you spew vitriol, don't be afraid of getting a little back.<P>Everyone has a right to their opinions, and here's one of mine: If you don't have anything nice to say, perhaps it's best to be quiet. If you like the book, praise the book. If you like the movie, praise the movie. If you HATE the movie, perhaps it's best to not ramble about how badly it sucks nearly two months after it came out? See, when you say something NEGATIVE about something, there's a good chance you're bashing something that another person likes, if not loves. If you really have to say 'the movie is a despicable insult', then be prepared for the backlash. I think I was more than civil in my previous posts.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As far as finally walking in ME goes, I feel that way each time I read LotR. I didn't need a movie to make me feel that way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't believe you. Seeing Hobbiton or Edoras or Orthanc in full technicolor glory on a giant screen is NOT the same as imagining it. If people could imagine that well, restaurants and bars would go out of business, as people would sit at home and <I>imagine</I> a filet mignon with sauteed mushrooms with capers and a nice merlot. The reason I love the books is because Middle-Earth FEELS like a real place. In a half-serious, clichéd way, yes, you're right. In reality, you feel, but I feel AND see.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>How could you not care about the details of the narrative? I love his works because of the details of his narrative. Without the details it would just be another story of Good vs. Evil. Tolkien spent years of his life creating the details of not only LotR, but the history of Middle Earth. What on ME would you say his "magic" was?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That is exactly the reason why I love the book, as well as the movie. But you seem concerned with the details themselves, and not what they amount to - a living, breathing world with a past, present, and future. Faramir behaving differently is not a major enough change to do any damage to the sum of Tolkien's details. The magic of Tolkien is conveyed in the movies, even though some things happen differently, the world IS Middle-Earth. Compare this to Bakshi's travesty, which followed the PLOT, but completely and utterly destroyed the WORLD, with the Seleborns and the men in skirts and the rainbow-emitting Nenya.<P>It is far more important that hobbits smoke pipeweed and that their doors are round and that legal documents must be signed in RED ink, than how Merry and Pippin happened to join Frodo.<P>It is far more important that Narsil exists than when exactly Aragorn gets it.<P>It is far more important that elves bake lembas than their appearance or non-appearance at Helm's Deep.<P>It is more important that <I>simbelmynë</I> grows on the tombs of the Eorlings than what Théoden behaves like.<P>Get what I mean?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's not important to "slavishly" follow the books. It is important to follow them enough that the book is recognizable on screen. The TTT was hardly that. The storyline was mutated to the point of absudirty, in my humble opinion. I am not going into a diatribe about all the changes (Faramir, Treebeard, the Elves at Helms Deep....). They have been discussed elswhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And what I'm saying is that it DOES NOT MATTER. Frodo, Sam, and Gollum are going towards Shelob, and Mordor. Isengard was attacked by the Ents. Gandalf freed the King of Rohan from the influence of Wormtongue and Saruman. Merry and Pippin are going to meet Gandalf, Théoden, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli at Isengard. The Orcs were defeated at Helm's Deep. Why does it matter that a small force of Elves came to support Rohan (more importantly Elessar)? Why does it matter that Faramir behaved differently? They are plot details, and they are hardly important enough to spoil the story, unless you consider Tolkien's text to be scripture, and that alteration is heresy.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think that's all I'm going to say, for now. I have a headache.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Not because of me, I hope.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Just remember, play nice and keep your posts insult-free. <BR>Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm aiming more for sarcasm than insults. The purpose of this is to get my points across. Try not to take anything personally, as nothing is meant as such.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think that Lostgaeriel was referring to the script changes that were mentioned in her (his? sorry ) post. Please read it again, carefully. No one is asking for a literal interpretation. We would just like to see the characters potrayed the way Tolkien intended. Not "Hollywooded" into mere shadows of themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Please read my second post again. I know full well what Lostgaeriel was referring to, the entire point of my post was to illustrate that to call PJ's changes 'destroying the essence of the book' is blowing things WAY out of proportion. Faramir was different, the ents a touch thick, elves showed up at the Hornburg, there was a brief battle with Warg riders on the way to Helm's Deep.<P>Details. Details which aren't nearly as important to the story as some claim. You cannot OBJECTIVELY state that the 'essence' of the story is destroyed, unless Peter Jackson gives you a movie in which Aragorn kills Theoden and annexes Rohan, Treebeard eats Merry and Pippin, Faramir takes the Ring and melts it into earrings, Orthanc is turned into an office complex, and Gollum opens a chipshop in Bree with Sam Gamgee. Or something even 10% as drastic as that.<P>These movies are NOT an insult to a wonderful book, they are a testament to the magic of Tolkien. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect these movies to be as wildly popular as they are, while staying as faithful to the books as they have. And by faithful I mean the meticulous details of the WORLD, not the STORY.<P>The story exists already, unspoiled, untouched, in the 1000+ pages of the book we all love. Consider the movies to be illustrations. They aren't meant to replace the story any more than the paintings on the covers are.<P>(edit=typos, grammar)<p>[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Erulasto ]

[Dain]

I don't want to get into the details of what parts of the film I hated or liked. The first time I saw it, I was horrified and massively disappointed. The second time, certain scenes brought tears of joy and amazement to my eyes--and I stil hated other parts of it! I am coming to understand that it's a film, and some changes needed to be made. I'm still not sure of others...<P>What ranters on both sides should realise is that it's not personal. On the film-basher-bashing side you need to realise is that those who feel strongly about LotR are using forums like this to vent, and are relieved to know others share their view. I was so happy to see that other people agreed that Gimli had been mistreated, etc. Eventually we'll get over it, maybe, but not immediately--let us blow off steam. I just don't want to hear "it's just a movie" again, because it can't, and shouldn't, be "just a movie" for us, and that's our choice.<P>On the other side, for people like me who have been waiting their whole lives to see films of these books, I hope even those who are disappointed can be happy they got made at all. They could have been a lot worse, and a lot better. They get better every time I watch them because I begin to see what PJ was doing and see them for what tey are (though, some scenes would still stink no matter what film they are in! ) Lets wait for RotK and see what happens, and I think overall, when we get over the ranting stage, we'll find that we are happy we have the films AND the books.<P>One note: Faramir was a victim of the need to inject suspense into the end of the film, since Shelob is apparently being saved until RotK...I think we should wait to pass judgement--he <I>did</I> let Frodo go...<p>[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Dain ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You pity me for getting delight from something? It doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Erulasto, that is not what Darkside was saying at all. Quite the reverse, in fact. Darkside does not pity you for loving the film, and I envy anyone who could see past the mutilations and appreciate what the film-makers got right (the scene at Isengard where the young Ent is set afire; the fantastic image of the Morannon and the mounds of the kings at Edoras are examples that spring to my mind). Sadly, I cannot. I thought that Tolkien's plot and characterisation were absolute genius; I think that they would have made a stunning trilogy (or better still a sextet) of films without any changes being made to characters' motivations or actions, without any changes to the order of events, and with a brilliant cliffhanger at the end of <I>The Two Towers</I>, in which everyone who hadn't read the books would think that Frodo had died, only to be flooded with relief when it was revealed not to be true, as I was when I first read the novel.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you don't have anything nice to say, perhaps it's best to be quiet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What does this mean? That if we thought the film of <I>The Two Towers</I> was awful that we should just shut up and lump it? This forum is for the free exchange of ideas about Tolkien and matters relating to him, which means that anybody is allowed to express their opinion, whatever it may be. Be extremely careful what you say, as you are close to advocating censorship.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm sorry, but I find the tone of some of the people bashing the movie to be less than civil. If you spew vitriol, don't be afraid of getting a little back.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's funny, but I've noticed the same thing about people who loved the films talking to people who didn't. Why can we not all realise that our appreciation of books and films is not objective? Just because one person loved the film of <I>The Two Towers</I> and another hated it does not make either of them wrong, pathetic or unpleasant. For Eru's sake, we're all Tolkien fans here: don't let some films tear us apart; that's the last thing that the Professor would want.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Seeing Hobbiton or Edoras or Orthanc in full technicolor glory on a giant screen is NOT the same as imagining it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No it isn't. I find that for me imagining it excels seeing it "as the first of May doth the last of December" (Benedick of Padua in <I>Much Ado About Nothing</I>), especially as Tolkien knew exactly how things were supposed to look and described them with enough detail to convey his vision, but with enough left out to make everyone's idea of each place unique to them. This is why I never enjoy a film made from a book as much as I enjoy the book itself. But that's what works for me: it doesn't work for everyone.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The reason I love the books is because Middle-Earth FEELS like a real place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Me too. For Tolkien it was real: as real as ancient Rome or Anglo-Saxon England. He compared Venice to "A dream of old Gondor". He knew that his fictional places had never really existed, but he never lost the child-like magic of pretending that they were real. See? I hated the film of <I>The Two Towers</I>, you clearly loved it, but we agree on something. Isn't that better than insulting each other?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It is far more important that Narsil exists than when exactly Aragorn gets it.<P>It is far more important that elves bake lembas than their appearance or non-appearance at Helm's Deep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I quite agree. However, the way I see it if it ain't broke don't fix it. If it makes no difference to the length of the film how Théoden or Faramir behaves or why; if those things do not affect the three-film structure and filming the scenes is possible (with today's computer animation, I fail to see how any scene could not be), then why not just leave it the way Tolkien wrote it? After all, it's easier on the script-writers that way. Changing things for other reasons just looks frivolous and unnecessary to me, but a lot of you clearly didn't mind and that's good for you.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It is more important that simbelmynë grows on the tombs of the Eorlings than what Théoden behaves like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I can't agree there. I loved the fact that the white flowers grew on the mounds in the film, but for me the way in which Théoden behaves and his motivations are part of who and what that character is. To me if he behaves differently, or for different reasons, then he is no longer Théoden, but somebody else. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The story exists already, unspoiled, untouched, in the 1000+ pages of the book we all love. Consider the movies to be illustrations. They aren't meant to replace the story any more than the paintings on the covers are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Hear hear. However, just because that's true doesn't mean that it's wrong to say what we dislike about them, just as we would with an illustration that we didn't like (I prefer Tolkien's to most others, because he and he alone knew for certain how everything was supposed to look).<P>I have to get back to work now. I used my lunch break to type this and haven't eaten. Please, fellow Downers, don't make me have wasted my time by shouting at each other about some films. It really isn't worth it.<p>[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

It seems to me that there are two ways to talk about the movies - "filmwise" and "tolkienwise". Filmwise, it was somewhat above the hollywood average. Lots of credit especially for the technical achievements, if not so much for good acting jobs (with some delightful exceptions, naturally). <BR>Tolkienwise, however it didn't look too good. I mean, I did not think it was even possible to ignore the whole point of the stories to this extent. <BR>And keeping Tolkien in mind... there seems to be a problem with the image-creating team. Alan Lee as the conceptual designer?! Of course, his work looks "nice and all", but it is completely inconsistent with whatever is described in the books. (Just one quick example to illustrate this: in "The Hobbit", Rivendell is described as the Last Homely House - and although, being "the fair house of Elrond", it must have an exceptional aura to it, none of the texts imply that it should look like a crazed artist's dream of an art nouveau water park...)

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Oh, and try to moderate your language. If what you are going to say may offend, try softening the message a bit. Strong words softly spoken, that's the ticket.

sry, didn't realise i had to be that pc. <BR>i'll try to work on that...

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>sry, didn't realise i had to be that pc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There's no need to apologise, and you don't have to be "politically correct" (what a hideous phrase that is) if you don't want to be. I am merely trying to suggest to people in both camps ways in which they can debate the films in a civilised fashion, so that everyone gets their say and nobody gets upset. We have a lot in common here because we all love Tolkien, and I want people to remember that when they talk to each other.<P>I should add that I have no authority on this forum. I couldn't enforce the suggestions I am making even if I wanted to; but I am getting sick and tired of people who should be celebrating their common fanship foolishly attacking one another. Your post insults nobody, and it makes a valid point, but that point could be put in such a way that it is less likely to upset somebody who does not agree with you. That way when they come to reply they will be calm, not angry, and they will be more likely to listen to what you have to say. I despise the political-correctness movement, but there's no shame in considering each others' feelings and employing a reasonable amount of tact when discussing these issues. I just want everyone to enjoy coming here, not to leave feeling angry, bitter or upset; or engage in needless and futile personal arguments based on ludicrous misunderstandings of one another's comments. We're all here for the same reason, so let's celebrate that, whatever our opinions may be.<P>As two very wise men once said: "Be excellent to each other; and party on, dudes!"<p>[ February 17, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

[Darkside]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I just want everyone to enjoy coming here, not to leave feeling angry, bitter or upset; or engage in needless and futile personal arguments based on ludicrous misunderstandings of one another's comments. We're all here for the same reason, so let's celebrate that, whatever our opinions may be.<BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>AMEN!!!

[galadriel'smaiden]

Well now, we are opinionated people. I was about to vomit at some parts of the movie, (a.k.a- breath of life scene, WHOOLAH!) and then they go and do a great job with other parts, such as the death of Haldir, which tecnically wasnt a part of the book but it still held great symbolism. ( a elbereth, gilthoniel!)Overall, I liked the movie alot and am excited about ROTK. Thanx for reading.

[Erulasto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sadly, I cannot. I thought that Tolkien's plot and characterisation were absolute genius; I think that they would have made a stunning trilogy (or better still a sextet) of films without any changes being made to characters' motivations or actions, without any changes to the order of events, and with a brilliant cliffhanger at the end of The Two Towers, in which everyone who hadn't read the books would think that Frodo had died, only to be flooded with relief when it was revealed not to be true, as I was when I first read the novel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And I don't think this would have worked. What works in a book does not always work on film. Too much happens in TTT to translate it to screen directly while preserving dramatic tension, and ROTK would suffer if the encounter with Shelob took place at the end of the second movie - not much happens to Frodo and Sam after that, until they get to Orodruin.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What does this mean? That if we thought the film of The Two Towers was awful that we should just shut up and lump it? This forum is for the free exchange of ideas about Tolkien and matters relating to him, which means that anybody is allowed to express their opinion, whatever it may be. Be extremely careful what you say, as you are close to advocating censorship.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>No, not censorship - self-control. I was shouted down with 'everyone has their opinion'. Yes, everyone does, and everyone has a right to express their opinion. This doesn't mean that I can't disagree with those opinions, especially if they're expressed in less-than-civil terms (i.e. 'it's horrible, a travesty, an insult). My point was that if you say something negative, be prepared to face the consequences. If someone has the opinion that my mother is a whore, they can express it just fine. But they shouldn't be surprised if I deck them for that opinion. (an extreme example, but I hope you get what I mean)<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's funny, but I've noticed the same thing about people who loved the films talking to people who didn't. Why can we not all realise that our appreciation of books and films is not objective? Just because one person loved the film of The Two Towers and another hated it does not make either of them wrong, pathetic or unpleasant. For Eru's sake, we're all Tolkien fans here: don't let some films tear us apart; that's the last thing that the Professor would want.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Agreed, and if someone simply says they did not like it, I wouldn't care one way or the other, and I certainly wouldn't start telling them they're stupid. 'An atrocious movie which is a despicable insult to a wonderful book' is not saying you didn't like it. It's pure, bigoted viciousness, which anyone with a brain can see is NOT true.<P>'The book is better' - I agree.<BR>'The film is a piece of ****' - clearly it is not/<BR>'The film isn't faithful to the book' - Again, incorrect: it takes liberties with the plot, but it is INCREDIBLY faithful to it otherwise.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No it isn't. I find that for me imagining it excels seeing it "as the first of May doth the last of December" (Benedick of Padua in Much Ado About Nothing), especially as Tolkien knew exactly how things were supposed to look and described them with enough detail to convey his vision, but with enough left out to make everyone's idea of each place unique to them. This is why I never enjoy a film made from a book as much as I enjoy the book itself. But that's what works for me: it doesn't work for everyone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>We're not talking about the same thing here. Surely 95% of people PHYSICALLY saw something in the movies which was exactly like they imagined, and the wonder of this is what I was talking about. I still imagine Bree to be different, and the movie hasn't impaired my enjoyment of my own image of it.<P>I find the movie got a very large amount of things right, in terms of atmosphere and details. Sitting in the theater, the lights going out, the New Line logo appearing... and then hearing elvish: 'I amar prestar aen...' THAT is the magic of Tolkien brought to life by Peter Jackson, and actually hearing and seeing affects people on a different level than imagination fuelled by words on paper. If this weren't the case, people would read travelogues instead of going to the places. And this movie is as close to going there as any of us are likely to get in at least 20 years (until VR technology takes off).<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Me too. For Tolkien it was real: as real as ancient Rome or Anglo-Saxon England. He compared Venice to "A dream of old Gondor". He knew that his fictional places had never really existed, but he never lost the child-like magic of pretending that they were real. See? I hated the film of The Two Towers, you clearly loved it, but we agree on something. Isn't that better than insulting each other?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sure it is. But how far would I get if I made a thread named 'The Two Towers book is a piece of trash not worth the paper it was printed on'? (to the intellectually impaired - i don't think this, i love the book, this was an example)<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I quite agree. However, the way I see it if it ain't broke don't fix it. If it makes no difference to the length of the film how Théoden or Faramir behaves or why; if those things do not affect the three-film structure and filming the scenes is possible (with today's computer animation, I fail to see how any scene could not be), then why not just leave it the way Tolkien wrote it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>There isn't enough time. The scenes would be weak and uninteresting to anyone who hasn't read the books. A Ralph Bakshi-style 'Greatest Hits of LOTR' is not something anyone other than hardcore fans wants to see. It would be a poor film.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>After all, it's easier on the script-writers that way. Changing things for other reasons just looks frivolous and unnecessary to me, but a lot of you clearly didn't mind and that's good for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>You're wrong about the frivolous and unnecessary nature of the changes. They're quite necessary to make the story work on FILM.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I can't agree there. I loved the fact that the white flowers grew on the mounds in the film, but for me the way in which Théoden behaves and his motivations are part of who and what that character is. To me if he behaves differently, or for different reasons, then he is no longer Théoden, but somebody else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's where we differ - to me, the characters, while being well-written and interesting, were not what made LOTR the book that it was. The very fact that Tolkien talked of these flowers, and named them <I>simbelmynë</I>, and that the word was Anglo-Saxon for 'evermind', and that Anglo-Saxon represents the linguistic parent of Westron, which ties into 'holbytla' being the archaic form of 'hobbit', a word which reputedly just came to him from nowhere... That is pure and utter magic. And I'm incredibly glad that Peter Jackson understands this. What Théoden was like is purely secondary. <P>There are thousands of writers who can create good and interesting characters. Only Tolkien has ever managed to make a world so incredibly real.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Hear hear. However, just because that's true doesn't mean that it's wrong to say what we dislike about them, just as we would with an illustration that we didn't like (I prefer Tolkien's to most others, because he and he alone knew for certain how everything was supposed to look).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have to disagree - Tolkien was a prolific writer, but hardly a prolific visual artist. Just because he knew what herbs and stewed rabbit tasted like doesn't say that I'd prefer his cooking over a 5 star chef's. If you get my meaning.<P>I never said it was wrong to say what you dislike about the movies - I do think it's wrong to say the movies were AWFUL. I think you're looking at them from the wrong angle, and a lot of people don't give credit where credit's due.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I have to get back to work now. I used my lunch break to type this and haven't eaten. Please, fellow Downers, don't make me have wasted my time by shouting at each other about some films. It really isn't worth it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Agreed, but I'll defend the films as much as I defend the books - because I love them both, and I'm sure you wouldn't stay quiet if someone said Tolkien was a hack and his books are terrible tripe.<P>(again, intellectually challenged people should note that in the first part of that sentence I stated that I love the books)

[Erulasto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And keeping Tolkien in mind... there seems to be a problem with the image-creating team. Alan Lee as the conceptual designer?! Of course, his work looks "nice and all", but it is completely inconsistent with whatever is described in the books. (Just one quick example to illustrate this: in "The Hobbit", Rivendell is described as the Last Homely House - and although, being "the fair house of Elrond", it must have an exceptional aura to it, none of the texts imply that it should look like a crazed artist's dream of an art nouveau water park...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I hardly think the Hobbit is a good source for imagery pertaining to Lord of the Rings. The Elrond of the Hobbit is not the Elrond of the Lord of the Rings.<P>Bilbo getting two loutish elves drunk in Thranduil's warehouses is rahter conflicting with the nobility of the Elvish race, and Imladris should definitely be a grandiose place of great beauty.<P>I love the Hobbit, but it's a children's book, and the world portrayed in it is not the Middle-Earth of LOTR and the Silmarillion. I'm pretty sure Tolkien did not know that Gandalf was an Istari and that elves sailed to Valinor when he was writing it.

[davem]

Well, I'm surprised by all the reaction. I haven't been trying to avoid you guys, I've been sick, & then lost internet access. this is the first chance I've had to read the responses.<BR>Let me clarify. I did like Fellowship a lot. My first response to Towers was to be overwhelmed by the size & scale. I wasn't really able to take it in or make a judgement on it, but because I liked Fellowship I kind of decided that Towers must be as good. It was only after going back that I started to feel uncomfortable. Then I began to assess my feelings. at that point I read Cainer's words, & it hit me. I hated the movie. But Towers is not a seperate entity, its the middle section of a single film. So you have to judge the whole thing. This forced me to reassess my feelings.<BR>Its not good enough. It fails. The problem is simple. The writers aren't good enough, but they THINK they're better than Tolkien. They really believe they can tell Tolkien's story better than him, depict his characters better than him. You can imagine them sitting there thinking 'How can we improve on Tolkien?'. Well, if you're a genius, you can. But they're not geniuses.<BR>Look at the film. They've managed to make Boromir more sympathetic than Faramir. Faramir is a thug, Gimli is a fool & Treebeard is an idiot. This is insulting & incompetent. <BR>Maybe for those who don't know, or understand, the book its ok, but for those who do understand it, what they've done is so wrong, so twisted, its unforgivable.<BR>The emphasis on violence & brutality is too much. My overwhelming impression of the book is is of beauty, nobility & tradgedy. My overwhelming impression of the films is of violence & uglyness. <BR>Anyway, sorry for not responding earlier.