Purists unrealistic...

I think the purists with all their complaints about LOTR are highly unrealistic. Sure somethings in Fellowship were changed,some things were modified,and some things were all together left out. But you can't convert a novel to film without doing those sorts of things.The movie was 3 hours long as it was,if was going to be any longer it would have had a much smaller budget.No thanks...I'll pass on fake backgrounds,bad acting,and a claymation balrog(which is what you would have had in a 4 hour+ movie)...give me a shorter movie with a bigger budget!<P>Also even with the changes, the movie FOTR probably stayed truer to the novel than any other hollywood movie that was adapted from a novel. Take any Stephen King movie,or Interview with a Vampire for instance...<P>Since its impossible to have a film that follows word for word what was in the novel...I'd rather have a good "adaptation" of Tolkien's stories on film,than have no film at all.

[Alkanoonion]

As purist I also had lots of complaints about the movie but when all is said and done the move was probably as close to the book as it could get with out loosing $$. If PJ had Stuck to the book the movie would have lasted over 4Hr + and only the die-hard fans would have even thought about going to watch it. I believe that PJ did a great job, just look at all the new fans. 9 /10 PJ.

[Fenrir]

We simply disagree with unneccesary changes. Ones that were in the book but were changed in the movie to something worse.

[Telgaladiel]

I'm reading the books now. I love the books for the books, the original. I love the movie for the movie.<P>Fenrir, I can't figure out your reply. You're unahppy about the changes, but.. how could they make a good movie, still make it marketable, and still be able to pay the bills? Changes were necessary, length of time even more so, but all in all, it was a good movie.

[shieldmaiden]

I've seen the movie less then a week ago and i can say that I was not disappinted by what they left out or changed. I was disapponted because I got bored, because i didn't feel a thing when I watched it.<BR>Yes, "Rvendell was kitch", "Galadriel was freaky" and so on but that was not the problem. It's just that I wasn't impressed with it as a movie in generall.<BR>It has the 5th place on my list of best movies in 2001.

[bryniana]

I am curious to see how the changes made will play out in the next two films.<P>For instance, will they continue to consolidate every other minor elvin character into the one character of Arwen. I also wonder if the Horn of Gondor will no longer play a role (sense it went down the waterfall with Boromir instead of staying with the three). Will Gimli's fasanation with Galadriel be gone? <P>On another note. I was very happy to see the consolidation of timeline in the shire from twenty-odd years to a much shorter time.

[Bad Fairy]

Forgive me if Im wrong (wont be the first or the last time) But I thought that in the books the horn and all Boromir's belongings were placed with him in the boat when he was sent over the falls and the broken horn arrived again at Gondor as a sign or Boromirs death ?<P>As for the film, it could never capture all of the books magic but taken as it is I think its a mighty piece of work.

[Rhudladion]

Have you guys read the "people who thought the movie stunk" forum?<P>Also, are some of you saying this:<BR>Since they had to make money and couldn't haev done the movie otherwise because of this, the movie is a good film.<P>That's a pretty bad argument.

[lomion]

I was dissapointed in the movie. Call me a purist, but my problem with it is you know they'll cut scenes, I know that's necessary. But when they add things like Saruman beating Gandalf bloody... It has spectacular imagery, the war with Sauron, the Shire, pillars of the kings, ect. absolutely blew me away. I think a lot of people are so excited to see it on the big screen that they'll make any excuse to justify the butchery of a masterpiece. I've even heard they changed the ending. I have no doubt this film will make buckets o' money. This is the fate of great books made into film. I'm so crazy.

[Telgaladiel]

I find some of the attitudes here to be downright abusive. Lets all wave and point fingers saying "Your arguments stink/are weak!" All that will lead to is flaming sooner or later.<P>Yes, Rhud, I have read the movie stunk post. You got your chance to make your point and now its someone else's. I read that thread, responded, trying very hard to ignore some of the derogatory comments made regarding the people who actually like the movie or had the movie as their first introduction to Tolkien. <P>The money making aspect of the movie aside, and all the cuts aside (and there were scenes in FotR I wish PJ had put in) I still think and will always think that it was a good movie. <P>Even on my first watch I found that fight to be rather...silly. I think I understand was PJ was attempting to show was that these men have power beyond silly bolts of lightening erupting from their fingertips (when I find that statment, I'll post it). It still came out silly. Curly, anyone?<P>I don't think its right to judge a movie by its book. To me, its somewhat like judging a book by its cover. What's funny... that's why I never did read Tolkien until now. Now I find I'm liking the world he created. I have yet to find a discussion that dislikes the movie as a movie, a discussion that does not have in it declamatory statements of "They cut this scene out! They changed this aspect!"<P>I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do here, and I understand (or think I do) how the "purists" feel. I'd probably be very hard pressed to like any movie made from an Eddings series, but I know I can make the attempt. I think that's what "non-purists" are asking for. If you still come away from the movie saying, "it sucked because of this part not being there, so and so smooshed into whoever..." then most likely you cannot distance yourself enough from what you know and passionately love to accept the world being offered to you by PJ. Its like in theatre.. You'll only accept the reality of the world being presented if you are willing to let go of what you already know. <P> I talk too much...

[Fenrir]

I'll try to explain my earlier post.<P>I certainly agree with many of the changes. Cutting out the Old Forest made sense since it was admitted by Tolkien to be a side adventure, an addition to please his children. By cutting him out they gave more screen time to important events. I suppose I'm only a semi-purist. When I heard that they had expanded Arwen's role I was a little upset at removal of Glorfindel but, I thought, it does make sense. It would be confusing things for people who have not read TLotR, my only demand is this: they do it <I>well</I>. When I watched Arwen's scenes it was the poor quality of the added dialogue that made me shudder. "If you want him come and claim him"? Does this 3000 year old elf have any idea who she's facing? They also messed up the Witch-King's archaic and almost <I>poetic</I> style of speaking. <P>Someone also decided to cut out the powerful "I am Saruman of Many Colours Speech" and replace it with an unconvincing wizard duel. Just think what Christopher Lee could have done with a speech like that, it would have allowed him to shine. <P>The list of unneccesary changes also includes the cave troll scene,Moria would have been more effective if the company had fled from the Chamber of Mazarbul after the "they are coming, we cannot get out" line. Imagine it, a faint shadow that fills the door behind them, drums pounding, orcs howling, the atmosphere would have been incredible in the cinema. <P>Before I finish another thought occurs. Why did they change the ending? If PJ can justify this in TT, fine, I just can't see Frodo leaving Merry and Pippin behind to be decoys while he possessed the ring. <P>I'll probably be more lenient on the next movie. My favourite characters, the Ringwraiths, appear a lot less so I won't be as inclined to be harsh. But if they add a single line of the Witch-King's dialogue on Pelennor fields then the person responsible will have the squeezing of his life, oh yes, my precious.<p>[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Fenrir ]

[Tirinor]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Telgaladiel:<BR><STRONG>I find some of the attitudes here to be downright abusive. Lets all wave and point fingers saying "Your arguments stink/are weak!" <P> I have yet to find a discussion that dislikes the movie as a movie, a discussion that does not have in it declamatory statements of "They cut this scene out! They changed this aspect!"<P></STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Arguments can be weak in structure and support, regardless of personal feelings, and should, at times, be noted as such. And and is this a place for simply airing of opinions, or a place for disscussion? I agree that people should remain civil, but I also think that arguing is sometimes a nessessary part of disscussion and is not inherrently mean-spirited or abusive. <P>I also agree that Rhud should back off and stop promoting his thread here. But since we are on the subject: I, and others, have argued quite convincingly on Rhud's thread that the movie suffers, as a movie. <P>After saying all that, I would like to see the movie again, and it was fun to watch, even if it wasn't "good," or more to the point, it wasn't as good as it could have and should have been, as a movie. <P><BR>And yes, purists can be unrealistic, but by labelling them that, it creates a false sense that purist's opinions, since purists are unrealistic, aren't worth considering. Not all comments from Purists are purist comments.

[Tirinor]

good points Fenrir.

Telgaladiel and Tirinor:<BR>CALM DOWN!<P>I suggested the "people who thought the movie stunk" forum because some of the thoughts in this forum seemed to elude to comments already made in the "people who thought the movie stunk" forum. I wasn't trying to plug it.<P>Also, I made the comment about the budget for the movie, because it seemed like some people want to give poor PJ a break because he had to make money. I was simply trying to show that a movie's quality should not be dependent on whether or not the makers had constraints. What I'm trying to say is this: If a movie was bad and the budget for it was $1.00, wouldn't the same movie be bad if the budget for it was 1,000,000.00?<P>again...both of you...please relax!<BR>I think you just want me to be a jerk, because a nice guy surely wouldn't dis-like this movie.

[Tirinor]

I'm relaxed. Or didn't you notice the winking smiley face? <P>And don't flaunt your superior math skills at me either. Try and pull that $1.00/$1,000,000 thing again and I'll show you relaxed.

[Telgaladiel]

No need to scold, Rhud.. notice my smilies at the end too..<P>But.. I've read some more controversial threads because I thought there would be a dicussion and all I found was flaming galore and some not so veiled mean hearted things about newbies who came from the movie. If I seem a bit rough bout the edges.. that's why.<P>But.. the point to movies is not to simply entertain. It is a business and PJ did have to make it a marketable movie. That is a fact that you cannot just toss away. For the movies sake, it is a good movie. I never once noticed that I was sitting in a theatre for three hours, I was entertained, scared, and hooked.<BR>Movie to book, book to movie, even I say it could be waaaaay better, and only after one read of FotR.<P>... the blonde babbles once again :P

[MenRWeak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Telgaladiel:<BR><STRONG><BR>I'd probably be very hard pressed to like any movie made from an Eddings series, but I know I can make the attempt.<BR></STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I made it through to book 5 or 6 of the Wheel of Time series before getting bogged down. I tried again some years later but only pushed through book 2 before calling it quits. A movie might actually have half a chance by cutting out much of the descriptive narration. Eddings' writings tended to be heavy on descriptive content, much more so than Tolkien. How about the Shannara series? Too akin to LOTR perhaps?