Faults in Peter Jackson's Interpretation - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lord of Angmar · 08-14-2003, 03:14 PM

I have seen many topics about all the things that people hated about Peter Jackson's works. And I do not mean just a few topics. I mean dozens, and that is just since I came to the site about two months ago. You would be hard-pressed to find a discussion in the movies forum that does not have at least one criticism (ambiguous or blatant) about Mr. Jackson's work. I would like to make a short list of things that I disliked in the movied that could have been done differently. I am not going to say that it was a terrible rendition, as I know there were obviously time restraints and mass audiences to think about. This will not be a thread that *****es and moans about not having Tom Bombadil, since, quite frankly, I am glad that he is still left to my imagination, and I hope it will not degrade into a bashing session of PJ's movies.There are several things that I found wrong with the movie that could have been changed and not taken away from the movies' mass appeal.First off, the time lapse. It should have been shown, as it completely throws off the timescale (something that vexes me greatly as a Tolkienite).Secondly, there is the matter of Gandalf and Saruman. I think it really took away from Gandalf's character and from the credibility of the movie that Gandalf openly and fully disclosed his knowledge of the whereabouts of the Ring to Saruman. Above all other things, this made me angry with the first film. It was compeletely the opposite of what Gandalf would do in such a situation. While we are on the topic of Saruman, I must say that I still struggle to believe why Saruman openly gave his services to Sauron, and did not try to stop the Nazgul. If the Nazgul had gotten the Ring, Saruman would have been out of the loop. His only chances of gaining power was to get the Ring first. He was working against Sauron in the books, but in the movie he joins forces with him more openly.In the second movie, and this has been discussed countless times (probably more than all other aspects), I strongly disliked the portrayal of Faramir. No ifs, ands or buts, Peter Jackson changed his character completely, and the series of events that led to his change of heart made absolutely no sense (why would he finally allow Frodo and Sam to go off to Mordor alone when he had just seen Frodo offer up the Ring to a chieftain of the Enemy?). This was in my mind the absolute worst change by Peter Jackson.I thought Eowyn's character was changed for the worst too. Eowyn is less cold and distant in the movies. In fact, she is cheery at several points, and she rarely shows the blend of toughness, sadness and conviction that made her character great in the movies.That all said, I have to say I still enjoy Peter Jackson's movies, and there are many traps that he could have fallen into but didn't. The Elves were made with proper mysticism and beauty, never venturing into the absurdness and childishness of other Tolkien movies. Although Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire are some of my favorite parts of the books (particularly Bombadil), I think it would have cheapened the books and the movies if he had chosen to include them. I for one would never want to imagine Bombadil other than I do now.Please comment on or debate any of the above points. I feel like everyone's opinions are too jumbled, so this is the place to get them all clearly and intelligently (please not anti-PJ ranting) out once and for all.Cheers! -Angmar

steve · 08-14-2003, 03:20 PM

I completly disagree on the part about the scourging of the shire, I think peter jackson is leaving out a main part of the books. the Scourging of the Shire shows a sort of ransition, from what we have seen in the books and movies so far about hobbits is that they are (pardon my words) silly, fat, and cheerfull. the Scourging of the Shire depicts a sort of change in the hobbits, showing them rising up and taking arms against saruman. it shows this in all of the hobbit militia and it shows that change in merry and pippin

Lord of Angmar · 08-14-2003, 03:30 PM

First of all, Steve, it is called the Scouring of the shire. I cannot count how many times people on this website have called it scourging, but it is wrong.Second of all, the Scouring of the Shire would simply not work in the movies because A) it is anti-climactic and would not appeal to mass audiences (lest we forget, the movies are an attempt to make the most possible money, a commercial investment) and B) the movie has greatly shifted the focus from the tale of the hobbits to the tale of Aragorn (a clear example of this is the skimped "plot" that any of the hobbits received in the Two Towers movie. Think about it, Frodo and Sam did not accomplish a thing in all their on-screen time), so ending the movie with a small hobbit battle would not work. If the movies really held true to the works of Tolkien, they would have added it in, but it would not make much sense to mass audiences in the context of PJ's movies.

Marroc Underhill · 08-14-2003, 04:24 PM

I agree. If he put the entire book for each movie, it would be like 12 hours long, each movie!

Eruwen · 08-14-2003, 05:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>the movie has greatly shifted the focus from the tale of the hobbits to the tale of Aragorn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I agree that it would be good to leave it out just for time references {as long as they at least mentioned something about it}, but I sort of disagree on the rest of it. I feel that they unjustly "shifted the focus" of the Hobbits towards Aragorn. The Hobbits were still a major part of the story, and as so should have had more screen time. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Frodo and Sam did not accomplish a thing in all their on-screen time), so ending the movie with a small hobbit battle would not work<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Technically, the reason Frodo and Sam didn't accomplish anything in the 2nd movie, is because they didn't accomplish anything in the 2nd book. Peter couldn't have changed this around even if he wanted to. All they were ever doing is walking and walking and trying to tame Gollum and walking and walking and more exactly like that. Merry and Pippin, however, I feel did accomplish something...they befriended the Ents, which helps out later on when Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, Lego, etc come to Isengard, and they aided in the destruction of Isengard...well, sort of.To add to that, how do we know that the focus on Aragorn will continue? Yes, in the third movie he will be made King, marry Arwen, etc. But, if you don't forget, Frodo is making a huge impact on everyone as well since in this movie he will be bit by Shelob, captured by Orcs, and have his finger bit off which eventually leads into destroying the ring. Sam, as well, has a big scene as he thinks to see Frodo dead, he rescues Frodo from the Orcs, and also practically has to carry Frodo to Mount Doom. And then, he and Sam are carried away by Eagles out of Mordor. Now doesn't that scream major focus right there? And also, Merry and Pippin will become a huge part of the movie as well...even bigger than they were in the first movie. Pippin will become great in Gondor while he tries to save the King and Faramir from getting killed. Merry destroys the Witch King! That's enough right there to say major character. My point is, yes, Aragorn had a large role in the 2nd movie, but in the third, I think his role will be no bigger than Frodo's. The rest of the Hobbits will come close in 2nd place in this movie. So, it wouldn't be so bad as to put in the Scourging of the Shire for I'm sure the audience will have not only a main focus on Aragorn, but on the Hobbits as well. But more on a lighter note... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In the second movie, and this has been discussed countless times (probably more than all other aspects), I strongly disliked the portrayal of Faramir. No ifs, ands or buts, Peter Jackson changed his character completely, and the series of events that led to his change of heart made absolutely no sense (why would he finally allow Frodo and Sam to go off to Mordor alone when he had just seen Frodo offer up the Ring to a chieftain of the Enemy?). This was in my mind the absolute worst change by Peter Jackson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have to say that I agree with you on this one. I loved Faramir's character in the books, and it was one thing I was waiting to see in the movies. The only main thing that really upset me though was the fact that he didn't let Frodo and Sam go. I think that was done unjustly, however, it did give them room to shoot one of the best scenes I have ever seen...Sam's speech. The whole scene in Osgiliath was great, but Faramir should have stayed the same. I think that's all the opinions I have for now though. You pretty much said everything else that I wanted to say...other than what is in my extremely long post, of course.[ August 14, 2003: Message edited by: Eruwen ]

Kaiserin · 08-14-2003, 06:39 PM

I was just thinking about opening a thread such as this one.First of all, I'd like to say I liked the movies, even if they were not entirely true to the book. I did dislike those inconsistencies, but I still say that FOTR and TTT were amazingly done, they were great as films. Arwen / Glorfindel / Flight to the Ford I sure wished Glorfindel would have been in the movie! (Funny story: I have a friend who never read the books. When he saw a poster of Glorfindel warding off the Nazgul at the Ford, he goes, "Arwen is a guy?!") Anyway, putting Arwen in Glorfindel's place wasn't really that disastrous to the plot; I guess Jackson just needed make Arwen more visible. She didn't do much in the books but was given a lead role in the movie. Like it was mentioned in the above posts, the LOTR movies turned out to be "Aragorn's story", so Arwen needed a more significant role.Tom Bombadil / Hobbits at the Barrow Downs Removing this chapter didn't really ruin the plot, though it would have been great to see It wouldn't have appealed to non-readers, and it would confuse them.Time lapses I certainly agree that the way the movies portrayed the passage of time would be confusing for non-reader watchers. Orcs Great orc costumes / make up! But I just felt like the orcs were "non-characters", more like intelligent animals or something. They did not have the personalities Tolkien conveyed in the books. And there was no distinction between the Isengard orcs and Mordor orcs.The creation of the Uruk-Hai This was rather confused too - Saruman's Uruk and Sauron's half-orcs seemed to have been one and the same, though they are not. And of course, it creates the question in vewers' minds : "How did Saruman breed orcs with humans?" and so on. The Treason of Isengard What treason? Legolas I didn't really like the way he was sort of, er, too perfect, and a little bit of a showoff (mounting a speeding horse; sliding down the steps on a shield...) And I think he was a bit too serious in the movie. I personally don't mind about him having blond hair; I thought it should be brown but a blonde Legolas was a nice idea. Faramir I also don't understand why his character was altered... Now, this change affected the story.Elves at Helms Deep? I didn't think this was too bad, though it inspires many questions. If you don't mind me saying, it actually added impact for the film. It looked quite nice... But Haldir's death was just too pathetic.Shelob I hope they do justice... Before watching TTT, I thought it would be a great teaser to make people think that Frodo's dead at the end of the movie. But then if they did show that at the end of TTT, people would walk out depressed (like the ending of The Empire Strikes Back), so I guess it was good that they made a not-so-gloomy end.The Scouring of the Shire I agree that including this would be anticlimactic. It would make a funny scene, though!We all know that original books are always better than film versions. Jackson still deserves applause for his work - come on, they were great. Of course it's impossible to squeeze 3 great books into the movies. I thought at first PJ should have made 6 movies instead of 3 to accomodate all the detail, but then I realized this would tire audiences....I'm thinking maybe LOTR would be a great mini-series. That way, all the detail could be put in without boring masses ... Maybe we could e-mail this thread to Peter Jackson? (Just a thought) [ August 14, 2003: Message edited by: Kaiserin ]

Trippo The Hippo · 08-14-2003, 07:45 PM

I dont think there was anything wrong with pj's "interpretation" because it was his to interpret. To my knowledge he never said he was going to copy Tolkiens LotR, but he would make a movie based on Tolkiens LotR.p.s. 200 posts go me!!!

The Only Real Estel · 08-14-2003, 07:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> While we are on the topic of Saruman, I must say that I still struggle to believe why Saruman openly gave his services to Sauron, and did not try to stop the Nazgul. If the Nazgul had gotten the Ring, Saruman would have been out of the loop. His only chances of gaining power was to get the Ring first. He was working against Sauron in the books, but in the movie he joins forces with him more openly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First of all I do not clearly understand what you mean by 'trying to stop the Nazgul' as that would be foolish, & I also don't think there's any real time in the movies that the Nazgul come clost enough to Saruman for him to bother with them in the first place. Secondly, to try to stop the Nazgul would immediantly reveal his true desires to Sauron, & he'd be out of the frying pan ('falling out of the loop' as you said) & into the fire (taken off of Sauron's buddy list & immediantly put on his 'people to include in my earth-incompassing war list). Also, I don't think Saruman is really any different then he is in the books, becuase of the following reasons: *Saruman doesn't really join forces any more openly with Sauron then he did in the books. *When Saruman was talking to Sauron about how they will 'rule this Middle Earth together' in TTT, he was clearly trying to decive him into thinking that Saruman truly was his ally. *He is still very much working against Sauron, just like in the books. But in both the books & the movies, he is vary careful not to reveal his true intentions. P.S. It's really quite unrealistic to expect no PJ-bashing to go on when you start a thread about things he 'messed up' (basically), no matter how nice you try to make your vocabulary/thread title! It just happens anyway... [ August 15, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

Eomer of the Rohirrim · 08-22-2003, 04:59 AM

No non-reader ever had a clue that Saruman was trying to deceive Sauron. It should have been a bit more explicit.Ok, Faramir. I don't see what the major problem with Jackson's Faramir was. Yes, he wasn't as warm as he was in the narrative. However, can't this be explained by the fact that Faramir is a stranger and that we are seeing the story unfold through the eyes of Frodo? The slight changes were surely done to emphasise Frodo's danger.The part of Faramir's story that failed was the timing and the build-up. Think about it. Shelob (the end of the book) had been moved to Return of the King (for time purposes?)Hence, Frodo and Sam did not have an exciting end to the film in store. Jackson obviously decided to have the Hobbits in danger at the hands of Faramir, only to be set free to end the film. This was not only anticlimactic, it also slightly changed Faramir's character for no greater ends.So overall, I wouldn't say it was Faramir's character that was done badly, rather the storytelling on behalf of the directors.

Arien · 08-22-2003, 07:49 AM

To start off there were no faults in Peter Jackson’s interpretation. It is how he saw it, and so you may find faults in it but he saw it as he wanted it. However you have to remember the pressure put on him by the public e.c.t and so he had to change it to suit mass audiences. That done and said, I however agree with you on some points. Faramir was changed for the worst, although I did not see him a totally messed up, but it was hard to see how he had that change of heart.Like The Only Real Estel I don’t really understand what you mean when you say: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>While we are on the topic of Saruman, I must say that I still struggle to believe why Saruman openly gave his services to Sauron, and did not try to stop the Nazgul. If the Nazgul had gotten the Ring, Saruman would have been out of the loop. His only chances of gaining power was to get the Ring first. He was working against Sauron in the books, but in the movie he joins forces with him more openly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why would he want to try and stop the Nazgul? If he did wouldn't that alert Sauron to his deceit?And I didn't really think Eoywn changed too much. Angmar you said.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I thought Eowyn's character was changed for the worst too. Eowyn is less cold and distant in the movies. In fact, she is cheery at several points, and she rarely shows the blend of toughness, sadness and conviction that made her character great in the movies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you mean her belnd of toughness, sadness and conviction made her great in the books? If so yes I think she was better in the books, but isn't that generally the case?[ August 22, 2003: Message edited by: Arien ]

Daisy Brambleburr · 08-23-2003, 02:13 PM

Okay, before I start carrying on I've just got to say that I think the movies are great. But being a fan of the books there are obviously some points I didn't like. And, since you ask...Entmoot: It made the Ents look stupid and didn't make too much sense. If Treebeard didn't know about Saruman then why did he call a meeting? The Aragorn-falling-off-a-cliff storyline: to me it seemed pretty pointless. There was almost no tension (the 3rd movie's called Return of the King, people!) and it's only purpose seemed to be to get arwen more screentime (something many of us don't want) and to let Aragorn see the uruk-hai. And to give him that enterance to Helms Deep, which was rather cool, inspite of everything. Nazgul at Ogiliath: Also, it didn't make too much sense. Picture this: Sauron thinks that Merry and Pippin have the Ring or that it's with the Riders of Rohan, so what's going to happen when the Ring turns up on his doorstep? All the Nazgul will be down there in a flash. (i'm sorry if *I'm* the one making no sense. I'm never very good at explaining this point). Merry and Pippin's enterance: Tolkiens made a lot more sense. They tag along to the Ferry, then to Bree, and never seem to go home...

Eomer of the Rohirrim · 08-23-2003, 03:29 PM

Well, Sauron knew that a Halfling had the Ring and one of the Ringwraiths saw a Halfling with the Ring in Gondor. So why would he expect the Ring to turn up on his doorstep? It's kind of the same deal as in the book.

Evisse the Blue · 08-23-2003, 04:37 PM

I've realized that people tend to be more tolerant of Glorfindel's replacement with Arwen as time passes, and especially as her character is developed. That's okay, but I still want to share with you the reasons why I think that was a bad idea:Trying to think from a movie maker's point of view:1. It would have made for a great scene when the riders suddenly appear and Glorfindel tells Frodo to ride away and he for a moment disobeys and grips his sword to make a last stand. 2. The flight to the Ford would have been just as dramatic 3. Added drama is added when Frodo tells the memorable line: "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair you shall have neither the Ring nor me!" and the Nazgul mock him and prepare to take him over: "To Mordor we will take you!" 4. At the last moment, when it seems all is lost, the water rushes over and drowns the Nazgul. At the same time, Aragorn and Glorfindel come and battle the remaining ones - Glorfindel revealed in his greatness and wrath. With Arwen everything is so predictable: she is an elf; you already heard she's a better rider than Aragorn, you suspect she is powerful or that she has some tricks up her sleeve. But when a tired ill hobbit who is barely holding onto a great horse lifts up his sword and tries to stand against the nine Ringwraiths, and there's only a river against them - then you got suspense! THAT's entertainment!DOn't get me wrong - this doesn't mean I haven't been paying attention to all your arguments in favour of Arwen ; it's just that this is how I would think if I were to turn this into a movie.

Lord of Angmar · 08-23-2003, 07:50 PM

It seems I worded my objection to Saruman's relationship to Sauron improperly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Why would he want to try and stop the Nazgul? If he did wouldn't that alert Sauron to his deceit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let me backtrack. I should not have said that he would have tried to "stop" the Nazgul. That would, as has been mentioned before, be ridiculous. However, I think that, because Gandalf fully explained the situation with Frodo and the Ring to Saruman, it did not make sense that Saruman would sit back and allow the Nazgul to try and capture Frodo and thus the Ring. In the books, this was avoided because Saruman did not yet know that a hobbit possessed the Ring, so he would have no reason to circumvent the attempts of the Ringwraiths to reach the Shire. In the movies, he knew full well of Frodo's plight and the whereabouts of the Ring, and thus it did not make sense that he decided to sit back and let the Black Riders do the job; if they had taken the Ring, Saruman would have been unable to achieve his own deceitful purposes.Sorry for the confusion.Cheers! -Angmar

08-23-2003, 10:46 PM

A couple of thoughts:(1) I don't think Jackson's compression of the timescale detracts from the overall tale. If anything, it enhances the tension & threat of Sauron. The better question is -What does the movie gain by fulfilling outlining the 17+ years between Gandalf's visits to the Shire?? Very little, its seem more nitpicky than anything else.(2) Tolkien's story cannot be easily translated into film. Lothorien, for all its wonders, sits dramatically in the wrong place of a traditional film story. Its not so much of an issue in the novel, but for a film, which must be more concerned with pacing, its problematic. That said, I wish Jackson had dropped Galdriel's temptation scene in lieu of the 'gift giving' sequence on the special edition. Its far more satifying and provides more character depth.

08-14-2003, 03:14 PM	#1
Lord of Angmar Tyrannus Incorporalis Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: the North Posts: 833	Faults in Peter Jackson's Interpretation I have seen many topics about all the things that people hated about Peter Jackson's works. And I do not mean just a few topics. I mean dozens, and that is just since I came to the site about two months ago. You would be hard-pressed to find a discussion in the movies forum that does not have at least one criticism (ambiguous or blatant) about Mr. Jackson's work. I would like to make a short list of things that I disliked in the movied that <I>could</I> have been done differently. I am not going to say that it was a terrible rendition, as I know there were obviously time restraints and mass audiences to think about. This will not be a thread that ****es and moans about not having Tom Bombadil, since, quite frankly, I am glad that he is still left to my imagination, and I hope it will not degrade into a bashing session of PJ's movies.<P>There are several things that I found wrong with the movie that could have been changed and not taken away from the movies' mass appeal.<P>First off, the time lapse. It should have been shown, as it completely throws off the timescale (something that vexes me greatly as a Tolkienite).<P>Secondly, there is the matter of Gandalf and Saruman. I think it really took away from Gandalf's character and from the credibility of the movie that Gandalf openly and fully disclosed his knowledge of the whereabouts of the Ring to Saruman. Above all other things, this made me angry with the first film. It was compeletely the opposite of what Gandalf would do in such a situation. <P>While we are on the topic of Saruman, I must say that I still struggle to believe why Saruman openly gave his services to Sauron, and did not try to stop the Nazgul. If the Nazgul had gotten the Ring, Saruman would have been out of the loop. His only chances of gaining power was to get the Ring first. He was working <I>against</I> Sauron in the books, but in the movie he joins forces with him more openly.<P>In the second movie, and this has been discussed countless times (probably more than all other aspects), I strongly disliked the portrayal of Faramir. No ifs, ands or buts, Peter Jackson changed his character completely, and the series of events that led to his change of heart made absolutely no sense (why would he finally allow Frodo and Sam to go off to Mordor alone when he had just seen Frodo offer up the Ring to a chieftain of the Enemy?). This was in my mind the absolute worst change by Peter Jackson.<P>I thought Eowyn's character was changed for the worst too. Eowyn is less cold and distant in the movies. In fact, she is cheery at several points, and she rarely shows the blend of toughness, sadness and conviction that made her character great in the movies.<P>That all said, I have to say I still enjoy Peter Jackson's movies, and there are many traps that he could have fallen into but didn't. The Elves were made with proper mysticism and beauty, never venturing into the absurdness and childishness of other Tolkien movies. Although Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire are some of my favorite parts of the books (particularly Bombadil), I think it would have cheapened the books <I>and</I> the movies if he had chosen to include them. I for one would never want to imagine Bombadil other than I do now.<P>Please comment on or debate any of the above points. I feel like everyone's opinions are too jumbled, so this is the place to get them all clearly and intelligently (please not anti-PJ ranting) out once and for all.<P>Cheers!<BR>-Angmar __________________ ...where the instrument of intelligence is added to brute power and evil will, mankind is powerless in its own defence.*

08-14-2003, 03:20 PM	#2
steve Wight Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edoras... er, Philadelphia Posts: 191	I completly disagree on the part about the scourging of the shire, I think peter jackson is leaving out a main part of the books. the Scourging of the Shire shows a sort of ransition, from what we have seen in the books and movies so far about hobbits is that they are (pardon my words) silly, fat, and cheerfull. the Scourging of the Shire depicts a sort of change in the hobbits, showing them rising up and taking arms against saruman. it shows this in all of the hobbit militia and it shows that change in merry and pippin __________________ MAGIC SHOP! Spells of Mass Destruction 20% off! Today Only!

08-14-2003, 03:30 PM	#3
Lord of Angmar Tyrannus Incorporalis Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: the North Posts: 833	First of all, Steve, it is called the <I>Scouring </I> of the shire. I cannot count how many times people on this website have called it scourging, but it is wrong.<P>Second of all, the Scouring of the Shire would simply not work in the movies because A) it is anti-climactic and would not appeal to mass audiences (lest we forget, the movies are an attempt to make the most possible money, a commercial investment) and B) the movie has greatly shifted the focus from the tale of the hobbits to the tale of Aragorn (a clear example of this is the skimped "plot" that any of the hobbits received in the Two Towers movie. Think about it, Frodo and Sam did not accomplish a thing in all their on-screen time), so ending the movie with a small hobbit battle would not work. If the movies really held true to the works of Tolkien, they would have added it in, but it would not make much sense to mass audiences in the context of PJ's movies. __________________ ...where the instrument of intelligence is added to brute power and evil will, mankind is powerless in its own defence.

08-14-2003, 04:24 PM	#4
Marroc Underhill Haunting Spirit Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: In The Deep Places Of The World Posts: 61	I agree. If he put the entire book for each movie, it would be like 12 hours long, each movie! __________________ Hail to the Lords of Angmar, for we are the true power!

08-14-2003, 05:37 PM	#5
Eruwen Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 892	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>the movie has greatly shifted the focus from the tale of the hobbits to the tale of Aragorn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, I agree that it would be good to leave it out just for time references {as long as they at least mentioned something about it}, but I sort of disagree on the rest of it. <P>I feel that they unjustly "shifted the focus" of the Hobbits towards Aragorn. The Hobbits were still a major part of the story, and as so should have had more screen time. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Frodo and Sam did not accomplish a thing in all their on-screen time), so ending the movie with a small hobbit battle would not work<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Technically, the reason Frodo and Sam didn't accomplish anything in the 2nd movie, is because they didn't accomplish anything in the 2nd book. Peter couldn't have changed this around even if he wanted to. All they were ever doing is walking and walking and trying to tame Gollum and walking and walking and more exactly like that. Merry and Pippin, however, I feel did accomplish something...they befriended the Ents, which helps out later on when Gandalf, Aragorn, Gimli, Lego, etc come to Isengard, and they aided in the destruction of Isengard...well, sort of.<P>To add to that, how do we know that the focus on Aragorn will continue? Yes, in the third movie he will be made King, marry Arwen, etc. <B>But</B>, if you don't forget, Frodo is making a huge impact on everyone as well since in this movie he will be bit by Shelob, captured by Orcs, and have his finger bit off which eventually leads into destroying the ring. Sam, as well, has a big scene as he thinks to see Frodo dead, he rescues Frodo from the Orcs, and also practically has to carry Frodo to Mount Doom. And then, he and Sam are carried away by Eagles out of Mordor. Now doesn't that scream major focus right there? <P>And also, Merry and Pippin will become a huge part of the movie as well...even bigger than they were in the first movie. Pippin will become great in Gondor while he tries to save the King and Faramir from getting killed. Merry destroys the Witch King! That's enough right there to say major character. <P>My point is, yes, Aragorn had a large role in the 2nd movie, but in the third, I think his role will be no bigger than Frodo's. The rest of the Hobbits will come close in 2nd place in this movie. So, it wouldn't be so bad as to put in the <B>Scourging</B> of the Shire for I'm sure the audience will have not only a main focus on Aragorn, but on the Hobbits as well. <P>But more on a lighter note... <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In the second movie, and this has been discussed countless times (probably more than all other aspects), I strongly disliked the portrayal of Faramir. No ifs, ands or buts, Peter Jackson changed his character completely, and the series of events that led to his change of heart made absolutely no sense (why would he finally allow Frodo and Sam to go off to Mordor alone when he had just seen Frodo offer up the Ring to a chieftain of the Enemy?). This was in my mind the absolute worst change by Peter Jackson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have to say that I agree with you on this one. I loved Faramir's character in the books, and it was one thing I was waiting to see in the movies. The only main thing that really upset me though was the fact that he didn't let Frodo and Sam go. I think that was done unjustly, however, it did give them room to shoot one of the best scenes I have ever seen...Sam's speech. The whole scene in Osgiliath was great, but Faramir should have stayed the same. <P>I think that's all the opinions I have for now though. You pretty much said everything else that I wanted to say...other than what is in my extremely long post, of course.<p>[ August 14, 2003: Message edited by: Eruwen ]

08-14-2003, 06:39 PM	#6
Kaiserin Wight Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cair Paravel Posts: 150	I was just thinking about opening a thread such as this one.<P>First of all, I'd like to say I liked the movies, even if they were not entirely true to the book. I did dislike those inconsistencies, but I still say that FOTR and TTT were amazingly done, they were great as films. <P><B>Arwen / Glorfindel / Flight to the Ford</B><BR>I sure wished Glorfindel would have been in the movie! (Funny story: I have a friend who never read the books. When he saw a poster of Glorfindel warding off the Nazgul at the Ford, he goes, "Arwen is a guy?!")<BR>Anyway, putting Arwen in Glorfindel's place wasn't really that disastrous to the plot; I guess Jackson just needed make Arwen more visible. She didn't do much in the books but was given a lead role in the movie. Like it was mentioned in the above posts, the LOTR movies turned out to be "Aragorn's story", so Arwen needed a more significant role.<P><B>Tom Bombadil / Hobbits at the Barrow Downs</B><BR>Removing this chapter didn't really ruin the plot, though it would have been great to see It wouldn't have appealed to non-readers, and it would confuse them.<P><B>Time lapses</B><BR>I certainly agree that the way the movies portrayed the passage of time would be confusing for non-reader watchers. <P><B>Orcs</B><BR>Great orc costumes / make up! But I just felt like the orcs were "non-characters", more like intelligent animals or something. They did not have the personalities Tolkien conveyed in the books. And there was no distinction between the Isengard orcs and Mordor orcs.<P><B>The creation of the Uruk-Hai</B><BR>This was rather confused too - Saruman's Uruk and Sauron's half-orcs seemed to have been one and the same, though they are not. And of course, it creates the question in vewers' minds : "How did Saruman breed orcs with humans?" and so on. <P><B>The Treason of Isengard</B><BR>What treason? <P><B>Legolas</B><BR>I didn't really like the way he was sort of, er, too perfect, and a little bit of a showoff (mounting a speeding horse; sliding down the steps on a shield...) And I think he was a bit too serious in the movie.<BR>I personally don't mind about him having blond hair; I thought it should be brown but a blonde Legolas was a nice idea. <P><B>Faramir</B><BR>I also don't understand why his character was altered... Now, <I>this</I> change affected the story.<P><B>Elves at Helms Deep?</B><BR>I didn't think this was too bad, though it inspires many questions. If you don't mind me saying, it actually added impact for the film. It looked quite nice... But Haldir's death was just too pathetic.<P><B>Shelob</B><BR>I hope they do justice... Before watching TTT, I thought it would be a great teaser to make people think that Frodo's dead at the end of the movie. But then if they did show that at the end of TTT, people would walk out depressed (like the ending of <I>The Empire Strikes Back</I>), so I guess it was good that they made a not-so-gloomy end.<P><B>The Scouring of the Shire</B><BR>I agree that including this would be anticlimactic. It would make a funny scene, though!<P>We all know that original books are always better than film versions. Jackson still deserves applause for his work - come on, they were great. Of course it's impossible to squeeze 3 great books into the movies. I thought at first PJ should have made 6 movies instead of 3 to accomodate all the detail, but then I realized this would tire audiences.<P>...I'm thinking maybe LOTR would be a great mini-series. That way, all the detail could be put in without boring masses ... Maybe we could e-mail this thread to Peter Jackson? (Just a thought) <p>[ August 14, 2003: Message edited by: Kaiserin ] __________________ The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

08-14-2003, 07:45 PM	#7
Trippo The Hippo Wight Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: somewhere with hippos that say jolly o and wear spectacles Posts: 195	I dont think there was anything wrong with pj's "interpretation" because it was his to interpret. To my knowledge he never said he was going to copy Tolkiens LotR, but he would make a movie based on Tolkiens LotR.<P>p.s. 200 posts go me!!! __________________ Shouldn't he be the disco steward?

08-14-2003, 07:52 PM	#8
The Only Real Estel Raffish Rapscallion Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Far from the 'Downs, it seems :-( Posts: 2,835	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> While we are on the topic of Saruman, I must say that I still struggle to believe why Saruman openly gave his services to Sauron, and did not try to stop the Nazgul. If the Nazgul had gotten the Ring, Saruman would have been out of the loop. His only chances of gaining power was to get the Ring first. He was working against Sauron in the books, but in the movie he joins forces with him more openly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First of all I do not clearly understand what you mean by 'trying to stop the Nazgul' as that would be foolish, & I also don't think there's any real time in the movies that the Nazgul come clost enough to Saruman for him to bother with them in the first place. Secondly, to try to stop the Nazgul would immediantly reveal his <B>true</B> desires to Sauron, & he'd be out of the frying pan ('falling out of the loop' as you said) & into the fire (taken off of Sauron's buddy list & immediantly put on his 'people to include in my earth-incompassing war list). Also, I don't think Saruman is really any different then he is in the books, becuase of the following reasons:<BR> <BR>Saruman doesn't really join forces any more openly with Sauron then he did in the books.<BR> <BR> When Saruman was talking to Sauron about how they will 'rule this Middle Earth together' in TTT, he was clearly trying to decive him into thinking that Saruman truly was his ally.<BR> <BR> *He is still very much working against Sauron, just like in the books. But in both the books & the movies, he is vary careful not to reveal his true intentions. <P> P.S. It's really quite unrealistic to expect no PJ-bashing to go on when you start a thread about things he 'messed up' (basically), no matter how nice you try to make your vocabulary/thread title! It just happens anyway... <p>[ August 15, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

08-22-2003, 04:59 AM	#9
Eomer of the Rohirrim Auspicious Wraith Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,859	No non-reader ever had a clue that Saruman was trying to deceive Sauron. It should have been a bit more explicit.<P>Ok, Faramir. I don't see what the major problem with Jackson's Faramir was. Yes, he wasn't as warm as he was in the narrative. However, can't this be explained by the fact that Faramir is a stranger and that we are seeing the story unfold through the eyes of Frodo? The slight changes were surely done to emphasise Frodo's danger.<P>The part of Faramir's story that failed was the timing and the build-up. Think about it. Shelob (the end of the book) had been moved to Return of the King (for time purposes?)<P>Hence, Frodo and Sam did not have an exciting end to the film in store. Jackson obviously decided to have the Hobbits in danger at the hands of Faramir, only to be set free to end the film. This was not only anticlimactic, it also slightly changed Faramir's character for no greater ends.<P>So overall, I wouldn't say it was Faramir's character that was done badly, rather the storytelling on behalf of the directors. __________________ Los Ingobernables de Harlond

08-22-2003, 07:49 AM	#10
Arien Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: London/Leeds UK Posts: 417	To start off there were <I>no</I> faults in Peter Jackson’s interpretation. It is how he saw it, and so you may find faults in it but he saw it as he wanted it. However you have to remember the pressure put on him by the public e.c.t and so he had to change it to suit mass audiences. That done and said, <I>I</I> however agree with you on some points. Faramir was changed for the worst, although I did not see him a totally messed up, but it was hard to see how he had that change of heart.<P>Like <B>The Only Real Estel</B> I don’t really understand what you mean when you say:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR><I>While we are on the topic of Saruman, I must say that I still struggle to believe why Saruman openly gave his services to Sauron, and did not try to stop the Nazgul. If the Nazgul had gotten the Ring, Saruman would have been out of the loop. His only chances of gaining power was to get the Ring first. He was working against Sauron in the books, but in the movie he joins forces with him more openly.</I> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Why would he want to try and stop the Nazgul? If he did wouldn't that alert Sauron to his deceit?<P>And I didn't really think Eoywn changed too much. <B>Angmar</B> you said....<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> <I> I thought Eowyn's character was changed for the worst too. Eowyn is less cold and distant in the movies. In fact, she is cheery at several points, and she rarely shows the blend of toughness, sadness and conviction that made her character great in the movies.</I><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Did you mean her belnd of toughness, sadness and conviction made her great in the books? If so yes I think she was better in the books, but isn't that generally the case?<p>[ August 22, 2003: Message edited by: Arien ] __________________ "...still, we lay under the emptiness and drifted slowly outward, and somewhere in the wilderness we found salvation scratched into the earth like a message."

08-23-2003, 02:13 PM	#11
Daisy Brambleburr Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 334	Okay, before I start carrying on I've just got to say that I think the movies are great. But being a fan of the books there are obviously some points I didn't like. And, since you ask...<P>Entmoot: It made the Ents look stupid and didn't make too much sense. If Treebeard didn't know about Saruman then why did he call a meeting? <P>The Aragorn-falling-off-a-cliff storyline: to me it seemed pretty pointless. There was almost no tension (the 3rd movie's called Return of the King, people!) and it's only purpose seemed to be to get arwen more screentime (something many of us don't want) and to let Aragorn see the uruk-hai. And to give him that enterance to Helms Deep, which was rather cool, inspite of everything. <P>Nazgul at Ogiliath: Also, it didn't make too much sense. Picture this: Sauron thinks that Merry and Pippin have the Ring or that it's with the Riders of Rohan, so what's going to happen when the Ring turns up on his doorstep? All the Nazgul will be down there in a flash. (i'm sorry if I'm the one making no sense. I'm never very good at explaining this point). <P>Merry and Pippin's enterance: Tolkiens made a lot more sense. They tag along to the Ferry, then to Bree, and never seem to go home... __________________ 'What news from the South, O sighing wind, do you bring to me at eve? Where now is Boromir the Fair? He tarries and I grieve.'

08-23-2003, 03:29 PM	#12
Eomer of the Rohirrim Auspicious Wraith Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,859	Well, Sauron knew that a Halfling had the Ring and one of the Ringwraiths saw a Halfling with the Ring in Gondor. So why would he expect the Ring to turn up on his doorstep? It's kind of the same deal as in the book. __________________ Los Ingobernables de Harlond

08-23-2003, 04:37 PM	#13
Evisse the Blue Brightness of a Blade Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: wherever I may roam Posts: 2,685	I've realized that people tend to be more tolerant of Glorfindel's replacement with Arwen as time passes, and especially as her character is developed. That's okay, but I still want to share with you the reasons why I think that was a bad idea:<P>Trying to think from a movie maker's point of view:<P>1. It would have made for a great scene when the riders suddenly appear and Glorfindel tells Frodo to ride away and he for a moment disobeys and grips his sword to make a last stand. <BR>2. The flight to the Ford would have been just as dramatic<BR>3. Added drama is added when Frodo tells the memorable line: "By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair you shall have neither the Ring nor me!" and the Nazgul mock him and prepare to take him over: "To Mordor we will take you!"<BR>4. At the last moment, when it seems all is lost, the water rushes over and drowns the Nazgul. At the same time, Aragorn and Glorfindel come and battle the remaining ones - Glorfindel revealed in his greatness and wrath. <P>With Arwen everything is so predictable: she is an elf; you already heard she's a better rider than Aragorn, you suspect she is powerful or that she has some tricks up her sleeve. But when a tired ill hobbit who is barely holding onto a great horse lifts up his sword and tries to stand against the nine Ringwraiths, and there's only a river against them - then you got suspense! THAT's entertainment!<P>DOn't get me wrong - this doesn't mean I haven't been paying attention to all your arguments in favour of Arwen ; it's just that this is how I would think if I were to turn this into a movie. __________________ And no one was ill, and everyone was pleased, except those who had to mow the grass.

08-23-2003, 07:50 PM	#14
Lord of Angmar Tyrannus Incorporalis Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: the North Posts: 833	It seems I worded my objection to Saruman's relationship to Sauron improperly.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Why would he want to try and stop the Nazgul? If he did wouldn't that alert Sauron to his deceit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Let me backtrack. I should not have said that he would have tried to "stop" the Nazgul. That would, as has been mentioned before, be ridiculous. However, I think that, because Gandalf fully explained the situation with Frodo and the Ring to Saruman, it did not make sense that Saruman would sit back and allow the Nazgul to try and capture Frodo and thus the Ring. In the books, this was avoided because Saruman did not yet know that a hobbit possessed the Ring, so he would have no reason to circumvent the attempts of the Ringwraiths to reach the Shire. In the movies, he knew full well of Frodo's plight and the whereabouts of the Ring, and thus it did not make sense that he decided to sit back and let the Black Riders do the job; if they had taken the Ring, Saruman would have been unable to achieve his own deceitful purposes.<P>Sorry for the confusion.<P>Cheers!<BR>-Angmar __________________ ...where the instrument of intelligence is added to brute power and evil will, mankind is powerless in its own defence.

08-23-2003, 10:46 PM	#15
jackinabox2 Guest Posts: n/a	A couple of thoughts:<P>(1) I don't think Jackson's compression of the timescale detracts from the overall tale. If anything, it enhances the tension & threat of Sauron. The better question is -What does the movie gain by fulfilling outlining the 17+ years between Gandalf's visits to the Shire?? Very little, its seem more nitpicky than anything else.<P>(2) Tolkien's story cannot be easily translated into film. Lothorien, for all its wonders, sits dramatically in the wrong place of a traditional film story. Its not so much of an issue in the novel, but for a film, which must be more concerned with pacing, its problematic. <P>That said, I wish Jackson had dropped Galdriel's temptation scene in lieu of the 'gift giving' sequence on the special edition. Its far more satifying and provides more character depth.