What are your most hated parts about the L.O.T.R movies?

[Boromir88]

I agree with The Saucepan Man. I think you should just enjoy the movies and not just go around looking for faults.

The way I view it is, if you write or create, or direct/make, a piece of literature (book or movie) and advertise it all over for an audience to see, you are not simply opening it to the good parts of the movie/book, but also the criticisms.

I don't think we should go on ignoring the low points of the movie and pretend they're not there. There's faults in everything, Tolkien had his fair share of critics, and when you make something for everyone to see you are also expecting it to be criticised and picked apart, not just receive compliments.

Now, I don't think we need to carp and nit-pick at every little thing wrong with the movies, but there's certainly faults in the movies (not in just comparison to the books) and I don't think we should ignore these. There are compliments that can be made, as well as criticisms, and when you make something for people to see you must be prepared to receive both. It's impossible to please everyone.

[drigel]

I agree Boro! It's an interpretation of the books. Granted, PJ procurred the contract, resources, money, etc., and did a deliberate, and (somewhat) respectfull job of it, but it wasnt MY movie

[Ellewen]

The only scene I didn't like was the history of Gollum, seeing it as the opening scene of RoTK caught me way off gaurd. Also my parents were there with me and they think the movies are too vilent anyway so seeing that as the opening scene didn't plead my case in any way...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I don't think we should go on ignoring the low points of the movie and pretend they're not there.

Er - Barrow-Downs members are not, on the whole, noted for being backwards in coming forward about their gripes with the films ...

Originally Posted by Boromir88

There's faults in everything, Tolkien had his fair share of critics, and when you make something for everyone to see you are also expecting it to be criticised and picked apart, not just receive compliments.

It really depends upon whether you approach the films as a viewer seeking enjoyment or as a critical analyst. I have no objection to critical analysis of the films, and indulge in it myself occasionally, but mostly I just watch them to be entertained. Because mostly that's the purpose for which they were made. They are blockbuster "action" films, albeit rather superior ones (imho). So I tend to approach them as such.

I realise that it's because they are based on a book which we all hold dear, but how many other "action" films to we analyse to the same extent?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

It really depends upon whether you approach the films as a viewer seeking enjoyment or as a critical analyst. I have no objection to critical analysis of the films, and indulge in it myself occasionally, but mostly I just watch them to be entertained. Because mostly that's the purpose for which they were made. They are blockbuster "action" films, albeit rather superior ones (imho). So I tend to approach them as such.

It may be that, unlike most other films in my 'extensive' DVD library (think that I own about ten movies), I've watched the LOTR DVDs many many times, especially FOTR:EE. Sometimes I have them on as background as I do other tasks, such as ironing (don't ask!) and other times I'm actually watching them to...well..watch them. By repeatedly viewing PJ's work (which I have to say that I'm thankful for), I cannot help but notice certain issues. Sometimes I just jump to the next scene - most of TTT:EE is like that, as I'd rather not see the Ents (yawn) - but there are times when I decide to watch a scene more closely as someone might have had a strong opinion about it, and so I want to 'see it for myself.'

Another poster may have liked a scene that I did not, and so, armed with their point of view, I'll rewatch it and may see something that I hadn't seen before. Or not.

Anyway, think that it comes down to caring about the material. If I didn't care or like the movies so much, I wouldn't have watched them as much and also would not have been so vocal with my criticisms.

[Boromir88]

I realise that it's because they are based on a book which we all hold dear, but how many other "action" films to we analyse to the same extent?~Saucepan

For me, it's actually pretty much every movie. I've had classes on film studies and during my college days, I'd usually get in with a group of buds from the class and 1-2 times a week watch a movie and critique it.

But, I'd say for the person who just goes to see a movie, to watch a movie, I say rarely. I see what you're saying, I think it was the same in the Harry Potter movies. Those who had read the books were angry and disappointed in the 3rd movie, Prisoner of Azkaban. Where I've only read the first book and I was quite happy with the 3rd movie.

I think I just look at films so critically because that's what I've done for so long. It doesn't make the LOTR movies bad, or horrible (I can pick out many that are horrible), but there are NON-BOOK related problems in the movies. The main one being from I believe a post I said earlier on unity. Does this make sense? Does it make sense for Aragorn to spare Grima a messenger who arguably did more damage than the Mouth of Sauron, then slice off the Mouth's head? Things like that, not in comparison with the books. I think most changes Jackson did because he wanted to attract a wide variety of audiences, purists and movie-goers. To do that he had to balance things out, and compromise, which is only his job and I do not blame him for.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Does this make sense? Does it make sense for Aragorn to spare Grima a messenger who arguably did more damage than the Mouth of Sauron, then slice off the Mouth's head?

It's perfectly explicable, given that the circumstances of each are far from identical. It seems to me that most plot/character "inconsistencies" can be explained one way or another with some thought, provided that one recognises that the characters and events are not the same as those depicted in the book. Of course, most film-goers won't notice such "inconsistencies" and therefore won't have any need for an explanation.

I suppose that if I had to identify one aspect of the films that irritates me the most, it is the technical mistakes. Such as continuity errors, dead orcs moving, anachronisms in the background and Legolas getting his directions mixed up. With the amount of money lavished on the films, and the incredible level of care and detail that went in to them for the most part, I feel that such matters should have been addressed (on the EEs at least, if not the cinema-released versions).

Then again, I wouldn't have noticed any of these either (even the Legolas/direction of Isengard one) had I not seen them pointed out here in the Downs.

[Reg Pither]

I finally got round to watching the RotK EE DVD yesterday! (Yes, I know, I'll hand in my elf ears and hobbit feet for being so lax...)

So here a few things for this dislike thread ('hate' is far too strong a word) :

- Aragorn's murder of the Mouth of Sauron just seemed wholly inappropriate, gratuitous and out of character. I was really shocked when I saw it happen! Having read a few explanations here about MoS not being officially 'parleying', I feel a little better about it, but it still jars. They could at least have tried to justify it by letting us see Aragorn become angry and vengeful after learning of Frodo's 'death'.

- I was bored for the first 30-40 minutes of the film. Opening with Smeagol and Deagol was a real turn-off, and things didn't improve until we finally got to the muster of Rohan. After that, it was a pretty good rollercoaster ride.

- The beating of Denethor was just plain wrong, matched only by his further abuse at the pyre. Even Shadowfax joined in! And despite the quote from the book cited earlier in this thread, I'm sure Gandalf used 'magic' to disarm Denethor, not physical violence.

- Until I read about him on various fora, I had not the slightest inkling that the crippled, potato-faced Orc leader was supposed to be the great Gothmog! Very poorly portrayed.

- Why on earth would you charge Mumakil instead of just avoiding them?

- Frodo sending Sam home. I'm speechless, really.

- All the Arwen being tied to the Ring and strange dream sequences guff. Waste of time and effort.

- The Gondor soldiers were pretty useless for all their fancy armour.

- How come the Army of the Dead had to be 'convinced' by Aragorn that he was the King who could free them from their oath? Surely they would have 'sensed' that he was the one?

Anyway, that's enough for the moment, as I actually found a lot that I liked, including several genuinely tear-jerking moments, but they'll have to be in the 'loved' thread.

Oh, and one last thing for the 'dislike' thread : TTT. All of it.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Reg Pither

Until I read about him on various fora, I had not the slightest inkling that the crippled, potato-faced Orc leader was supposed to be the great Gothmog! Very poorly portrayed.

What thats Gothmog ! ! !


Pippin : He just seems so foolish and he is just plain trouble all the way throug the movies. In the books he som times appears to be smart (atleast thats the impresion i get)

That PJ chooses to change who says what ? Why

The battle at Helms Deep. Why does Theoden not defeat the armies of Sauruman, why does it have to be Eomer and Gandalf.

The fact that the walls of Minas Tirith just crumbels when they are hit by the rocks, that the armies of Mordor launches.

But actually i liked the movies.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Pippin : He just seems so foolish and he is just plain trouble all the way throug the movies. In the books he som times appears to be smart (atleast thats the impresion i get)

I agree, to an extent. It amazes me when people cite Merry and Pippin as characters who changed very little from book to film. They are played far more for comedy in the films and lack much of the depth apparent in the book, particularly in their development as the tale progresses. One of my most lamented losses is the events of A Conspiracy Unmasked, as it changes the whole basis for their joining in Frodo's Quest. That said, I did feel that Pippin's character was greatly redeemed in RotK, although Merry was hard done by the cuts to the theatrical version.

Originally Posted by Rune

Why does Theoden not defeat the armies of Sauruman, why does it have to be Eomer and Gandalf.

To be fair, he had a little help from Gandalf and Erkenbrand (and the Huorns) in the book.

Originally Posted by Rune

But actually i liked the movies.

So did (do) I.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

To be fair, he had a little help from Gandalf and Erkenbrand (and the Huorns) in the book.

yes, but is the armie of Sauruman not allready fleeing at the time ?

Not that it realy maters.

[Essex]

Reg, re -

Why on earth would you charge Mumakil instead of just avoiding them?

Comparible to the Charge of the Light Brigade - fool hardy you might say, without hope definately, but hounarable, yes.

- Frodo sending Sam home. I'm speechless, really.

understand your point, and it did rankle with me too, but this was done to ramp up the tension as frodo has to escape from shelob himself - as well as this piece in the books works brilliantly for me with both frodo and sam being scared out of their wits, I think the reason it was done this way was to ramp up the excitement of frodo escaping from Shelob - and this was because the director and co probably thought that playing the scene out as the book would jar against the pace of the minas tirith scenes interspersed with the shelob scenes in the movie - tolkien didn;t have this problem......and of course, movie wise, Sam comes back and saves the day.........

How come the Army of the Dead had to be 'convinced' by Aragorn that he was the King who could free them from their oath? Surely they would have 'sensed' that he was the one?

Think of it from a movie setting again - in walks aragorn - i'm the king to be, follow me - all right then says king of the dead - wouldn't work, and neither (again like frodo and sam above) would the superb words of tolkien, with the terrifying slow walk through the paths of the dead, with 'the dead following' - again, reasons of pace, we're getting to the end of the trilogy now and jackson has to ramp it up for the final battles - PS, I think he got some of the feeling of oppresion in the EE as the three hunters leave theoden's encampment on their way to the paths of the dead anyway.

[Reg Pither]

Well, Essex, while I can see that the justifications you give for those things are 'reasons' they certainly aren't 'excuses' for some of the pointless, illogical changes that were made. Also they seem to be reasons after the event - i.e. shoe-horned onto the changes after they've been made, rather than changes being made to solve a particular problem of pace or story-telling. And even then, many of those problems have only occured because so many things have been changed in the first place...

I must admit I also get frustrated when people insist that something in the books 'wouldn't work on film'. How do they know?? 90% of the time the book version very probably would have worked (IMHO), or might have needed only very small changes to do so.

Couldn't PJ just have had Sam getting lost once they got into Shelob's lair? Couldn't he have chased after Gollum in the caves and just appeared at the vital moment to rescue Frodo? To be perfectly honest, having Frodo send Sam home in this way makes me really doubt that PJ understands what the book is actually all about. I feel it totally undermines the central theme of loyalty, friendship and duty, which is bizarre as he gets so much of the adaptation right. That's why it seems so frustratingly inexplicable to alter it like this.

Ok, minor rant over.

[Gothmog]

Well, most things have been said already, but I'll make my contribution anyway. I understand that PJ wanted to make movies for everybody, not just for us freaks, but some changes are so pointless.

The part I dislike most is the part where Rohirrim and part of the fellowship are atacked by wargs on their way to Helms Deep. Why, oh why, did you almost kill Aragorn PJ? Is the story too slow?

And why did you turn Gimli in to a clown? That walking joke is not the dwarf I know...

Frodo sending Sam home, Arwens connection to the ring (and her overalll enhanced role in the story), and the Army of the Dead trying to kill Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli (?!) by drenching them in human skulls doesn't belong to the favourite parts either...

Also, I think Faramir acts a bit strange through out his meeting with Frodo and Sam. He was really tempted by that ring. I don't know but from the books I had the feeling that he was quite capable of resisting its powers, letting frodo and co go.

Even if there's minor (and some slight larger) changes and fault, they're wonderful movies and all credit to PJ for making them. But next time...

[Essex]

Reg, yes I can see that idea working with Sam getting lost. I think Jackson was trying to show in one scene the depth that the Ring had taken Frodo - and the guile and dnager of Gollum - thousands of words that tolkien expertly crafted about the 3 travellers story would not have made a viable movie for many film goers - yes, for us tolkien fanatics we would have lapped it up, but new line would never have let him make a movie 54 hours long (plus all the time for 'action') - the reason why I say 54 hours is the length of time it takes for the audio book for the unabridged lotr to be read out.

anyway, so boyens and walsh crammed up all these feelings into one scene (for me anyway)

PS the reason of Pacing is a valid one. But maybe the reason why tolkien wrote the books like they were was (and I may be shot down in flames here) was kindof like the same reason. To go from one book with the hobbits trudging along, almost dying, to scenes of mayhem and fighting would not have worked.

If the story was shown in say 6 movies, then we could have a book per movie, but again, other than us die hard fans, who would go to see sam and frodo trudging through mountains for a few hours?

[Neurion]

There are quite a few things PJ did that I'm not overly fond of (turning Fell-Beasts into Ray Harryhausen-esque pteranodons straight out of One Million Years B.C. is one of the absolute worst, right up there with making the Gondorian infantry the disposable, why-do-they-wear-armour-if-it-doesn't-work Stormtrooper cannon-fodder that they come off as), but I think his sins of omission are almost as bad.

I'm quite certain that with a decent trimming of extraneous belching dwarves, pallid Elf-princesses mysterious tied to the Ring, shieldmaidens of Rohan stealing dreams from Ranger captains, surly, phosphorescent ghosts and warg attacks, there would have been room for more actual book material, such as the Knights of Dol Amroth, Imrahil, Beregond, maybe even the Dunedain.

Case in point: Why does Denethor have a sort of assistant named "Irolas"? Why not Hurin of the Keys, or some other actual character from the books?

[Ardeth Bay]

Yes, He definitly shouldn't have left out imrahil.
His knights are like half the gondorian army in the first place

[Folwren]

Frodo sending Sam away was definitely the worst part that he changed. The other things...you know, lots of the things named here are pretty trivial. Some characters that he left out he simply didn't have time for. But for Frodo to tell Sam to go away and have that whole scenerio is without excuse. It didn't save him any time, it time is what he wanted to save, and it certainly didn't help Frodo's character. It was a totally non-Tolkien. You couldn't get farther from the books. Well, maybe you could've, but not much farther.

-- Folwren

[Essex]

Neurion, re

there would have been room for more actual book material, such as the Knights of Dol Amroth, Imrahil, Beregond, maybe even the Dunedain.

everyone seems to be viewing these films as being made just for us rabid book readers - if they were, then new line would be out of business today.

What would the people in the list above bring to the Movie?

Knights of Dol Amroth - just more armies from another part of Gondor - this would just confuse the movie goers

imrahil - what does this guy actually add to the books let alone the move! yes, I know he was briefly in charge of Minas Tirith for a while during or after the battle (wasn't he?), but hey, that's not too exiting is it?

Beregond - yes, and I enjoyed these scenes in the books, but do you think we could have had these scenes work as Jackson is building the tension up with Frodo & co struggling up the mountains, rohan getting ready for war, and Gandalf pumping up the gondorians? i don't think so unfortunately.......

Dunedain - their main use in the book was to deliver Elrond's thoughts on which way Aragorn should go via the paths of the dead - but in the film jackson had gandalf deliver the line, so no real use for them either...........

yes, this is quite a flippant reply, but I'm trying to make sense of why these were left out, and I think they are valid 'excuses'.

totally agree with jacson using new character names though - there's no point in that!

[Neurion]

Going by your line of reasoning, one might not at first conclude that the correct course of action would not be to reduce the trilogy's protagonists down to the barest skeletal essentials, i.e. Frodo, Gandalf and Aragorn, as some games have done.

[SarumanCymraeg]

I think you have to take the movies almost seperately from the books. They have to be enjoyed at their own level. Personally, although some bits of the films (normal and EEs) aggrivated me, I thought they were really, really enjoyable and skilfully directed. However, there's two things that truly annoy me about the films.

1) Saruman: in the books we know that Saruman is in fact a traitor to both the White Council and Sauron. Although in the movies he's obviously a traitor to the Council, to me the movies don't convey this, and he is portrayed almost as a good ally to Sauron.

2) The Elves and Dwarves don't seem to be troubled at all by Sauron and Mordor. Rivendell Elves are still free to go to the West if they want to, such as Arwen would in the movies, and this is utter nonsense. There was no escape for the Elves, Rivendell, Lorien and Mirkwood were all under siege (and the sending of aid to Helm's Deep, along with Elrond's visit to Dunharrow, was stupid). Also, we don't really see anything of the Dwarves.

The only clue to wider troubles in in the RotK EE when Legolas says to Gimli that war is already upon the Dwarves (or vaguely hints at it, really). This would be a perfect oppotunity for someone (Legolas, I guess) to maybe have a mini-speech about the brewing battles in Dale and Lorien, and showing us that, after all, this is not just a war of Men, as it is portrayed.

[ninja91]

I kind of wish that they had the scene with the Barrow-Wights and Tom Bombadil. That (to me) was a real good (and scary) part of book 1. But then again, thats just me.
Also, I would also have liked to see Prince Imrahil.
There were alot of places that I would have liked to see portrayed, such as: Harad, Pelargir, Dol Amroth, the Tower Hills, Angmar, Nurn, and the City of the Corsairs. Not to mention Erech, Annuminas, and Dol Guldur.
I guess I'll just have to use my imagination...

[Texadan]

This has been mentioned for individuals but looking at it as a whole the thing I am most disappointed in is that most, if not all, of the character changes are for the worse. I've listened to the commentaries and I understand PJ & Co.'s reasoning that there must be action and conflict for a movie audience (even if I don't necessarily agree with it), but every time they changed a character to produce more story it lessened that character. The changes in Faramir that made him so much less than he should be have been mentioned. As has the changing of the Rohirrim from a people of courage and valor to crying cowards and Frodo's harshness with Sam. The same thing was done, to a greater or lesser degree, to Aragorn, Arwen, Elrond, and the Ents. I'm sorry, but I think we need examples of people of character and valor in our fiction these days more than we need conflict. Conflict we are familiar with. The other, not so much.

[ArathorofBarahir]

I don't have a most hated part of the Lord of the Rings movies. I fully understood and accepted the fact that you can't film the Lord of the Rings page by page, it is impossible and would have been awfully boring. The Lord of the Rings Movie Trilogy was an adaption of the book, it may not have been the way that I or you would have adapted the book, but the way the movies came out was how Peter Jackson and the other writers adapted it. I love the book and the movies. Some of the changes in the film I disliked and wished they hadn't done, but the good part of the movie trilogy fare outwayed the bad.

[Boromir88]

I guess some other things that got me irked were Jackson's disrespect to Tolkien in a way. It really makes me question did he make these movies as a "fan" of the books, or to make a name for himself?

Tolkien said the most moving parts of the story for him was the cock crow when Rohan arrived to Gondor's aid and Gollum's near repentance but Sam's "rebuking" turned him back towards evil. Both were left out of the movie.

Tolkien felt like for his story The Scouring of the Shire was an essential part, Jackson replied with leaving out the Scouring was a "no-brainer."

Tolkien changed The Hobbit and took out all references to Tomatoes, feeling like he didn't want them in Middle-earth. Jackson said this was silly and put them in the movie...why, to prove that he felt like it was silly?

I notice a pattern of Tolkien stating his feelings and most moving parts of his story, and Jackson just for some reason purposefully changes it or just doesn't include it at all.