*TTT - Overall Impressions

[Túroch]

The first movie as many have commented, stuck a lot closer to the book. In the TIME article on TTT, PJ himselfs says that TTT strays much more in this second movie. He had the right balance in he first movie. I loved it to death but he botched the second. It's almost like the 2nd movie was made by a different director. I just don't understand it. I could forgive PJ everything he did in the first movie. It was all interpretation and i'm fine with that. But he went to far in TTT.

[Maeglin]

Overall it was a great movie but I must say I liked the last one better. This movie had some bad timing, jokes on the wrong places, too much action, a sence of getting slow and too much jumping between the scenes. <P>And Osgiliath! Please? Why did it look like Stalingrad during WW2? The orcs seemed to be aiming at that lake anyway. Edoras was too small by the way.<P>The good stuff though, was Wormtounge, Gollum, Gimli and Legolas the battle at helms deep and Aragorn's dreams. And ofcourse! Legolas shieldsurfing! <p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Maeglin ]

[Olorin]

WARNING: this is a spoiler!<P>Grrr! I have nothing good to say! I don't know where to begin. <P>Ah, for starters, The Battle of Helm's Deep. Is it just me, or was the battle only a chapter in the book? If so, why did it end up being the whole movie. I'm really not one for battle seens and Helm's Deep seemed to last more than 3 hours. <P>PJ changed WAY TOO MUCH! Why did the elves show up!? That wasn't supposed to happen! Not only that, but Celeborn dies. I really liked him! PJ should have left it the way it was. My favorite character was barely in it! <B>What happened to Gandalf!?</B> My favorite seen was left out too! Gandalf confronting Saruman was to me, the turning point of the trilogy. Not only did they leave it out, but they make the attack on Eisengard the very end.<P>It's not like the plot changes were not enough, TTT seemed to lack the magic and enchantment of the FotR. They didn't use Tolkien-esque language. The dialogue was very everydayish. The only explanation for this is that PJ was running low on funds and time and had to make this one really quickly because it sucked! I wonder about the movie industry sometimes. I compare TTT to Star Wars episode 2. With all the money and publicity that went into it, you would think the director and crew could have made a half-way decent movie! <P>I serously hope the third one is remarkable or I'm going to be really ****ed off.

[Kalimac]

Olorin, actually it was Haldir who died (if it were Celeborn that really WOULD be a big change - widowing Galadriel and all). I see your point about Helm's Deep only being one chapter, but it is a very pivotal one, also one which translates better to the screen than other things. As much time is spent in the book describing the journey of the Three Walkers across the plains of Rohan (for example), but giving that "equal time" in the movie just because they have as many chapters as the battle would be nonsensical; also dull. Also, in a book you can say "The battle raged on for another hour" - in a movie you can't really shortcut that way unless you're doing a remake of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" where they stick up the little intermission card. <P>And I have a distinct feeling (if that reassures you at all ) - that the Voice of Saruman will be at the beginning of the next movie. If nothing else, Gandalf et al already have to come there, if nothing else to pick up Merry and Pippin and do the Palantir scene, and since there's already been mention made in TTT of "Beware of his voice" it would make sense that they're going to follow through on that. Besides, you can't waste Christopher Lee like that . Hope that helps .

[Brinniel]

Ok, I won't go into detail, as I know that this has already been said.<P>I have only read a few threads on the movie and already I am sick of the complaints. <P>You should base the movie on quality, not on accuracy. If you directly compare the movie to the book, of course you will be disappointed. There will always be changes. Appreciate PJ for the hard work and time he put in this. Yes, I am disappointed with some changes from the book, but I'm not complaining. Instead, I think up reasons why the particular scene must have been changed. You try making a book into a movie. It is certainly a difficult task.<P>Overall, I thought the movie was excellent. The only reason I felt as if the movie would never end was because I forgot to go to the bathroom ahead of time and eventually had to miss 5 minutes of the movie. Oh, well. I'm planning to see it again anyways.

[Maikadilwen]

Actually, Brinniel, I compared the movie to the movie, meaning that I compared my overall impression of TTT to the one I had of FOTR. <BR>And it lacked in that comparison.<p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Maikadilwen ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

If you don't like to hear 'complaining' then leave. It isn't even complaining. People are saying how they felt on their first impression on TTT. They aren't complaining. This thread is about overall impressions and that includes people's first impressions. If you can't handle people's first impressions that differ from yours, and you have to result to calling it 'complaining', then leave and stop complaining yourself. To tell you the truth, I am sick of your complaining.<p>[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

OMG!<BR>What a movie! Look, let me preface this by saying that at the age of 13, I spent ~5days in my room without coming out except for food/bodily functions. I LOVE the myth of ME. But lets face it, a movie will never, never be as good as a book iregardless of what topic. That said, I thought PJ did a spectacular job!! (Can you imagine what a say.... Steven Speilberg who mutalated jar-jar would have done to LotR???????)<BR>PJ made changes that is certainly evident but(the only scene I was "misrepresentation" I was disturbed about was the laying of their weapons aside before enterung Edoras) he kept to the "spirit" of the story, and I applaud him!<BR>I LOVED IT!!!!!!<P>PS I saw the 7:00 PM showing, then on a whim drove across town and saw the 10:15 showing!!!! It was a GOOD night!

ok, upon re-read that was embarressing<BR>"let me preface this by saying that at the age of 13, I spent ~5days in my room without coming out except for food/bodily functions. "<P>I I should have added when I first got my hands on the trilogy. Sorry

[Schmendrick]

I agree with Túroch on almost everything. I was very disappointed with the film. I've writtten my thoughts about it on many threads already and can't bother to write them all over again, but the things that irritated me the most were:<BR>- The film was too concentrated on the men. Where were the hobbits? I know that TTT is a lot about men, but this was exaggeration.And yes- the Riders of Rohan? Agree with you Túroch, again! They didn't convince me at all and Theoden was behaving like an old fool!<BR>- Faramir (Do I need to say more? )<BR>- Frodo Why change him so much? He is a completely different person in the film!He shouldn't be this possessed!He's wise and noble and fighting a terrible fight.My heart aches when I see how they have silmplified his character.<BR>- Aragorn Wouldn't count my life on his hands. <BR> <BR>And as I've said many times already, I totally understand that there has to be made some changes when turning a book into a film, but many of the changes here made were completely unmotivated and vain.

[Haldir]

<B>"Teeth, teeth... We have only six !"<BR>- Gollum, The Hobbit<P>Did anyone else noticed that Gollum has 7<BR>teeth in the movie ?</B><P>BTW<BR>I didn't like the movie but I'll go see it<BR>again, may be I doomed it too fast...

[Frieda]

Yeah, there were a few things that bugged me(mainly what he did to Faramir and how Frodo hasn't been shown to have that much strength at all).<BR>In that added scene at Osgiliath(I dunno if I spelled that right exactly) I hated how Frodo could not overcome the will of the ring himself....Sam had to go and stop him from putting it on. -_-<BR>I'm not sure if I remember exactly from the books but in the books weren't there times when Frodo could stop himself from putting it on, without someone elses help?<BR>Frodo's my favorite character, I wish they hadn't done that to him.<P>*sigh* Well, that's what mainly bugged me but I still enjoyed the movie.<P>And we still have a chance that it might be better if PJ comes out with an extended version like with the last movie. If he does that then you never know, maybe some scenes showing the side of Frodo that was never really shown much, will be added in. And perhaps there will be more Eomer and some parts where Faramir acts more like how he did in the books.<BR>I certainly hope that happens....though I am kinda doubting that it will.

[Tarlondeion Of Gondolin]

I thought the film was pretty damn good.<BR>I especially enjoyed the whole of Helm's Deep and the Ent's part. I thought that Viggo Morteson got Aragorn just right and Sam was really good too. I thought the Elves coming to Helm's Deep was godd and bad because it really took the focus from the actual men of Rohan which is what it was all about. I thought how Theoden rode out was of HD was brilliant. Gollum was pretty good but Frodo and Faramir were a lot different to what they are in the book. Faramir seems like Boromir's good brother in the book who isn't tempted by the ring and seems really noble but in the film he was kinda sinister. Frodo is meant to stand up to him and doesn't really. I thought the end with Sam's moral was great put across a lot of the message of the book but I didn't like the end of HD where Gandalf and Eomer ride down the slag heap with the riders of Rohan, it seemed a bit over dramatic. I thought the Gates of Mordor were brilliant though.<BR>Overall a great film!!!

[Gilbo]

BEWARE READERS!<BR> I am aFNG and I am about to spew, so be careful. You might not want to get any of this on you.<BR>For three hours, I sat threw the gratest, most exciting, awe inspiring, adventure film <BR>that I have ever hated! I congatulate PJ for brining it to the screen. It was a task that I would never have dared. I give him much credit for his accomplishment.<BR>HOWEVER...What the hell was that?<BR>I absolutely hated: Faramir"s portayal<BR> Theoden's portayal<BR> The Excorcism<BR> The people of Rohan's<BR> portrayal <BR> Elven warriors...From <BR>Rivendell...From an elf who spoke only of defending his own territory<BR>I don't even want to get started on the way poor Frodo was done.No grace, no nobility of spirit, no moral fiber...<BR>And just when did Arwen and Galadriel join the Psychic friends network.Plus, How will Arwen send the Rangers, bearing a hand made standard, if she has sailed for the Undying Lands?<BR>I gotta stop now, my blood pressure alarm went off!<BR>On the plus side: Gollum was great! I started to wish,as I do when Iread the book, that Smeagol would win the debate.<BR>The Battle scenes wrwe great! I hope PJ handles the Peelenor Fields, and the battle before the Gates of Mordor just as well.<BR>Ents! Not as I pictured, but worthy of praise and the flooding of Isengard was nifty<BR>Overall, where PJ was in step with the book,it was great! Where he missteps is fair to middlin', but whenhe marches in a new direction, i want to go Gollum on his *** .<BR>...and thanks for your support.<P>

[mark12_30]

Hi Gilbo, <P>I agree with many of your points, but I'd like to address a few. Arwen and Galadriel were simply practicing the form of communication called Osanwe, which is ipure Tolkien. There is a great thread about it in the books forum; go here:<A HREF="http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000492" TARGET=_blank> osanwe.</A><P>And also, I do not think Arwen has sailed. She may have begun the journey, but I can't imagine her completing it.<P>The other thing that's been niggling at me is, I'm trying to remember when Aragorn's friends, the rangers from the north, show up; Halbarad and company. I never saw them yet in PJ's work; so I'm wondering whether PJ is substituting Haldir and elves for Halbarad and Rangers. Sort of like he substituted Arwen for Glorfindel. I don't have to like it, but it begins to make just a little bit of sense from a movie point of view. Especially since he doesn't have the time to talk about the conflicts up by Erebor and Long Lake and Dale, which Tolkien does use to explain why the elves and dwarves were kept busy elsewhere.<P>On the whole, though, even though I'll give the film a 95%, I agree with many of your points.<p>[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Túroch]

Man this thread's been hopping, while I slept peacefully. The opinion on the board seems to waver between good and not so good. Now that i've slept on it some new perspectives that have come to light.<P>I am basing my jugdment not only on accuracy but also on quality. I loved the first movie. I'll be compleately honest. I saw it eight times in the theator. I almost cried when Boromir (my 2nd favorite character)died a heroic death that, although it wasn't shown in the book I could forgive PJ for his extrapolation. However, the 2nd movie made me wonder if I should have seen it that one time. PJ showed me that he was capable of really good film that doesn't stray away from the book nor does it stray to close to it. Is saw a really good movie in FotR. But TTT is too much of PJ and not enough Tolkien. He rewrote some major characters, but that in itself doesn't make me mad. Here is what makes me made. I am made becuase PJ's version of Faramir or Theoden now has the same credibility that Tolkien's does in the eyes of the public. I now that many of the people who watch TTT have never read the book and might never read it. In their eyes PJ's Frodo and PJ's Arwen are the real versions of the character and that Tolkien's characters are in some distant second. By puting the book on film he has lent authority to his interpretation and his vision. Now he can claim that his vision is the correct one. When people read a book after watching the movie on it, they sometimes see the actors as the characters and here their voices as the characters. By making these deviations in Tolkiens characters PJ is not only changing them for the 3 hours that theyre seen on the screen but for the lifetime of the viewer who saw them first that way. Because of TTT, many people see Frodo and Theoden as a wimp, hardly know who Eomer is and probaly think elves are so cool becuase Legolas has fancy moves and because the elves "saved" the Rohirrim at Helms Deep. I was reading the article in TIME a few weeks before TTT came out. I was a bit riled from how the author kept mixing Harry Potter terminology with Tolkien as if the guy was saying that all fantasy is the same. Well thats a minor gripe and I understand that a lot of people don't read fantasy, but now with PJ's TTT people like that author and others who haven't read the TTT are going to think that PJ's work is the real Tolkien.<P>In the TIME arcticle PJ said something to the effect of if we make a good movie the fans are sure to forgive us for whatever we changed. Yah but what does he consider a good movie. You alredady know the fans consider the story in TTT to be good, so why mutate it. Plus, how much are we supposed to forgive. How much can PJ change with out the fans, without us complaining. I wonder what he will do in the next movie if he thinks that he can get away with what he did in the 2nd movie. <P>The first movie had it's flaws, but I was able to forgive PJ for his different interpretation. An aduience is a very forgiving entity. I could let a lot of his mistakes in the TTT pass without comment. It is not the sublte changes of scences that I am lamenting. Neither is it the addition or even the deletion of certin scences. It is the radical departure in character developments and plot line. As many have said before me, PJ's contortion of character makes it hard to see how they can fufill their roles in the next movie. The changing of plot elements, such as the elves at Helms Deep, changes not only the view of elves, but of the Rohirrim as well. The former it makes appear as though they have a huge army just waiting to attack Sauron but just don't want to put out the effort. If there are elves at Pelanor Feilds in the next movie, well I might just break down and cry. PJ had no reason to put them in except for the fact that a lot of people thought that elves fighting were cool. ....Oh well people like these elves and we have only Legolas in this movie.....hmm lets just squeeze em in here now no one will notice. Besides it makes the story "better"....... I can imagine it now. The latter appear (as I have wept on before) like they have no army or strength of character at all. With Theoden weeping for despair and Faramir slabbering after the ring, a viewer of the movie might think that there are no strong men except for the one Aragorn of course. <P>Well i've said enough already. Thanks for the agreement Schmendrick last of the red hot swamis. You hit the nail on the head. Welcome to the Downs Olorin, I too share your grief over TTT. I also have some hope for the extended version Frieda, though how can they put more of Eomerin when he was left out of all the scenes he ws supposed to be in. By the way nice avater. The Last Unicorn is one of my favorite books.<P>But for one last point, how much of PJ's version of Tolkien can we let go. If we don't question is version of TTT, what will he do to RotK. I can only shudder. I really want to speak with the guy and ask him why and more importantly whay not. Well take care guys and Merry Christmas.

[Rina]

I just saw TTT for the first time last night. I'm not really sure what to think about it. It was certainly different from FotR. I was most disappointed by the scenes with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum. The wretchedness expereinced by these characters was a bit in your face. And to have Sam leading a choking, grovelling Gollum by a rope quite so early in the movie was a bit more than I could handle. Also, Frodo goes a little too psycho, a little too early on. I have only read TTT once so far (I'm definitely going in for a second read), so I wasn't as offended as some by the elves at Helm's Deep. I did, however, miss some of the comic relief that was in the book, as provided by Merry and Pippin's conversations, and even between Gollum and Sam, a bit of which was seen in the movie in their debate over raw or cooked conies.<P>There were many things I liked in this movie however. The battle scenes were monumental, and I liked seeing Gandalf in his new glory. Part of the fun for me was seeing it in the theatre. If you aren't from a small, slightly backwards town, you may not appreciate the guys in the back row hollering "Ahh, yeahhhh!" when the title comes up on the screen, but it's kind of nice knowing your fellow viewers are as excited as you are. Overall, it is a movie I will watch many more times, and I am looking forward to RotK.

[TolkienGurl]

<B>Túroch</B>: <BR>In that TIME magazine article, which I have, too, it says that TTT is the farthest from the books. So you don't have to worry that much about RotK!<P>And in that same TIME article, the writers have the gall to say "Tolkien's version" when comparing Arwen's movie role and book role. Tolkien's <I>VERSION???</I><P>*walks off mumbling*<P>Anyway, I also understand what you mean about people believing PJ's version as truth. I know some people who haven't read the book, and even though I tell them what <I>actually</I> happened, they still cannot get past the fact that "<I>that</I> wasn't the way it was in the movie!" <P>Ok, one last thing and I'll shut up. Actually, I think I've said this before. The faults I find with TTT movie are not in the characters themselves, but whoever's decision it was to <I>UNNECESSARILY</I> change whole characters and concepts just to stand out and appeal to the majority of Hollywood-hungry movie-goers (no one on here, of course). I believe that Peter Jackson and whoever else created the movie do not want to be totally associated with Tolkien and the books, so they changed all they could without causing a riot to make their own "version." I mean, they've gotten our attention, did they not?

[-Imrahil-]

I like Turoch's points. PJ did **** me off a good bit by doing that to Tolkien's original characters.<P>I've been wondering why he did it, did he seriously think he could improve upon Tolkien's work and make the story more interesting by changing the characters? He did it all right in the first movie, he stuck to the story pretty closely didn't <BR>change anyone ect. WHY!!!<P>Tolkiengurl's reasons for the change are interesting, but no way to tell without asking PJ himself. Someone phone him please <P> <p>[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: -Imrahil- ]

[Arathiriel]

I just got back from seeing the movie and <B>I LOVED IT</B>!!!!

[Arod]

I loved it!!! However like most of you I do have some gripes...the biggest being the way Faramir's character was "darkened". It just didn't feel right. The second is the where's Aragorn thing... okay it did work and I can see why they put it in (to add Arwen's character to the story somehow)but it was kinda goofy to me. IMHO<P>Finally, the one thing that really upset me (yes this is very picky but considering I love horses...) is the fact that Hasufel was a chestnut when he is described in the book as a strong tall grey. Then, Arod who in the book doesn't really specify a color, is grey when his description was noted as being a small firey horse. In my mind firey would be a bright chestnut, but that could've been the personality of the horse and not the physical apperance. Anyhoo... bottom line. Arod was grey and bigger than Hasufel, when it should've been the other way arround. <P>Also what was the horse's name that found Aragorn by the river's edge? I couldn't make out what he said and I am assuming (probably NOT a good thing for me to do) that it was Roheryn (Arwen's gift to Aragorn)however someone said his name was Brego... ugh that doesn't make sense since Brego was a man and NOT a horse.I'm confused.

[Túroch]

I understand your befuddlement Arod. Did anyone else notice that Legolas used a saddle in the movie instead of ridding elven style, aka bareback. Such is the leven way with all good beasts. At least I thought it was. Well that is a really acident to point out. Same with Hasufel's coloring. I could forgive PJ for that though. Quite true Tolkeingurl, quite true. Imrahil, we should call him, or e-mail him or something. I don't want to complain to him, I just want to ask some questions.<P>P.S. Like the avatat Arod.<P>Sincerely,<BR>Túroch (which means in elvish "master of horses", I hope)

[Arod]

Thanks Turoch. I had forgotten about the fact that he rode bareback... I suppose I was focusing a wee bit too much on the color of the horses... LOL...but I'm sure he had his reasons for casting the horses as he did too... I really shouldn't be too judgemental over such a small thing. They probably had Legolas riding with a saddle and bridle because (this is a guess) Orlando Bloom was not a skilled rider. In that case he would've been more likely to fall off rather than stay on (it looks easy but it's pretty complicated if your not used to it). Not only that but the horse has to be trained to respond to a rider without a saddle or bridle so the horse would rely on the rider's signals from his legs to go where he was supposed to. Since Orlando didn't have any extensive riding instructions, that could've been disasterous had he ridden without tack or gave the horse the wrong signal without realizing it. Alas probably falling off and taking Gimli with him. <P>::sigh:: It would've been cool to see though. The horse that was used for Shadowfax was simply perfect. Just as I imagined him to be. <P>Also if I'm not mistaken, Gimli never rode alone... I thought he rode either with Legolas or Aragorn. I could be wrong though. <P>BTW: the horse in my avatar is named Skip Away a champion thoroughbred racehorse. He looked like the horse they used in the movie and I loved this pic of him. He is a firey sort of horse with a lot of personality which is the way I felt Arod would be. Though he is quite tall...LOL...

[Ivorwen]

Coming out of the theatre I was disapointed FOTR was so much better than this one. Like most poeple here I really hated what they did to the characters especially Faramir and Frodo.<P> Didn't like the part with the Ents deciding not to go to Isenguard or the elves at Helm's Deep either. Poor Haldir. Didn't him much anyway<P> And that part with Aragorn falling into the river was just plain stupid. As was the really mean Elrond<P> It was also too messy, jumping back and forth between the storylines and it had no beginning and no end but that was really <BR>P.J.'s fault was it?<P> One thing I don't know if anyone mentioned but didn't they stop way before the book finished? I mean aren't they suposed to go up all those stairs and already meet Shelob by the end. And aren't the rest of the company supposed to be at Isenguard? How long are they going to make Rotk?<P>Even so, I really liked Legolas, Gimli, Sam, Pippin, Merry and Gollum.

[Mintyztwin]

I have now moved past anger to . . . sadness. Thursday morning, I woke up sick to my stomach and crying after having horrible nightmares about TTT. *sigh*<P>However, my opinion has not changed! It does upset me (not nearly as much as I thought it would ) that people who enjoy the movie, are getting really upset at people who were severly disappointed at the movie, such as myself. <P>My mom had a good point in my defense, which is odd, because she isn't a Tolkien fan. "If they bought the rights to the name,and characters, why not buy the right to the story as well?" Good point mom. <P>I've never thought of myself as a "purist" but apparantly, I am!! (Yay!) I can stand interpretation. Interpretation is having 6 year olds fight at Helm's Deep. Interpretation is Gollum's conversation with himself. Interpretation, is how the Ents looked. <P>I can also understand misunderstanding on PJ's part, or anyone else who directs a LotR movie. (When I refer to PJ, I'm refering to EVERYONE on the planning commitee. It's just easier to write "PJ".) Misunderstanding is having Frodo all creepy, and not geting the good side of his change. (What do you expect from a horror movie director?) Misunderstanding is having Gimli be comic relief. (He does have some funny lines in the book.) Misunderstanding is (if you really, really want to stretch it) Saruman physically possesing Theoden.<P>I can also understand changing things for the movie's sake. For example: Showing the Balrog. (I liked that.) Eomer showing up to save Helm's Deep instead of Erkenbrand. Absolutly having to keep elves in. (Although, of course, they COULD HAVE just used Elrohir and Elladen.) <P>I cannot, and will not stand direct deviancy and exact opposites!!! Such as, the Ents saying "no" at the Entmoot!!!! The Ents destroying a dam, instead of building it. Having Faramir march Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath, which doesn't exist!! (Okay, it's a ruin.) Of course, having Faramir march them anywhere is messed up as well. There were several other thing too, but they escape me at the moment. <P>Instead of being very angry now, I am really sad. (I'm kind of working through the various stages of grief.) I was in the middle of reading TTT when I went to see the picture bearing the same name. In fact, I was reading it while waiting in line. I'm glad I was. If you like the movie, I'm happy for you! Much better that, than being miserable! I'm sure Tolkien is just spinning 'round and 'round. <P>This is quite a change for me, because I loved FotR. I watched it 5 times. (I've only been to any theatre 11 times.) I saw the Extended Version. I was waiting with baited breath for a beautiful rendition of TTT on the silver screen. Personally, I'm still waiting.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> He rewrote some major characters, but that in itself doesn't make me mad. Here is what makes me made. I am made becuase PJ's version of Faramir or Theoden now has the same credibility that Tolkien's does in the eyes of the public. I now that many of the people who watch TTT have never read the book and might never read it. In their eyes PJ's Frodo and PJ's Arwen are the real versions of the character and that Tolkien's characters are in some distant second. By puting the book on film he has lent authority to his interpretation and his vision. Now he can claim that his vision is the correct one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree with you Turoch. I already know people who have already, and people who will see PJ's version as the real story. They think that the elves actually did show up to hlms ddep and other stuff like that. Also, they think that they know everything about LotR just because they saw it three times. That makes me really furious. They have absolutely no respect for the books and no intention of reading them. They feel that since they saw the movie, they don't need to read them. They argue that it was the tightest movie they have ever seen and that its the best and its perfect. That is not true at all. Everybody has their opinion, but it is not perfect. Also, I don't know if this is common, but two people I know have started to read TTT after seeing the movie and they say its wrong and that they don't like it. Well, look what you've done you flipping jack*** Peter Jack(***)son. You've just screwed to people's chances for seeing LotR the way it really was, and I don't know how many other's chances you have ruined. As I said before, PJ put in too much of his vision crap and strayed too far from the book. Actually, 'strayed' is such and innocent word, how about 'diliberately ran from' instead. And for the people who do read the books and like them, its hard for tehm to accept the fact that the books version is the way it really happened. I don't know any people who have done this yet, but I'm sure there are some people reading about Helms Deep in the book and asking themselves in a confused fasion, "where are the elves?" And I'm sure it will be very dissapointing to them when they find out what things were really like. Who knows, maybe they'll hate PJ too and curse his name forever for screwing up their LotR experience.<p>[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Helkasir]

twas' a capital movie, bar none. In some ways, the first movie was better, in others, I think the second was better. Hell, I've waited for an entire year, it deserves all hype and fames it gets. The uncool stuff was the elves and faramir. While I see pete's intentions, but the whole elf just make me think "Wow, we lowly mortals couldn't handle it on our own, could we? No, we weaklings would have died, blah blah blah."

[Lush]

Wow, so who died and left certain members of this forum in charge of perserving Tolkien's legacy? <P>Willie, I never thought I'd say this to anyone here, but you ought to try to reign your language in (I know what you're thinking: "look who's talking"). It's hard to take anyone seriously when they're cussing out someone they do not even know personally, and doing it on a cyberspace forum, no less. <P>If you love the books, you ought to take the movies with a grain of salt. No one has taken your copy and torn out the pages. What non-readers of the books take away from the movie is their business; if they choose to, they can read the book and will, hopefully, enjoy it. Otherwise they have just as much right to enjoy the movie and leave it at that. <P>Everyone is here to express their opinions, but throwing the eqiuvalent of a cyber-tantrum over such matters is somewhat laughable.

[Hawkeye]

For starters, I was thouroghly mad on the 18th. In fact, too mad and upset to post anything! I've gotten mostly past the anger now, but i am still completely disappointed and sad. Peter Jackson and staff had a chance to recreate Tolkien's world, the chance of a lifetime, and they blew it. It feels like they changed everything and anything that they felt like! A few of the things that disturbed me the most were: <P>Faramir,Faramir,Faramir!!!! how COULD they????!!!! I looove him (my favorite character besides Aragorn), and they destroyed him! I barely reconized his character. The actor was fine, but he was playing a totally different person then the Faramir i know. That almost makes me want to cry, he was so mixed up. Especially when he forced Frodo to go with him! That was so wrong, I can barely stand to think about it. <P>The dream scenes with Aragorn and Arwen. I didn't like the way they portrayed her in FOTR at all, but i was able to handle it fine. But THIS was just morally WRONG!!!! plus, it didn't make perfect sense, and personally i thought it detracted from the movie in a big way.<P>There was waaaay too many modern touches! It just didn't feel like middle earth to me. They didn't have the spirit of it. In FOTR, there were tons of things they changed; some i was ok with, and others i wasn't. But they still captured the very spirit of Middle Earth close enough to cut it. (I loved FOTR).But in TTT, it just wasn't there! the language was modern, and so was lots of the actions. <P>The part with Theoden being 'possessed' by Saruman. That was awful! Never would have happened. Very disturbing. and when his beard and face all changed? oh, please! i mean, Theoden does start looking younger in the book, but nothing that drastic!in fact, there were a lot of things which i think would have been semi-ok, if they hadn't been overdone! <P>Elrond trying to persuade Arwen to leave middle earth. Uh uh. I dont' think so! I thought he was too stern in FOTR, but i was ok with that. but this? NO! <P>I was especially bothered by the scene where Aragorn basically told Arwen that it would never work out, and she should just leave middle earth. inconceivable!<P>The ents making the wrong desicion! i was fine with the way they were portrayed, although i've always thought they looked more like people, but having them make the wrong choice just made them look silly. and then they all appear and go fight when Treebeard sees the trees? no! they don't make quick desicions like that! unrealistic.<P>one of the really sad things is, that they basically had all the right actors, the right sets, the right costumes, the right special effects....and the wrong story.<P>....I could go on and on like this for hours, but i wont'. and yes, i'll admit, there were snatches here and there that i liked, some even that i loved. (for example: Shadowfax was absolutely perfect! mmm, beautiful. i also thought that Wormtongue was good, although he was in all the wrong places. the actor looked just right. ugh! and Sam was right. so sweet and loyal...it was a very nice touch where he said the part about "samwise the brave". and the po-ta-toe scene was spiffy!). but i was really disheartened by the whole thing overall. yes, i will end up going to see it again (maybe even two more times), just to make sure that i give it a fair chance. next time i'm going to attempt to view it just as a movie, not as something connected to the books, or trying to imitate it in any way. that's basically what i did on wednesday, and the shock was just too great. it's probably a good movie, taken apart from the books. but speaking as one who loves the books, as i'm sure most (if not all) of you do, i felt like it destroyed a wonderful story. i just hope that they do a better job with ROTK, although at this point i'm pretty doubtful. It's like Eomer said: "...but do not trust to hope, for it has forsaken these lands." that's what i feel like. all the hope in the books has been throughly squeezed out of the movie, leaving it feeling so dark, so desolate. so....hopeless.

[steve]

one word, Amazing<P>they did deviate from the book alot, but seriously, who cares, the movie was great, i dont mind elves being at helms deep, it was a good battle scene. but i think Smeagol was amazing

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Yeah you're sort of right Lush, but that's just the way we feel about the movie. Sorry about the language it's edited now, but I do have complete sovereigny over my language. Hopefully now you can take me serious. But I do not think it matters whether I personally know him or not. I'm just swearing at him in context of his job, not he himself.<P>I'm not saying that they have to read it, its just that they should have more respect for them since, after all, there would be no movie without the book. And they shouldn't take the movie as the bible of Tolkien. It is and should be the books. The movies are a lot more of PJ's vision of LotR, than it should be. Its fine if he wants to make a movie about it, but he should say its his version of it if he was going to change it that much. He said he was going to follow the books as closely as possible and he didn't. That's one reason I lost a lot of respect for him. I just hope when he chose well on putting RotK together because whether I will acknowledge him as a great director or not will depend on that.<P>They do have every right to enjoy it. I'm not angry at them for liking it. I'm just angry at those types that like the movies that I mentioned. I also have every right to be furious at those types though. Anyone can enjoy the movie but they should have some respect for the books.

[Aragorn Husband of Arwen]

I've read TTT, oh about 5 or 6 times (learn something new everytime I read it). Anyway, this movie departed from the book more than FOTR, but it still was a good movie. I loved it, better than FOTR. I plan to see it a couple more times. <P>I had only one thing I didn't like: no Boromir. I expected at least a flashback.

[Lush]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But I do not think it matters whether I personally know him or not. I'm just swearing at him in context of his job, not he himself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Swearing is sometimes an integral part of expressing ourselves, but swearing heavily on this forum goes against its climate and image. And while you have a right to be displeased with Peter Jackson, please rememberer that he is not a caterer to you, nor to me, not even, in many ways, to Tolkien. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm not saying that they have to read it, its just that they should have more respect for them since, after all, there would be no movie without the book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>"Respect" by itself is a very vague term. Are you perhaps jealous that Peter Jackson's star will eclipse Tolkien's? For some people, maybe so. But why worry yourself over "some people"?<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And they shouldn't take the movie as the bible of Tolkien.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Oftentimes people see a movie to have a bit of fun. "TTT" is perfect for that. Every once in a while this fun will translate into a deeper interest, in which case the literature might be taken up. That's what happened to me last December. I saw the movie, thought it very cool, and decided to read up on those Hobbits and Elves and big blood-shot eyes. But if I hadn't, it would not necessarily mean that I would automatically assume Peter Jackson's interpretation to be "the bible." How can a movie be "a bible" anyway? <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I also have every right to be furious at those types though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Fury is not very productive, is it? It just makes everyone tired in the end. I hate to see the Movie forum dissolve into a complaining contest over the next month, especially if the complaining is not even entertaining. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Anyone can enjoy the movie but they should have some respect for the books.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Who says they don't? Nowhere in today's media have I so far read a comment such as "the movies improved on an otherwise boring/stupid/slow/convoluted/etc. story." I do not doubt that thought has crossed somebody's mind, but I think that sitting here and making each other upset over this is making Tolkien readers look like a bunch of reactionary dweebs. We have the right to gripe at the changes, but let's do it in a manner that makes for fun discourse, not "ooh I hate you forever PJ!"

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I already know people who have already, and people who will see PJ's version as the real story. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I don't know if this is common, but two people I know have started to read TTT after seeing the movie and they say its wrong and that they don't like it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I'm just angry at those types that like the movies that I mentioned <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Those are the people I am refering to when you said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Who says they don't? Nowhere in today's media have I so far read a comment such as "the movies improved on an otherwise boring/stupid/slow/convoluted/etc. story." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>And please get it right this time. I do not want to take the time to re-explain it to you again.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> but swearing heavily on this forum goes against its climate and image. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If you think that is swearing heavily, you have a lot to learn. I could have done so much more your eyes would have burst in disbelief. But I try to keep it down and while you think that goes against the climate and the image of this thread, I disagree. It doesn't go against, it only widens it. It shows how diverse some people are and shows a degree of what they feel. The swearing is bleeped anyways so you shouldn't mind it. I hope that you appreciate my effort to keep it down, but if it went against the climate/image, then estelyn would have done something about it. If it did go against the climate, then it would be outlawed and not censored. So if you still think that it goes against the climate/image, then talk to estelyn. If you both feel that way and you outlaw it all together, then that's fine and I have no objection.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "Respect" by itself is a very vague term. Are you perhaps jealous that Peter Jackson's star will eclipse Tolkien's? For some people, maybe so. But why worry yourself over "some people"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Respect means to feel or show esteem for; to honor. Esteem is to regard as of high order; think of with respect; prize. Honor is esteem; respect; reverence. Reverence is a feeling of profound awe. If you want to go further, then you look it up. Synonyms of respect are honor, heed, value, admire, heed, and esteem. It is not vague. If you can't understand what respect is then I mean respect as in recognizing the books significance and contribution with the movies. Think about it like this. You can disagree with your parents and not like them. You can find them boring and stupid, but you still respect them for bringing you into this world. So the movies are kind of like children of the books. They didn't turn out exactly like the books just like children don't turn out exactly like their parents, but there are the similarities. I don't really worry about it, I just get really furious when I hear people say certain stuff like that. I can't help it, its just the way I feel. And one of the reasons that I feel that way is because I have to see them about 5x a week. And most of them talk about it everyday so that's how often I have to hear about it. I just think its wrong, thats all. I'm sure there are some things in life like that. You get all riled up over it even though you don't have to. And if nothing like that ever happens to you, then good for you and you're very lucky. I am not jealous becauseI think that it won't eclipse us. It might try to get in the way, like a fog, and cloud it, but it won't eclipse it. And even if it did, there is no way I'd feel jealous. I'd feel angry and furious, but not jealous.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> How can a movie be "a bible" anyway? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It was an exaggeration. What I mean is that some people see the movies as a word for word account of what really happened. If they are this way and they become LotR fans, then they use the movies as basis for their LotR obsession as christians use the bible as the basis for their religion.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Fury is not very productive, is it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't. Fury is a raw emotion that people felt, and that I felt. It doesn't matter if an emotion is productive or not, that won't stop you from feeling it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It just makes everyone tired in the end. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It doesn't make me tired. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I hate to see the Movie forum dissolve into a complaining contest over the next month, especially if the complaining is not even entertaining. <BR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>We are saying how we feel and why. So if complaining were not allowed, then this thread would be empty and therefore onesided. And if you don't like to hear complaining, then leave this thread and stop complaining yourself you hypocrit. If this were a "complaining contest", then everyone would be complaining, which everyone is not. And it does not matter if someones complaining is entertaining or not. I don't care if your posts are entertaining or not, so your posts would be a lot less than 1218 if they were based on whether they were entertaining or not. These threads are here to say how you feel and what you think about the topic, not on entertainment. So if thats what you're looking for then you shouldn't come here. And lucky for you, the movie forum will not dissolve into a complaining contest. If you think that there are that many people out there that disagree with the movie, then that shows how little do. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think that sitting here and making each other upset over this is making Tolkien readers look like a bunch of reactionary dweebs. We have the right to gripe at the changes, but let's do it in a manner that makes for fun discourse, not "ooh I hate you forever PJ!" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Not everything is fun or will be. And I guess we will look like "a bunch of reactionary dweebs" to you a lot. I was upset, like many others, before I came to this thread, and even to this forum. You can't change how we feel and I'm sorry if we are upset, but that's just the way it is.<P>I don't mean for my threads to offend you in any way. If they do, I'm sorry, but those are my views and they won't change because someone is offended or disagrees.<P>I don't hate PJ forever, I just extremley dislike what he has done to TTT.<p>[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Brinniel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It isn't even complaining. People are saying how they felt on their first impression on TTT. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>complain- 1. to claim or express pain, displeasure, etc 2. to find fault; declare annoyance 3. to make an accusation; bring a formal charge<P>People may be saying their opinion, but that does not mean they are not complaining. And I don't think expressing opinions is wrong. Everyone has a right to do so. So, I'm sorry if anyone misunderstood me. What I meant was that I fear that certain topics will be overly discussed throughout the next year, such as Faramir. I remember seeing the same topics on certain parts of FOTR being repeated over and over again, which can be quite frustrating, and soon enough I do stop reading them. Go ahead and post your opinions of the movie, but do not repeat the same thing five times over. We heard you the first time. And six months later, don't make a new thread on "the darkening of Faramir;" post in the old ones instead.<P>And yes, I do admit that I'm guilty of "complaining," as everyone does this time to time. But I always try not to overpost the same thoughts. Also, I'm not accusing anyone in particular of doing this, I'm just saying that I've seen it happen one too many times.<P>People who are upset about the movie, perhaps you should give it a second chance. After giving it time, maybe you will end up appreciating it. I know you are upset about all the changes, but for every change there is a reason. And if you had been reading spoilers, then half of these changes you were already warned of ahead of time. I'm sure nobody could've expected the movie to live up exactly to the book. <BR>Plus, the scenes that were changed or deleted can be a good thing. They allow you to continue to be creative and let you use your imagination to visualize those particular scenes from the book. <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you don't like to hear 'complaining' then leave. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Are you actually ASKING me to leave? Perhaps not in direct form, but that's certainly how it feels. If so, you should not take my comments (or anyone else's) so harshly. My post was not meant to offend, and I apologize again if it did, but even so, if you cannot respond to others in a nicer manner, the road through life will be rough (like it isn't already).<BR>And the reason I don't leave is because I wish not to. I'm not going to let a few several threads or comments chase me away. I enjoy this site. I was just skimming over a few threads on people's opinions of TTT (definately NOT expecting such terrible comments) and felt it necessary to post. <BR>I just would like to know why everyone has to be so negative. As often as I can, I try to stay positive. And trust me, it keeps you from being in a foul mood.

[Lhunbelethiel]

If I were an Ent I would give TTT 2 branches up. <P>*cough* Okay, anyway, I think that if these movies are changing people's own personal mind's-eye picture of the story of the Lord of the Rings that you read, and you can't separate the book from the film, then maybe your imagination needs some work. I say this with all due repsect to some of my fellow BarrowDowners who are hysterical about how much they hated the changes from the book to the movie. Really, you have our own ideas of what people/places/things/events were like in the book, so don't let one man's own vision threaten yours. LOTR should not be expected to be adapted scene for scene in film format. To demand that it be completely faithful to the book is greedy. This was Peter jackson's vision and he owed us nothing. We are lucky that he was brave enough to make the films let alone to change what some people think is gospel. (huge fan of the books though I am, you have to be realistic.)<P>I was a little surprised by the changes but I trust PJ to maintain the spirit of the trilogy. I also trust myself to remember what I thought it would be like, and not to fault someone for not being psychically in my head in order to transfer it to the big screen. : :<P><BR>

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Oops...I realized it actually was complaining when I was looking it up in regards to Lush's thread. That's why I didn't say it wasn't complaining. Yeah, I was wrong, I was hoping no one would notice but oh well.<P>Sorry if I was a little harsh. I actually meant it at the time, but now what I mean is that if you don't like complaining, then don't complain about it. Sounds wierd, but thats what I meant.<P>We will give it a second chance, I'm sure. I thought that it was a good movie, but there are things about it that make me very angry and disapointed. People often critcize and complain because they can't accept something. We can accept the good parts about it so we don't really talk about it. With the bad parts and the changed parts, we're still in denial. But think about it, its only been about three days. We will give it time, but right now it hasn't been long enough for some of us, so just try to be patient. As for complaining, its discussing how we felt, and in turn, its using this thread kind of like an outlet for our anger and frustraion. Right now things are really tense. It will calm down over time. But there are some, actually a lot, of things I think that we will never get over. To name a few, faramir, the elves at helms deep, and Gimli the comedian.<P>Sorry for being so harsh and sorry for being offensive. I'd like for everything to be happy here. We necessarily aren't really mad at each other, we're actually mad at the way the movie turned out. I just get so angry sometimes. <P>Oh yeah, Lhunbelethiel, PJ's vision doesn't threaten mine. It actually threaten's the views of people who are being introduced to LotR through the movies. I just feel sorry for the people who will have trouble reading LotR because of conflicting changes between the books and the movies. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This was Peter jackson's vision and he owed us nothing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Actually he does. He owes us what he promised, and we still haven't gotten it. He said that he would follow the book as closely as he could. He didn't. He made a lot of unnecessary changes. It was even foreshadowed in FotR. Like with Arwen. That wasn't necessary at all. About leaving out the barrow downs, the old forest, and tom bombadil, I could see that. It doesn't necessarily relate to Frodo, or the ring, but niether did Arwens adapted role. Oh well, what's done is done. I just hope, no, pray that RotK will fare better.<p>[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Túroch]

Well there's been a lot of quoting going on. Lush and Willie you both have good arguments and good ideas. However, I tend to agree more with Willie on this. I'll quote just a little, but i'll try not to pick your post apart. Lush you said,<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you love the books, you ought to take the movies with a grain of salt. No one has taken your copy and torn out the pages. What non-readers of the books take away from the movie is their business; if they choose to, they can read the book and will, hopefully, enjoy it. Otherwise they have just as much right to enjoy the movie and leave it at that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well that is partly true. Why should I care what the public thinks about the books. Well here is why in my view. I try (and i'm not always sucessfull) to think of the public as millions of people just like me in sentience (sp?), but with different upbringings, morals, backgrounds, views, likes, dislikes, and even tastes. Now that is kind of a weird subject, but it suffices to say that I try to sympathize with the non-reading majority. I realy enjoyed the LotR and especially TTT. This wonderful experience I had when I was reading it was a joy, as many here can atest to. Now by viewing PJ's TTT before the book, that experience is destroyed or at least somewhat mared, in my eyes at least. This movie does not create the literary joy of Tolkien, it prevents it or at least some of it. This is almost anti-literary joy, because it destroys something that might have been. Now, pardon me for assuming the public would have enjoyed the book at all or would be hampered by the viewing of PJ TTT. I am only extrapolating expericens from the only person I compleatly know, myself. So it might be one messed up view of the public and the Tolkien literature but, thats the risk I have to take. I want the public to know what The Two Towers really was like, and not let them assume that PJ's version is the correct one. Now many people will probably realize that they wre books first and the movie is just "derived" fromthe books, but still if that is all the public sees of Tolkien, it's a small step for them to assume that TTT is correct Tolkien. I have good friends of mine whom, it saddens me greatly to hear them ragging on about the weakness of the Rohirrim or the cool elven archers at Helms Deep. They will probably never read the book and this vision will be what they think Tolien is. True, why does what other people think Tolkien is bother me. Well it bothers me when my sister keeps putting PC's down. (she's a Mac lover through and through). It bothers me when people argue that the bible is a book of lies. It also bothers me when people think that PJ's version of the movie is the right one. Not that it was the first one (it easy to prove that the books came first, but being the right "version" has nothin to do with wich was made first), but that people say it was the right one. Now true, a lot more angry when people threaten the Bible then I am when people threaten the LotR, but it is a helpfull axample. No one has torn the pages out of my copy of TTT, instead they made the story in those pages less real for many who will read it. That is why I worry for those "some people" as you call them. They are people who might of had that wonderfull enjoyment of Tolkiens work, but now that enjoyment turns to ash. It doesn't take very much to imagine how the movie can detract from the book. <P>I could take it with a grain of salt. When you look at the big picture, his changes aren,t so bad. But when you back up to see the big picture a lot of thing aren't very important. When you back up a lot of the scene is lost. One of our finest presidents said, "Radicals chnage the world". It is true that PJ hasn't murdered anyone or done any huge crime. But if we want him to stick as close to the book as he can we have to fight for every change we begrudge him. His wandering from plotline shows more then just the normal conversion from book to screen. We know he can put up a fairly close story like he did in FotR. It shows that he thinks that these changes will make the movie sell better and thats these help make the story more "better". Better being a story that the average audience jaded by action flicks and soap operas will enjoy more. Tolkien just wanted to tell a good story. He didn't alter it to fit his aduience. <P>I asloe agree with Willie when he says that we aren't angry at PJ perasy, but at his actions. Sort of hate the sin, love the sinner. It's not really that we hate him either. I'm just very dissapointed and you now what I feel a little betrayed. Here I was waiting for this movie for a whole year (maybe a bit more, it was my favorite book). I had no reason to think it was going to be bad. The first movie was great, it stuck close and that is all I wanted, close but not constricting. And what does he give me. He gives me this. It's like getting socks on christmas or a stationary set for your birthday. (except for the fact that PJ's TTT is a lot less usefull then stationary). I was ready for a great movie, instead TTT knocked the wind out of me and punched me in the bean bag. (figuratively of course). Tricksy, false...as others have said.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Everyone is here to express their opinions, but throwing the eqiuvalent of a cyber-tantrum over such matters is somewhat laughable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Quite true. Throwing a fit isn't a good way to debate your point. However, I really don't think that many of us have been throwing fits. Agitated posts yes, fits, well hopefully not.<P>Mintyztwin and Haweye, your quite right on those points. But don't linger on the mistakes to much. It leaves me feeling depressed. Help me find a way to assure that stuff like that doesn't happen in RotK.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The uncool stuff was the elves and faramir. While I see pete's intentions, but the whole elf just make me think "Wow, we lowly mortals couldn't handle it on our own, could we? No, we weaklings would have died, blah blah blah." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Helkasir, you hit the nail on the head. If any of the changes really bug me this is it. The Rohirrim are really good warriors, why can't PJ realize this.<P>Well that my two cents, and I wont be upset if it doesn't make any cents, it is pretty late here.

[Brinniel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Right now things are really tense. It will calm down over time. But there are some, actually a lot, of things I think that we will never get over. To name a few, faramir, the elves at helms deep, and Gimli the comedian.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well, I have to say that I agree with that one. Except for the Gimli part. That one may take longer to get over, but I think it eventually will. PJ just wanted some sense of humor. Though after seeing TTT, I found Gimli funnier and more likable, I still thought of him as a great fighter. And I'm sure in ROTK there will be a new comic relief and Gimli will be more serious.<P>And I'm sure your right about things eventually calming down. I've never seen it so tense here at the Downs!<P>Out of curiousity, was it this tense around this time last year?

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Well, sadly, I wan't here last year. So I can't tell you.<P>I thought that GImli was hilarious in the movie. I thought that he was just funny in the book. But I wouldn't mind it so much if it, to me, didn't interfere with aspects of his character. it just made it harder for me to see him as a talented fighting dwarf in the movie, especially when legolas is pulling all kinds of stunts and tight moves while gimli is stuck under two wargs. Legolas kind of outshined gimli, and the way it was in the movie made it look like legolas won the game. But back to the comic-relief. It was a good idea, but PJ overdid it. He just took it too far when he should have toned it down a little or at least spread it over another character. But I am hoping that there really won't be a comic-relief in RotK. After this, I would really like to have it more dramatic and serious. I agree with you that Gimli will be more serious in RotK.