|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arwen's daughter
Half-elven
Aug 12 2008, 9:29pm
Post #1 of 70
(1322 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What are your complaints with PJ's adaptation?
|
Can't Post
|
|
What are your problems with LOTR as an adaptation? The changes that really irk you. The changes you can't abide no matter how many times the reasoning is explained to you.
It's been almost 5 years since ROTK was released and we've had a lot of new members join since then (especially lately). I thought it might be interesting to ask this question again. Sort-of an "airing our dirty laundry" thread, if you see what I mean.
My big quibble is still Denethor. In the books he was a noble man led astray who still had the mental capacity to light the beacons and evacuate his city. He went a little crazy at the end, but died a semi-noble death. There was no need to turn him into a cardboard cut-out of a villain so that Gandalf and Pippin could look more heroic. Movie-Denethor was melodramatic and clearly both insane and evil. And his flaming run off the top of the city was just plain ridiculous.
My LiveJournal
My Costuming Site
TORn's Costume Discussions Archive
August Screencap of the Day Schedule
|
|
|
Lunamoth
Rohan
Aug 12 2008, 9:40pm
Post #2 of 70
(903 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Legolas the Strong Silent Type
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They took away all the Elf's lines. And poems and songs. Okay, maybe the songs wouldn't have worked in translation, but they could have given him more lines.
Luna's LJ
Annals of Elewir
|
|
|
Blu Falcon
Bree
Aug 12 2008, 10:27pm
Post #3 of 70
(863 views)
Shortcut
|
It would've been cool to see a few hobbits roasting over an open fire. Yummy.
But I suppose that probably wouldn't have really fit in the grand scheme of things in the film, so we're left with what we've got in the extended edition DVD and the brief glimpse of enslaved hobbits had Frodo failed in his tasks. Perhaps a super-extended edition could've been made specifically for DVD release, where fans could've seen things such as the extensive search for Gollum, how he was tracked to Mirkwood, eating small game and infants, how he was eventually drawn south towards Mordor and was captured and tortured. What fun!
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner." - Cormac McCarthy
(This post was edited by Ataahua on Aug 13 2008, 1:14am)
|
|
|
Kyriel
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Aug 12 2008, 10:34pm
Post #4 of 70
(914 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not that I'm anti-PJ or anything, but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I really did love the movies, but there is one thing that still bugs the heck out of me even, as you say, five years later: Frodo sending Sam away. That is so not what Frodo and Sam's relationship is about.
Those left standing will make millions writing books on the way it should have been. --Incubus
|
|
|
bodo_parkour
Registered User
Aug 12 2008, 11:18pm
Post #5 of 70
(853 views)
Shortcut
|
The whole 'elves at helms deep' thing. I think the film would have done perfectly well without it.
|
|
|
weaver
Half-elven
Aug 12 2008, 11:40pm
Post #6 of 70
(872 views)
Shortcut
|
Which was also Tolkien's main complaint about his tale, IIRC!
I'm not much of a complainer, but I can say this...
I wanted to see all those things we only glimpsed in the trailers, but which never made the final cut...
And some of the things we know were filmed, but which have never surfaced, like Faramir and Eowyn's wedding...
And somethings that they wished they could have filmed, but couldn't, like Tom Bombadil and Barrow Wights and the Scouring...
And things only hinted at in the books, like the fighting that was going on in other parts of Middle Earth...
And things the filmmakers implied but didn't show, like what Sam really said or did to Rosie that got such a reaction out of the rest of the guys...
Yep, put me down for the super deluxe edition which takes a full week to watch!
Weaver
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Aug 13 2008, 12:22am
Post #7 of 70
(838 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm with ya, weaver! Although the one thing I would complain about...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
is "Arwen is dying." But out of 3 movies, that one complaint is minimal. Yes, "Sam go home" was not wonderful, but he'd already set that up with the scheming and tricksey way Gollum had already been trying to drive a wedge between them. We might have had to lose the elven bread-crumb set up, and I quite enjoyed that.
Hanging out with the Lonely Isle elves.
|
|
|
Idril Celebrindal
Tol Eressea
Aug 13 2008, 1:41am
Post #8 of 70
(863 views)
Shortcut
|
I initially thought of making a detailed list of changes that I didn't like. But then I realized that the vast majority of them revolved around someone acting out of character. That's my biggest problem with PJ's adaptation. Not the stuff he cut, not the stuff he reshuffled and compressed, not some of the more pointless additions -- it was when PJ and the scriptwriters' characterization was totally inconsistent with Tolkien's. Aragorn's overdone reluctance, Theoden's bitterness at Gondor, Elrond's bitterness at the failures of Men, Denethor's overblown insanity, Frodo sending Sam away at Cirith Ungol, Galadriel's radioactivity, Gimli's buffoonery ... all of these things detracted from the adaptation. And I don't think they were necessary.
We're discussing the BBC Lord of the Rings Radio Play on the Movie Discussion - LOTR board.
With caffeine, all things are possible.
The pity of Bilbo will screw up the fate of many.
|
|
|
Salty Coqui
Rivendell
Aug 13 2008, 2:22am
Post #9 of 70
(820 views)
Shortcut
|
I missed The Sons of Elrond.
Well all movies have a budget and that does not allow for movies that could possibly be ten hours long. And a pair of (what I imagined to be) hottie twins would have taken away from Legolas. I do like the way Orlando talks but I'm glad he didn't sing! Admit it, sexy sells tickets and dvds. (Note: I deny that I am drooling over Legolas at this time. )
I'm sure there is some other stuff I'm not happy about, and I'll recall them later, but when I'm about to groan I try to remember, this is an adaptation. Dear Mr. Tolkien did not write a screen play. I certainly hope he's resting in peace!
|
|
|
Elven
Valinor
Aug 13 2008, 2:43am
Post #10 of 70
(822 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Im with you weaver as well ...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It was too short ...
I wished the foresight - and the money had been available to cover LOTR in its entireity ... adapted of course, but included some of the things that weren't there - the Scouring of the Shire ... Tom and Goldberry ....
I dont believe that the film which wasn't used is not still around ..
I always hope one day they will put together all the things we missed that they filmed.
But then again, I really am not complaining about this .. I loved the movies ... still do.
Cheers
Elven x
Were off to Hobbiton finally!
Tolkien was a Capricorn!!
Russell Crowe for Beorn!!
|
|
|
ElanorTX
Tol Eressea
Aug 13 2008, 3:47am
Post #13 of 70
(807 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree with Idril about the characters
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Also some infelicities of writing, such as when Frodo asks Sam, "Why do you run him down like that?" The slang is jarring.
I think the TORnado who compared the movies to fanfic presented a useful viewpoint. Imho PJ did an excellent job of bringing Middle-earth to life, but his treatment of the story of the Quest needs improvement.
ElanorTX
"I shall not wholly fail if anything can still grow fair in days to come."
|
|
|
xy
Rohan
Aug 13 2008, 7:45am
Post #14 of 70
(801 views)
Shortcut
|
First of all, I liked all three movies and really loved the visual side of them. What lacked was the character develpoment and some major things omitted. In order of annoyance for me:
- sappy overlong ending, and dropping Saruman and Scouring of the shire. just end it with Aragorn's wedding and Grey havens instead
- one completely changed up character per movie: Gimli, Faramir and Denethor
- events that have no base in the story (tossing the dwarf joke, Legolas surfing, Elves in Helm's Deep...)
- the cop-out ending with Army of the dead win in Pelleanor Fields
and less so
- overblown Aragorn role (I didn't even mind Arwen as much)
- some bad writing cliches ("I knew you'd find me, Merry" or "there's some good in this world left fighting for" - admiteddly saved by Astin's delivery)
What I also liked was the timeline changes (ie Boromir dying in movie 1, palantir and Pippin in movie 3 etc...) and Jackson wisely made Helm's Deep the climax of Two towers.
(This post was edited by xy on Aug 13 2008, 7:50am)
|
|
|
Kelvarhin
Half-elven
Aug 13 2008, 8:26am
Post #15 of 70
(783 views)
Shortcut
|
we can all hope for a Super Deluxe Edition as the 10th Anniversary release   Wouldn't that be cool?
Valinor, O Valinor
Andavë yányë hyarya
Tumna yá nyèna minya fëa
An Valinor, lissë Eldamar
Kelvarhin's Universe~~~~~~~Laerasea's Travelling TORn Journal
In the land of TORnadoes...where the brilliant play (with thanks to grammaboodawg :) )
Is TORn...Is Good
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
Aug 13 2008, 9:07am
Post #16 of 70
(833 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Present complaints, as opposed to first-time jolts
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The changes I feel bad with are not the ones which shocked me at my first watching; with most of those I have come to terms, after thinking a bit about it (helped by comments I've read on a certain website):
I have no problem at all (now) with the detour through Osgiliath, or Arwen's near leaving (and I think the 'dying' part was essential to that); I can live with "go home Sam", understand while remaining annoyed with Treebeard's initial refusal to help, and less of both with the Elves at Helm's Deep.
And I like Theoden and Elrond as they were portrayed in the movies, and have no problem with Galadriel or Aragorn, and defintely not with Gimli.
My complaints are: - Denethor. I absolutely second you in that.
- The Orcs. I see no need in creating Lurtz as a upgraded killing-machine, while the of orcs who were in the books - Ugluk and Grishnakh became mere clowns, while Gorbag and Shagrat were degraded even more. With the exception of Gothmog, they became hardly more than small-scale trolls.
- The timeline. Not an adaption issue, but while Tolkien was meticulous with it, PJ and crew just ignored this simple question. The timeline makes absolutely no sense - Gandalf couldn't ride to Isengard and back, even if he only left Saruman a card, in the week in takes the Hobbits to get to Bree (and the movie suggested it was only two days!); The Rohirrim could never muster and ride to Minas Tirith at the time it took the Morgul-force to get to the Pelennor Fields; Aragorn couldn't make it from Erech to Pelargir (unhorsed!) in a night; Haldir and his Elves - well, that could be explained somehow. The most jarring is Bilbo's mentioning the date while writing his book - which given that the time between his leaving and Frodo was minimized to a year at the most, makes the whole story sixteen years too early in M.E. history!
- For a single scene - Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch-king, in the EE. Not becuase of the result (I wonder ainurolorin hasn't yet responded to this, but I disagree with him on that account) - but having it on the walls and not at the Gate, while the Gate is broken and there is fighting in the streets, and missing out the cock crying - made one of the most dramatic and symbolic moments of the book to another spectacle, unresolved and unexplained (adding thirty seconds of dialogue could have remedied that) - and eventually one which was dropped out of the TE. I also wished Mount Doom to be more like the book - but as I know many people didn't like the resolution which Tolkien wrote, I think the scene in the movie isn't bad.
"One day I may reward you, I or those who remember me" - Frodo
|
|
|
One Ringer
Tol Eressea
Aug 13 2008, 11:50am
Post #17 of 70
(782 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tom Bombadil would've been cool, as well as Samwise the Brave . . .
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I understand why they cut these things, but Tom Bombadil would've been an interesting part to see on the big screen. It would've left people wondering what the hell it was all about, but I would've loved it.
I also think having an actual moment where Sam decides to take the Ring for himself would've been neat for his character, but the way they kind of put it in right before he gives it back to Frodo, it turned out pretty good.
Really, there's no complaints from me, sure, it veered from the book in multiple places, but that's what made it so much fun, it gave us something new, and interesting. Still, it would've been great to have some of these sequences in there.
Oh, and like weaver said, it wasn't long enough.
|
|
|
Advising Elf
Rohan
Aug 13 2008, 1:04pm
Post #18 of 70
(800 views)
Shortcut
|
...leaving out Sam's temptation by The Ring and his overcoming it. IMnsHO this is just as important to the themes of the story as is Frodo's inability to destroy The Ring. There are lots of examples of pride bringing about destruction (Boromir, Denethor, and Saruman), but this was the only example of humility saving someone. It's one of my favorite parts of the story, and BTW, the only good thing about Rankin-Bass's (accent on *rank*) ROTK.
This was the reuslt of a PJ & Co. addition: that the Nazgûl would know when The Ring was being worn. That's something I never liked either.
|
|
|
Elwen
Lorien
Aug 13 2008, 1:37pm
Post #19 of 70
(873 views)
Shortcut
|
|
*uses her soapbox to climb onto the high horse* Ahem...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Arwen's Daughter, thank you for posting this. I am one of the newly returned ones and was dying to get this off my chest, but didn't want to come back in with bow blazing, so to speak. I'm reading LotR right now, and as it's been a months since I've seen the movies or read the book, I'm coming at it relatively fresh. (Well, as fresh as possible.) I'll try to put my myriad thoughts into a comprehensible list. In general, the sins of addition irritated me more than the sins of omission.
Okay, after writing this, I realized it came out super-long. Sorry about that. (Admins, if it's a problem let me know.) Thanks for your patience.
Fellowship was by far the most faithful adaptation of the three, and also my favorite of the films.
I really liked all of the times small vignettes were added to show relationships between characters, such as Boromir and the young hobbits, or Aragorn and Legolas.
I did not miss Tom B. I enjoy the character, but I don't think he would have translated well. We as devoted fans still debate and are at times confused by him. Could you imagine the average non-fan moviegoer's response?
The wizards' duel just looked cheesy.
I minded the absence of Glorfindel and Arwen taking his place a little bit. However, I was willing to accept the reasoning behind the change and just take guilty pleasure in watching a she-elf outride all 9 Nazgul.
Compression of the time between the Farewell Party and setting out didn't bother me either. It's hard to drive home the urgency of the matter to a movie audience when you bide your time for almost 20 years.
There were very few changes that stick out in my mind as really awful in this film. I thought the concept of "Nuclear Galadriel" was spot on, but the effect looked cheap. I liked Lorien and it's inhabitants better in the daylight. The nighttime lighting just seemed too menacing.
Two Towers felt like after slogging through the first book, the production crew picked up the cliff's notes for this one.
Elves at Helm's Deep? There's no point. As an addendum to this, I can't watch the final Helm's Deep battle without seeing Arwen's purple-clad arm swinging around in the background behind Eomer. While I'm glad they changed their minds, that they even filmed it in the first place shows just how off they were in understanding the characters and story.
Faramir. From beginning to end, this character was so badly adapted. He would never, ever have even started taking Frodo and Sam back with him. The mishandling of Faramir irritated me all the more because Tolkien said he felt such an affinity for the character.
Aragorn's little tumble off the cliff with the hyena-warg? There's enough suspense, you don't have to create more. Likewise, there's no point in the "Arwen is setting out for the Havens." She would not have, and frankly could not have. At that point, she had already chosen. I love the conversation between her and Elrond, it brought me to tears the first time, but the result was off.
Eomer is one of my favorite TTT characters and I feel like he got seriously shunted aside. Many of his best lines were given to Theoden, who I thought came off as slightly less likeable in the films than in the books.
RotK made me feel like PJ and crew said "Great, we've got the fans hooked, they're going to see this movie no matter what. Now I can make the film I want to make, story aside."
The locations for RotK were all spectacular. (Except the paths of the dead, but that's an issue in itself.) Visually, most people, places, and things, were perfect.
But....
Wizard kebab anyone?
Gollum's little lembas trick with Sam. Please. That's one of the most cliche villain moves there is, and Sam would never have left Frodo, even in the ludicrous event that Frodo believed Gollum over him and dismissed him.
Arwen is dying because she's linked to the ring? When? How? Why? Again, there's already enough riding on the Ring's destruction. We don't need to fabricate more. Also, why have Elrond ride down with Anduril? It would have been just as easy to do all this in FotR. Picture if you will, moving, "She stays for you she belongs with her people." to FotR. Elrond can flat out tell Aragorn that he's not marrying her off to anyone less than the King of Gondor. For that Aragorn will need the king's sword. Cue the smiths.
The Paths of the Dead (Or Aragorn Jones and the Temple of Doom) The Oathbreakers were cool to look upon, but the whole scene with them attacking and the skull avalanche. Just silly and fake looking.
I would have liked to see the Scouring of the Shire, it was a key part of the story and relates it to everyday life, as the Shire and the damage that a handful of greedy people can do is more familiar to most of us than wizards and kings.
Denethor was rather mangled as well. His nobility never really showed, and it was sad. It was also ridiculous watching Gandalf hit him with his staff. (If there are any South Park fans out there, I just envision Gandalf saying in his best Cartman voice, "No Steward that's a bad Steward!" when he does that.)
I too missed a lot of the wonderful things that would have extended the denouement. Eowyn and Faramir's wedding in particular. I also missed Beregond and Borgil, the Prince of Dol Amroth, and other small details that would have been nice, and frankly would have been easy to fit into the movie had not so much time been devoted to special effects, manufactured elf-illnesses, tricksy Gollums, and extended cameos for PJ's kids. (Sorry, they're cute and all, and as a parent of a cute little one, I understand wanting to put them in. But every single movie...for longer than it needed to be...with them looking like obviously the same children....it got tiresome.)
I don't know if it's laughable or telling that the worst adaptation of the three won PJ the Oscar for Best Adaptation. I'm guessing it's rather telling.
To conclude. (Finally.) Thank you to anyone who made it this far. I'm glad I got that off my chest. Overall, I liked the movies and enjoyed them. Fellowship had me so excited and I saw it repeatedly. RotK left me feeling betrayed. I saw it only twice. (Once on Trilogy Tuesday, and then later when I wanted to see it not at the cold chill hour before dawn.)
Still, I'll take my book un-improved-upon thank you very much.
I heard Elwen is out of hiding after 4 years. You didn't see me here.
(This post was edited by Elwen on Aug 13 2008, 1:40pm)
|
|
|
Blu Falcon
Bree
Aug 13 2008, 4:07pm
Post #20 of 70
(780 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I rather liked Sauron as the Flaming Eye looking around like a searchlight...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but maybe it's just me. 
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner." - Cormac McCarthy
|
|
|
Elwen
Lorien
Aug 13 2008, 4:21pm
Post #21 of 70
(773 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Why not? It worked in the animated version....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And we all know how good that one was. *ducks*
I heard Elwen is out of hiding after 4 years. You didn't see me here.
|
|
|
Blu Falcon
Bree
Aug 13 2008, 4:32pm
Post #22 of 70
(786 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Overall I enjoyed the movies...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...as it did a good job of introducing the world of Tolkien to millions who did not know about it to begin with. I applaud Jackson and his team for such an undertaking. I know there were tons of folks who never even read the books, but immediately got into Tolkien's work after they watched the films, so I say they were successful in captivating an audience and introducing the work of Tolkien to a whole new generation. This was never intended just for the die-hard fans. Besides, even if the movies totaled to over 20 hours of viewing time and everything was covered from start to finished, we'd all still find something to complain about.
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner." - Cormac McCarthy
|
|
|
Peredhil lover
Valinor
Aug 13 2008, 6:36pm
Post #24 of 70
(756 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, have to agree with you about Denethor. His character was clearly overdone. I didn't like him in the book, but movie Denethor was a bit too cruel to Faramir, and he looked quite insane as he sat eating while his son rode to his death and poor Pippin was singing. (And I'll not even comment on his table manners ...) And how likely is it that someone already burning is running so far?
I think that is the one change that irks me always.
The other changes aren't that bad, I think.
The Glorfindel-Arwen change at the Ford of Bruinen ... well, my *brain* tells me it was necessary to give Arwen more screen presence and keep the already huge cast down; for movie-firsters or people who haven't read the book so many times it is difficult to keep track of all these people anyway. But my *feelings* keep insisting "But I want Glorfindel!" - quite loud!
That the Ents did need the Hobbits not to get them going, but to understand what was happening to their own forest in the first place never seemed logical. Well, at least it was a success for the Hobbits and showed how they have grown.
Elves at Helms Deep - I can live with that, though I always wondered. I can't believe that all of them died, considering that they were accomplished warriors, particularly in comparison with many of the Men. But where were they after the battle?
What I really missed was the Dúnedain and Elrond's sons coming to Rohan. I had *so* looked forward to the twins! *grumble* I'd gladly have traded that for the 'Arwen dying' part, that I didn't like much, either.
Elrond bringing Anduril didn't make much sense to me, either. Neither did him riding alone - and where vanished he to afterwards?
The change of Faramir's character was surprising, but I can live with it. Particularly since I know the reason for it.
'Sam go home' - weeell. At least I understand why they did it, but for someone who knows the books it seems very unbelievable.
And I'd have loved to see Erkenbrand and Imrahil and Ioreth (okay, *this one* was impossible - she would have taken over the movie!) and Beregond and Bergil and ... and more of Éomer, and the wedding of Faramir and Éowyn.
And finally, I missed the Scouring of the Shire, but I understand why it was cut - it *is* anticlimactic, particularly for the moviegoers-only, even if it shows how the four Hobbits have grown.
I do not suffer from LotR obsession - I enjoy every minute of it.
(This post was edited by Peredhil lover on Aug 13 2008, 6:37pm)
|
|
|
weaver
Half-elven
Aug 13 2008, 7:48pm
Post #25 of 70
(766 views)
Shortcut
|
Reading over everyone's responses so far, when you just read all of the places where things were changed or were omitted, I get a different perception than I do when I'm watching the films. Perhaps it's easier to accept some of these things in context, than when looking at them in isolation?
For the Star Trek fans among us, this discussion brings to mind a Voyager episode, where the ship was broken up into different time frames -- the Captain of the past has to go through the ship to fix the problem, and she gets all of these glimpses of bad things that will happen in the years ahead, without the perspective of living through them. Based on this, she decides that if she can prevent these things from happening, she should. The first officer tells her though that she can't judge their journey based on bits and pieces like this...that she's not getting the whole story or seeing many of the good things that happened despite as well. And so she leaves the timeline intact.
I guess that's how I feel about the films -- the adaptation as a whole works for me, even if I might have liked to see something different in individual aspects of it.
It's interesting, too, to see what the collective sense is on the films as time passes. I wonder how people will respond to this kind of question in a few years, particularly after the Hobbit and bridge films come out and we have something to compare the LOTR trilogy of films to.
Thanks for asking the question again, Arwen's Daughter!
Weaver
|
|
|
|
|
1
