Anything you *dont* like about the LOTR movies?

[drzarius]

Probably the wrong place to post this, but it'd probably get moved here anyways so...

Just got finished watching TTT again and started thinking about the series overall and I came to the conclusion that there's *ALOT* of room for improvement. Especially with regards to the battle scenes. They weren't convincing to me at all. It didn't feel as though any of the main characters were in any danger nor did Jackson really capture the feel of being in a life and death struggle. This is especially apparent in ROTK. And the battle of Helm's Deep was a reaal letdown for me. Wasn't as grand as I imagined reading it. Seems more like an attack on a very small outpost than against a large impregnable fortress. :(

I didn't like how Sauron was protrayed either. (Although it may be perfectly correct. Its been so long since I read the books) From what I can remember he was/is a disembodied spirit. And from what I can recall from reading the book I seem to remember him actually having a prescence that moved about his tower. The Jackson films give the impression of him being nothing more than a giant eye on the top of a tower, easily toppled over and helpless like a tree or something.

I also thought alot of the scenes weren't dark enough, esp. in the marsh scenes with Frodo, Smegol and Sam. A trivial complaint maybe, but there you have it.

Overall I think I like TTT the best. TFOTR was a nice intro, but I like alot of what happens in TTT. ROTK was kinda boring to me. The special effects weren't as good and the score was the worst of the series.

Its kinda like the Empire Strikes Back (Still my most favorite Star Wars movie) of the LOTR series for me. Bigger sfx, a good love themed side plot, an animated main character makes a strong appearance (Yoda vs. Smegol), the forces of darkness make a strong showing and the heroes take a few blows, but manage to hang on.

Oh well, was curious and wanted to vent after watching the movie again.

[LordofKings]

TTT had better effects then ROTK????? and ROTK boring??????

man, thats odd, b/c every other person i talk to says TTT was their least favorite and least entertaining. But we all have opinions, and im not here to question yours:)

my complaints, or RARE dislikes of the films:

FOTR - can't think of anything i don't like (ecept a few faces made by wood that makes him look like hes going to puke)


TTT - rather slow to me. Not slow i mean as in boring, but the editing style was slightly different the FOTR and ROTK and it didn't seem to work as well for me (still TTT is a 9/10 movie for me, best of 2002 IMO)
*also, in TTT, i didn't particularly like TREEBEARD (thought very well done, but i find those scenes slow the film down). And, a complaint of mine, was Merry and Pippen weren't in enough scenes (less comic relief in the film)*

ROTK - can't think of anything i didn't like (but only saw it 3 times, so....)


the battle scenes in ROTK are too amazing to put in words. Helm's Deep, at that time, was the best battle i'd ever seen. I thought it was very well done

[flukeman]

Yeah, actually, there are.

I didn't like where some of the added scenes in TTT:EE were placed (such as the Treebeard saying to Merry "We just finished saying good morning" scene plunked right in the middle of the preparations at Helm's Deep). Some scenes felt like they didn't need to be reinserted.

The opening sequence of ROTK.

The time of day editing inconsistences in ROTK (lighting the beacons, assault on Osgiliath).

I actually liked Helm's Deep better than Pelenor Fields. It was more nitty gritty/in your face. I wasn't as impressed with Pelenor Fields - the whole thing felt rushed and glossed over at the same time.

More things from ROTK - Sauron's "searchlight vision", the WK's death.

ROTK is my least favorite of the 3 actually. FOTR I feel is pretty much perfection. TTT has grown on me and I think it's a great solid film, while ROTK has a few problems in my opinion. A lot of those may be resolved with the EE though.

[The Moose]

only thing that i didn't like was the amount of light in mordor, after seeing it right at the end of TTT

[true fan11212]

There are very few things that I dislike about LOTR, but there are things I dislike about them:

The excessive use of Slow motion
(This is a problem that is shared with The Matrix Reloaded. I can only see someone die in slow motion so many times before it just doesn't work anymore.)

It can get too sappy sometimes
(The whole Strawberries and cream thing in ROTK went a little overboard.)

The Warg battle in TTT
(The battle itself is okay to good, but the CGI is just bad. That sequence was rushed and it shows.)

[Kerry from Cali]

"Anything you *dont* like about the LOTR movies?"


yeah... they're all done now. :p

[poeman]

i would have liked to see micheal jackson as frodo, and danny devito as sam. boy that would have been great

[PsYkOoOoO]

I hate the fact that The Lord of the Rings is perfect in every way.

[Kinjo]

I have a few complaints, most of which involve the utter neutering of Eomer's character. I really wanted to see him fighting along side Aragorn at Helm's Deep and he should have been able to keep at least ONE of his cool lines instead of giving them all to Theoden. Also, I thought Aragorn's exit from the black ships was utter crap. It was such a suspenseful moment in the books and the movies really dropped the ball with it. I have a few other gripes, but they're still my favorite movies of all time.

[Necross]

Do we really need another thread like this. We have enough of these.....

[Tornado]

Originally posted by Kerry from Cali
"Anything you *dont* like about the LOTR movies?"


yeah... they're all done now. :p

Amen to that Kerry . . .

[Brock Landers]

The Dead Army in ROTK
Orlando Bloom("a diversion!")



Other than that, brilliant

[fattybolger]

I am in agreement on some of your points, Fluke... Sauron's "angry lighthouse" routine wore on me, probably because I had him different in my "book vision"...

ROTK seemed like a roller coaster ride...I'm thinking the EE will change the pacing and make Pelenor Fields the "mother" of all battles...right now Helm's Deep is still top battle to me..(and my 13 year old, who runs it daily):eek:

But this almost seems like saying 'Y'know, Mona Lisa seems a little too coy...":D

[UnicornBlood3]

Originally posted by Kerry from Cali
"Anything you *dont* like about the LOTR movies?"


yeah... they're all done now. :p

That's exactly what I was thinking Kerry :cool:

[Necross]

Originally posted by Brock Landers

Orlando Bloom("a diversion!")





You still don't get the context of that line do you? *shakes head* Sad....

[Kerry]

Yeah, since they are done is one thing! I agree with Kerry!

Very few things about the films bothered me...except some of the sappiness did get me a bit on edge. But you know, even with the sappiness, I still cried!!!!! So even though I thought it was corny, it still affected me! I'm a sap, so it's all good!

[fineus fog]

i feel that thes a nearly flawless but in ROTK i get the impression that there was so much work CG etc that some of it was rushed, and though most of the CG work is flawless there are some bits that just stick out like when Aragorn and co leave Edoras theres a great shot of the horses coming down and then this awful shot of Merry on a horse!
And i am in agreement about Helms Deep being the better battle scene-its go so much atmosphere with the rain and sound of thunder, dont get me wrong Pelennor Fields is breathtaking but I personally prefer the more hand to hand combat of Helms Deep-its a bit dirtier and grittier.
Plus I must say that the editing in TTT is great cos Mike Horton is my second cousin (honestly hes my mothers cousin) although that does sound like something Pippin would say.

[dustindame]

The only thing i have in all three films is that Treebeard just really pissed me off sometimes.

[Kerry]

Oh! And yes, totally agree about the whole "diversion" thing...wasn't that practically his only line throughout that whole movie?

[Necross]

Yeah he didn't have a lot, but then again he had even less lines in the ROTK book, I think the only time he talked in the book was with Merry and Pippin in Minas Tirith. And about that line, I think he is just thinking out loud you know what I mean, and it is sad to say that some people in the audience might not have known they were talking about I diversion, i mean seriously you have all been to the theatre....

[thewickedchild]

TTT: I will avoid the obvious Faramir pitfalls... rather, my biggest complaint is the decision of the Entmoot to NOT go to war, then the magically appearing ent army after Treebeard sees the wreckage.

ROTK: Frodo telling Sam to go home... and Sam actually listening. O fall the things they made up, this is perhaps the most frustrating because it simply WOULDN'T happen. Sam would NEVER leave Frodo... he would have perhaps hung out 'in the shadows or something', but he simply wouldn't leave.

The whole Arwen is dying thing is pretty lame... I wish they had just given Aragorn the sword in Rivendell like in the book and avoided this whole disgusting occurence.

In general, the thing I dislike the most is some of the changes they HAD to make, like beefing up Arwen's story and making some characters more complex (Aragorn)/given bigger roles (Pippin), while taking more complex characters and dumbing them down (Denethor), and minimalizing others' importance (Merry!).

Overall though, I can accept most of the changes without grimacing... but I sometimes have trouble excercising... patience while waiting for the EE to come out. :)

[Necross]

I can understand your frustrations with the changes. I really can, I accepted them for the most part, I will say that the only thing that seemed out of place was the Arwen dying thing, its doesn't really bother me, but it also doesn't need to be there, wouldn't she die anyway if they failed? But I mean the whole point of not giving him the sword in FOTR was for character developement in the films. In the book there really was none, Accepted Lordship in FOTR and didn't change. PJ just wanted to show actual developement.

[Kurufinwe]

Changes from book to movie: (Leeched from another forum):

Story: Classic English fantasy tale + Greek epic adventure + war-movie with great character interaction and poetry.
Movie: Medieval-set B-action movie with bad sarcasm and a cheap plot, but a few good special effects (emphasis on "few;") manic-depressive version of "The Wizard of Oz" set on a much smaller scale than the book.

Story Middle-Earth: Ancient Europe.
Movie Middle Earth: Modern New Zealand.

Story Frodo: Most respectable Hobbit in the Shire: stout little fellow with red cheeks, taller than some, fairer than most, perky chap with a bright eye.
Movie Frodo: Stoned, depressed anorexic.

Story Sam: Working-class country hobbit, strong and sturdy, slow but shrewd, fiercely loyal and humble, but appears slow and stupid. Chief investigator for the Hobbiton Conspiracy.
Movie Sam: See "Story Frodo," but perpetually glum; simply nosey.

Story Pippin Took: Heir to the Thain of the Shire, oldest and richest family among the hobbits; carefree adventurer and member of the Hobbiton Conspiracy.
Movie Pippin: Village idiot and bum; mostly comic-relief.

Story Merry: Heir to the Mastership of Buckland and even greater adventurer than Pippin, co-founding member of the Hobbiton Conspiracy.
Movie Merry: Village idiot's side-kick.

Story Treebeard: Most ancient and wise, leader of man-like creatures who slightly resemble trees, having great strength that can break stone, rend earth and crush armies; but also a very kind heart.
Movie Treebeard: Ignorant and selfish, tree-like creatures who slightly resemble men, but who can roll a few boulders into a flimsy dam.

Story Isengard: Great stronghold over a mile wide, surrounding the tower of Orthanc with great walls of stone near the river Isen.
Movie Isengard: Smaller-scale version of the book-Isengard in front of a handy dam that, when broken, will destroy the entire area.

Story Boromir: Capain-General of Gondor, Tall, fair of face, proud and stern of glance, more beautiful in death even than in life; great warrior with marvellous strength. Loves and protects his brother, father and country above all else, and finds the return of Aragorn to be a blessing beyond hope. Tragic hero who falls to temptation but redeems himself by sacrificing his life in fighting hundreds and slaying dozens.
Movie Boromir: Fat, dirty and ugly, falls to a single bowman; detests Aragorn, and only accepts him through insistance of actor Sean Bean. Just plain tragic.

Story Denethor: Numenor's greatest steward, tall, wise and beautiful; has the strength of mind to match wills with Sauron via the Palantir, but is driven to despair over great loss and the lies of Sauron.
Movie Denethor: Suicidal dotard and fool.

Story Mordor: land of shadow, filled with innumerable armies and choked with ash; can darken the skies for hundreds of miles at Sauron's word; crossed by Frodo in two weeks.
Movie Mordor: considerably smaller, can be crossed in a day.

Story Sauron: His skin is black and burning hot, hideous to look upon, four fingers on his left hand; his symbol is a lidless red eye. If he gets the Ring back, he will become so powerful that the world will fall under his evil sway.
Movie Sauron: A lidless red eye. If he gets the ring back? Boromir asks this question but it's never answered.

Story Meduseld: Great golden hall, home of King Theoden, but mocked by Saruman as "a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek."
Movie Meduseld: A thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek-- and don't even have their own drinking-songs, being amazed to learn them from silly hobbits.

Wormtongue: Agent of Saruman who learned the art of bewitchment and persuasion, posing as Theoden's consellor in order him into feeling helpless and hopless while Saruman prepares to attack.
Movie Wormtongue: Grease-paint covered worthless agent, since Theoden is possessed by Saruman and thus has no need for a such a mole.

Story Helm's deep: Great, well-defended ancient fortress of stonework that pleased a dwarf, located within the Deeping Coomb atop the Glittering Caves with room for hundreds.
Movie Helm's deep: Small, mined-out gravel quarry, apparently converted into a "fort" by some bored children.

Story Legolas: Son of the wood-elf king, old and wise, often light-hearted but displays a full range of emotions. Family-friend of Frodo, sent to warn Elrond of Gollum's escape.
Movie Legolas: Peter Pan on Ritalin, flying around with a knife with no expression; somehow knows all about Gondorian heritage, but never heard of Frodo or Gollum.

Gimli: proud dwarf of the Lonely Mountain who distrusts elves but changes entirely into great love for Galadriel; likewise family-friend of Frodo. Strong and tireless.
Gimli: Court-dwarf jester who never heard of Frodo, and detests elves to the bitter end; can barely keep up on long runs.

Story Fellowship of the Ring: Band of adventurers sent to represent the Free peoples of Middle-Earth, with most simply travelling home: kept small and excluding powerful warriors in order to avoid drawing attention while trusting largely to fate.
Movie Fellowship of the Ring: Lousy excuse of an expedition which gets royally pummelled.

Story Saruman: Powerful wizard with a magically persuasive voice who falls to pride and temptation and secretly joins the enemy while seeking the Ring for himself; addicted to pipe-weed, but hates hobbits; appears throughout the story.
Movie Saruman: Count Dooku on a bad-hair day with a "No Smoking" binge ,who gives everything away in the first scene then disappears from the plot.

Story Rhadagast: nature-loving cousin of Gandalf.
Movie Rhadagast: Moth.

Narsil: Carried by Aragorn until re-forged upon undertaking the quest to destroy the Ring and re-named "Anduril;" none can withstand it, and it can break a wall of shields as with a lightning-stroke.
Movie Narsil: Collection of scrap-metal on a wall Rivendell, no special properties other than charming The Pirates of the Carribean.

Story Gondor: Last of the ancient kingdoms of Middle Earth in the great White Mountains (think Swiss Alps) and the Great River.
Movie Gondor: The mountains of New Zealand

Minas Tirith: Huge, near-impregnable city-fortress set on a mountain-side with unbreakable walls and towers of white marble into which no enemy every entered, and the gate-way in which Gandalf faced down the evil Witch-king as he rode in with a flaming sword.
Movie Minas Tirith: Seven-layer birthday-cake placed in some quaint New Zealand mountains and which crumbles from a thrown rock, and into which enemies entered freely while Gandalf cowered in a closet.

Story Shadowfax: Great, fiery horse with the speed of light and hearty hi-yo silver-grey coat.
Movie Shadofax: Mr. Ed back from the glue-factory.

Story Aragorn: Exiled King, and great leader; hardiest man alive, very tall, long, curved nose, high proud cheekbones, skin like ivory, keen eyes in pale stern face and shaggy hair flecked with grey; world's greatest tracker. Even the dead rise to follow him into battle when he calls them. Is never tempted to use the Ring, and plans to accompany Frodo all the way to Mount Doom.
Movie Aragorn: Slobby, unwashed dork with a big nose who passes for questionable comic-relief when getting a sword stuck in his face by a woman, or being french-kissed by his horse; doubts his own ability to resist the Ring (can't blame him there) so much that he abandons Frodo right before the most dangerous part of the journey. Sex-starved sailors wouldn't follow this geek into a free brothel.

Story Gandalf: Great mysterious wizard, stale curmudgeon, and dear friend-- never late except once; quick temper, kind heart, hearty laugh, long nose and bushy eyebrows!
Movie Gandalf: Senile; arrives when he pleases, impassive-- only shows he's alive when he bumps his head like an idiot.

Story Elrond: Fair of face as an elven-lord, strong as a warrior, wise as a wizard, and as kind as summer, and wielder of the greatest of the three great Rings of power.
Movie Elrond: Think "Agent Smith" if he joined the Romulan Empire.

Story Rivendell: Enchanted hidden green valley filled with the High-Elves who live laughing and singing in the trees under the stars, and who dwell in great mansions.
Movie Rivendell: Over-filtered, barely seen landscape in the distant background consisting of a few Gothic-architechtures, and a brick-patio in the foreground, with a few cloned Elves that walk down dirt-paths like stoned models walking on a runway in slow-mo.

Story Shire: Bustling country Victorian-village home of the hobbits, who are quiet folk with hidden abilities and courage who rally to arms when provoked-- AWAKE! AWAKE! FEAR, FIRE, FOES, AWAKE!
Movie Shire: Green-hilled home stolen from the Teletubbies, but inhabited by helpless, cowardly midgets-- FEAR, FIRE, FOES-- FLEE!

Story Bree: Town outside the Shire, about 150 miles from Hobbiton of where friendly Men and Hobbits live together.
Movie Bree: Village next door to Hobbiton with gates that break easily and with no noise, and cowardly inkeepers who leave their doors open and hide when intruders enter despite a full house.

Story Shelob: Evil creature in spider-form, child of Ungoliant, terror of Cirith Ungol.
Movie Shelob: Overgrown house-pest.

Story orcs: twisted elves bred by Melkor in the First Age, immortal and cruel.
Movie Orcs: Uglier version of the green goblin-guards from "The Wizard of Oz" or ape-like beings from the movie "Predator."

Story Nazgul: Think "Nazi Ghoul," Sauron's most terrible servants of great kings and wizards under his command, clearly visible to Frodo in the book.
Movie Nazgul: Jawa-like things who fear water while going up like torches near fire.

Story Arwen: Guinevere + The Virgin Mary.
Movie Arwen: Xena + rock-groupie.

Story Bombadil: Old man of the forest, and most powerful being; marginally essential to the story but important to story-context.
Movie Bombadil: Closest thing to a short stout bearded old man, would be Peter Jackson caught in a blooper-shot.

Story Glorfindel: Elven-lord of a house of princes who died and dwelt in the Blessed realm where he continues to exist, and returned to Middle-Earth in the fight against Sauron; great immortal warior of the Vanyar who can ride openly against the nine, and against the seen and unseen he has great power.
Movie Glorfindel: See "Arwen--" we did in the movie!

[fineus fog]

first post and youve already got your knickers in a knot!!

and whats wrong with my country's spectacular mountains? plus i dont recall modern new zealand lookingl like that unless you go for a long drive.

[Kurufinwe]

Not my work... read again (Leeched from another forum). I Just thing this guy has some valid points.

And I don't remembers offending New Zealand... but its NOT middle-Earth. Tolkien said that Middle Earth was ancient Europe, and that's where it should have been filmed. I'm Sure New-Zealand is a great country, but its not Europe, and not middle-earth.

[bloomluver]

I really liked the landscapes in lotr - can't imagine it being filmed here in Europe. Gondor in the Swiss Alpes..tehe..Clearly someone's never been to the Swiss Alpes.

[Kurufinwe]

Hmmm, maybe not the Alps, but just between Sweden and Norway is a mountain group that’s looks almost identical too the misty mountains...

[fattybolger]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
Not my work... read again (Leeched from another forum). I Just thing this guy has some valid points.

And I don't remembers offending New Zealand... but its NOT middle-Earth. Tolkien said that Middle Earth was ancient Europe, and that's where it should have been filmed. I'm Sure New-Zealand is a great country, but its not Europe, and not middle-earth.

To you...welcome to the forum from another relative "newbie":)

To the object of your leechcraft..."GO BACK TO THE SHADOW!" :rolleyes:

The few "valid" points are swamped in the flood of vitriol...

And is it your opinion that every film must be produced in its original context...you must be disappointed by 90% of the films out there:confused:

[Samwise Gamwich]

Originally posted by drzarius
Probably the wrong place to post this, but it'd probably get moved here anyways so...

>S N I P<



Well to be perfectly honest... ROTK was NOT boring....

About the only things I didn't care much for was mainly in TTT... Over extended scenes of Arwen and Aragorn...
A ludicrous to watch Aragorn go over the cliff....
Treebeards introduction
(The book was much gentler and spoke reams about Treebeard's character... Besides the same orc followed Merry and Pippin into Fangorn who we had previously seen with a Rohirrim spear deep in his back)
But my biggest problem (Which could have been easily corrected upon finishing of TTT EE) was when Aragorn shouts to Legolas... 'What do your Elf Eyes see??' and Legolas says 'The Uruks turn Northeast'....

Go read the book or look at the maps... They turned Northwest!!!
(Biggest pet peeve of all)

[flukeman]

Originally posted by Samwise Gamwich
Besides the same orc followed Merry and Pippin into Fangorn who we had previously seen with a Rohirrim spear deep in his back)

It was the same orc - and the spear was through his side, you can see it sticking out the front of his body when he is chasing Merry and Pip through the forest.

[Elessar504]

Anything you *dont* like about the LOTR movies?

Well, Im a book fan too and I dont like some "hard changes" but as movie fan I love the movies.

[Kerry from Cali]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
Changes from book to movie: (Leeched from another forum):


*snip the part that was filched from a different forum* ::talk about a bunch of bandwidth i'll never get back:: :)

wow. i'm glad i didn't see the same movies *that* guy did.

this part did make me crack up though...

"Movie Elrond: Think "Agent Smith" if he joined the Romulan Empire."

as for the rest? ah, i don't think so.

[konman72]

Originally posted by drzarius
Probably the wrong place to post this, but it'd probably get moved here anyways so...

Just got finished watching TTT again and started thinking about the series overall and I came to the conclusion that there's *ALOT* of room for improvement. Especially with regards to the battle scenes. They weren't convincing to me at all. It didn't feel as though any of the main characters were in any danger nor did Jackson really capture the feel of being in a life and death struggle. This is especially apparent in ROTK. And the battle of Helm's Deep was a reaal letdown for me. Wasn't as grand as I imagined reading it. Seems more like an attack on a very small outpost than against a large impregnable fortress. :(

I didn't like how Sauron was protrayed either. (Although it may be perfectly correct. Its been so long since I read the books) From what I can remember he was/is a disembodied spirit. And from what I can recall from reading the book I seem to remember him actually having a prescence that moved about his tower. The Jackson films give the impression of him being nothing more than a giant eye on the top of a tower, easily toppled over and helpless like a tree or something.

I also thought alot of the scenes weren't dark enough, esp. in the marsh scenes with Frodo, Smegol and Sam. A trivial complaint maybe, but there you have it.

Overall I think I like TTT the best. TFOTR was a nice intro, but I like alot of what happens in TTT. ROTK was kinda boring to me. The special effects weren't as good and the score was the worst of the series.

Its kinda like the Empire Strikes Back (Still my most favorite Star Wars movie) of the LOTR series for me. Bigger sfx, a good love themed side plot, an animated main character makes a strong appearance (Yoda vs. Smegol), the forces of darkness make a strong showing and the heroes take a few blows, but manage to hang on.

Oh well, was curious and wanted to vent after watching the movie again.

I agree with almost everything and have a few more of my own.


Almost every change from the book made it worse, I don't mind changes when it makes it better, or has almost no effect, but when it makes it worse I start griping.

The editing of ROTK made it seem unfinished, it kinda jumped from scene to scene without much flow.

The comment from the Witch King about crushing Gandalf being left in the TE. It was bad enough that they cut the battle, but to leave in a teaser is just horrible.

The sfx were never that good to me, they are ok from a distance, but any close inspection reveals major flaws.

The multiple ending, fade to blacks at the end of ROTK.

The excessive use of slow-mo.

Helms Deep battle was not very good imo, I liked it the first time, but when I watched it again I really hated it.

The whole, Aragorn falling off his horse, thing. That was really gay, one of the changes I mentioned earlier.

The overall slow pace in most scenes.

Sorry that most of these are from ROTK, but that was the one I saw last.

[Boro]

they were too short.

[Necross]

^ I agree lol.

[Necross]

Oh and Kuru, Tolkien didn't mean it was Europe in a literally sense, he meant it metaphorically, like the contrasts between the Nazi's and Hitler ,that kind of thing.

[The_Manipulator]

Originally posted by Kerry from Cali
"Anything you *dont* like about the LOTR movies?"


yeah... they're all done now. :p

He hee Kerry! That's a classic!! :D

BTW, me too!! :)

[Kurufinwe]

Originally posted by Necross
Oh and Kuru, Tolkien didn't mean it was Europe in a literally sense, he meant it metaphorically, like the contrasts between the Nazi's and Hitler ,that kind of thing.

Well, I found these (Letters of Tolkien), witch indicates his world is based on Europe.

Letter #294:

If Hobbiton and Rivendell are taken (as intended) to be at about the latitude of Oxford, then Minas Tirith, 600 miles south, is at about the latitude of Florence. The Mouths of Anduin and the ancient city of Pelargir are at about the latitude of ancient Troy.

[PsYkOoOoO]

Noticed the word "IF"?

[Kerry from Cali]

Originally posted by The_Manipulator
He hee Kerry! That's a classic!! :D

BTW, me too!! :)

:cool:

(i've had a good laugh at the "problems" in that one super long post... with all those problems, I wonder how on *earth* this franchise was ever able to win an oscar, (much less a clean sweep for ROTK) )

[Kurufinwe]

Originally posted by PsYkOoOoO
Noticed the word "IF"?

The whole letter (Letter 294):

Middle-earth .... corresponds spiritually to Nordic Europe.
Not Nordic, please! A word I personally dislike; it is associated, though of French origin, with racialist theories. Geographically Northern is usually better. But examination will show that even this is inapplicable (geographically or spiritually) to 'Middle-earth'. This is an old word, not invented by me, as reference to a dictionary such as the Shorter Oxford will show. It meant the habitable lands of our world, set amid the surrounding Ocean. The action of the story takes place in the North-west of 'Middle-earth', equivalent in latitude to the coastlands of Europe and the north shores of the Mediterranean. But this is not a purely 'Nordic' area in any sense. If Hobbiton and Rivendell are taken (as intended) to be at about the latitude of Oxford, then Minas Tirith, 600 miles south, is at about the latitude of Florence. The Mouths of Anduin and the ancient city of Pelargir are at about the latitude of ancient Troy.

Auden has asserted that for me 'the North is a sacred direction'. That is not true. The North-west of Europe, where I (and most of my ancestors) have lived, has my affection, as a man's home should. I love its atmosphere, and know more of its histories and languages than I do of other pans; but it is not 'sacred', nor does it exhaust my affections. I have, for instance, a particular love for the Latin language, and among its descendants for Spanish. That it is untrue for my story, a mere reading of the synopses should show. The North was the seat of the fortresses of the Devil. The progress of the tale ends in what is far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome than anything that would be devised by a 'Nordic'.

Or though in another letter, Tolkien indicates that the Numenoreans of Gondor could be resemble the "Egyptians"... but still no mention any ware that middle-earth has been based on New-Zealand. New Zealand is just too small too be middle-earth.

Here's a tidbit from Letter #211 (1958).

"The Numenoreans of Gondor were proud, peculiar, and archaic, and I think they are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms. In many ways they resembled 'Egyptians' the love of, and power to construct, the gigantic and massive. And in thier great interest in ancestry and tombs (but not of course in 'theology':in which respect they were Hebraic and even more puritan.)"

[thewickedchild]

I forgot one... people like this ^

[flukeman]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
Or though in another letter, Tolkien indicates that the Numenoreans of Gondor could be resemble the "Egyptians"... but still no mention any ware that middle-earth has been based on New-Zealand. New Zealand is just too small too be middle-earth.

For goodness sake, we’re not trying to say that New Zealand is the REAL location of Middle Earth (there actually is no real location, ME is/was not a real place...). We are saying that the landscapes and geography of New Zealand seem to fit the book descrptions of ME very well, and have provided a breathtaking backdrop for the movies to take place.

The problem with filming in ancient Europe is that it’s ancient and does not exist anymore :) I think New Zealand was a lovely choice.

[dustindame]

New Zealand rocks!

[Kurufinwe]

The problem with filming in ancient Europe is that it’s ancient and does not exist anymore I think New Zealand was a lovely choice.

Hey again i didn't say there was anything wrong witch New Zealand... I was referring to this quote:

Oh and Kuru, Tolkien didn't mean it was Europe in a literally sense, he meant it metaphorically, like the contrasts between the Nazi's and Hitler ,that kind of thing.

I simply tried to prove that Tolkien based his world on Europe, and that scale wise New Zealand just didn’t seem right for me.

[Doomsday]

I would post something, but whatever I put I'll only get a response like "it was supposed to be that way, it was brilliant." Even if it was something technical, like being able to see the boom mic in one scene, someone will always chime in and say "it's like that for a reason."

[Necross]

Believe me, no one here would excuse a boom mic being in a scene. ;)

[fineus fog]

flukeman you nailed it
thank u thank u thank u thank u thank u
from the bottom of my little kiwi heart :D

[Andrey83]

its kinda bad, because the film I have most problems with is ROTK :)

Well....Lighting in Mordor....

Army of the dead - WORST.ever.Why oh why did he have them battling over the whole pellenor fields.......

Some of Elijahs Acting.....

[Andrey83]

Originally posted by PsYkOoOoO
I hate the fact that The Lord of the Rings is perfect in every way.

Naiv....... ;)

[PsYkOoOoO]

Admit it Andrey.

You agree with me.

[Andrey83]

nope, if you saw my earlier post i mention some things i dont like....there are some :)

[Necross]

Originally posted by Andrey83
its kinda bad, because the film I have most problems with is ROTK :)

Well....Lighting in Mordor....

Some of Elijahs Acting.....

I can accept you not liking the Dead Army but to these I give you a :rolleyes:

[Andrey83]

Hehe, just a matter of opinion Necross ;)

Thats just the way i feel about it. Most people didnt like Blooms acting (i.e : "they're taking the hobbits to isengard") But i liked all of this, so i guess i'm strange then :D

[ddel54]

I really didn't like the lighting in mordor it was way to light outside cause when u see the end of the two towers is very dark other then that i think the movie is greatest film of all time

[Ahreron]

I don't really like the Saruman stuff :S I can't help it, so I was very glad he wasnt in Return of the king.

I love The Two Towers, its an instant classic movie for me, which I dont really feel with Fellowship. The appearence of the Nazgul on Fellbeast, Fort Eorlingas, Gollum, The exorcism, Arwen at Aragorns grave, The Ents at Isengard, I love it all!

Return of the king basically does the same to me, although I don't like shelob. I expected a bit more of it. I absolutely loved the eagles, Minas Tirith, the Mumakil and Arwens vision of her child.

I also think they should have worked more on the army of dead, they should have been white or something, cause they look kinda chemical.

[PsYkOoOoO]

I dont think white would work very well.

Perhaps a little lighter shade of green.

[adt100]

My sig!

[drzarius]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
Not my work... read again (Leeched from another forum). I Just thing this guy has some valid points.

And I don't remembers offending New Zealand... but its NOT middle-Earth. Tolkien said that Middle Earth was ancient Europe, and that's where it should have been filmed. I'm Sure New-Zealand is a great country, but its not Europe, and not middle-earth.

Wow..pretty nice points. You've just completely ruined whatever
good opinion of P.J.'s movie adaptation I might have been able to voice later on. :)

But I agree with many (if not most) of the points. The LOTR movies aren't as great a version of the trilogy as many people claim. There is so much that could have been done better if more time and thought went into pre-production. There are soooo many nuances that just aren't captured. It really shows how deep and thoughtfully crafted Tolkien's books were.

But its all really a matter of interpretation in the end as a 1/1 book to movie feature would be nigh impossible.

Still though..maybe I'll still be alive when someone attempts (hopefully they will) a remake in 20 years or so. :p

[drzarius]

Originally posted by Samwise Gamwich
Well to be perfectly honest... ROTK was NOT boring....

About the only things I didn't care much for was mainly in TTT... Over extended scenes of Arwen and Aragorn...
A ludicrous to watch Aragorn go over the cliff....
Treebeards introduction
(The book was much gentler and spoke reams about Treebeard's character... Besides the same orc followed Merry and Pippin into Fangorn who we had previously seen with a Rohirrim spear deep in his back)
But my biggest problem (Which could have been easily corrected upon finishing of TTT EE) was when Aragorn shouts to Legolas... 'What do your Elf Eyes see??' and Legolas says 'The Uruks turn Northeast'....

Go read the book or look at the maps... They turned Northwest!!!
(Biggest pet peeve of all)

Well, it wasn't as entertaining as the previous two films for me. Take that for what it means to you. I'm not judging the movie with how it compares to the book version, but as a fantasy adventure film in its own right.

As to the orc, maybe it was another orc. Maybe all orcs look alike to us/you? :)

There are so many things wrong with the LOTR movies in so many ways. And with all the diehard book fans who question every line of dialogue with how it compares to the bible (Oh sorry..the LOTR trilogy for those not indoctrinated..;) ) I'm somewhat surprised the series has been as successful as it's been.

[drzarius]

Originally posted by fattybolger
To you...welcome to the forum from another relative "newbie":)

To the object of your leechcraft..."GO BACK TO THE SHADOW!" :rolleyes:

The few "valid" points are swamped in the flood of vitriol...

And is it your opinion that every film must be produced in its original context...you must be disappointed by 90% of the films out there:confused:

I think the point he was trying to make was that the series could have been better. Granted, he used someone else's material to help him get that message across, but there it is.

90% of the films out there *have* no original context. They're nothing but rehash and recycled material from earlier films, ideas and formats.

As I said in another post. They're good modern-day fantasy adventure films. But anyone who's read the books even once can see room for improvement from whereby 'good' films can become 'great' ones; ones truly deserving of Oscar nomination and award.

Honestly though, I would love to see John Boorman's take on LOTR.

[adt100]

It really irks me (that's put mildly) when people criticise the films from what is clearly a book standpoint, and seem to think that were they or their choice of director at the helm, they could achieve a a better, richer, more in-depth, more faithful adaptation of LOTR than PJ and co have. Over 7 years in the making, vast budgets and 3 3hour+ films, and still people have criticisms which, while perfectly valid, have little bearing on reality when it comes to making a film quite frankly.

NO ONE will ever be able to make an LOTR that's as in-depth or true to the story as the book itself. It's a futile exercise. The book is the book, the film is the film(s). How many times does it have to be said. You can't compare completely different mediums in this way.

[Kurufinwe]

Originally posted by adt100
It really irks me (that's put mildly) when people criticise the films from what is clearly a book standpoint, and seem to think that were they or their choice of director at the helm, they could achieve a a better, richer, more in-depth, more faithful adaptation of LOTR than PJ and co have. Over 7 years in the making, vast budgets and 3 3hour+ films, and still people have criticisms which, while perfectly valid, have little bearing on reality when it comes to making a film quite frankly.

NO ONE will ever be able to make an LOTR that's as in-depth or true to the story as the book itself. It's a futile exercise. The book is the book, the film is the film(s). How many times does it have to be said. You can't compare completely different mediums in this way.

Well I for one thing that many directors could achieve a much better film if they got the same amount of money that PJ did. I do not say that the movies should have been 100% true too the book, but for me these didn’t even come remotely close. I didn’t mind some of the changes, and some of them I understands. But there were just too many changes that should never have been changed. When I saw the fellowship of the ring, and saw Arwen I though: Hey were the ***** is Glorfindel. I don’t know witch “brilliant” screenwriter that though of that insane idea to make Arwen princes of Rivendell two Xena the worrier princess. Why did Elrond sent his only daughter? And why switch Arwen with Glorfindel one of the mightiest elves in middle earth?
Glorfindel was really one of those things I had looked forward two…

And also, why oh why did they have to make Legolas a supernatural elf, who uses shields as skateboards, and slays oliphants, and slides down its trunk, like Fred Flintstone slides down a dinosaur neck… that was just so cheesy.

Lets just pray that PJ will NEVER get the stupid idea to make the silm… Prays

[Dashiell]

Really the only thing that I was slightly dissapointed with was the Black Gate sequence. I was looking forward to this scene so much and after the splendid chaos of Pellenor fields my expectations were only heightened. When it arrived it all felt a bit rushed. And the Aragorn/troll fight seemed a bit overwhelmed.

[Undome-Elenamin]

My biggest problems were:
Arwen substituting Glorfindel-Why?! I don't care about all her other scenes, those can stay. But why replace Glorfindel?
The Warg Battle- Am I the only one that thinks that if they hadn't inserted this there might've been time for the whole Saruman thing at the end?
Legolas's moves- Yes he's an elf. Yes he's supposed to be very agile but there's no real reason for the sliding down the shield.

Those are my three biggest problems but it's nothing big. What I hate is when people start whining about the tiny details ("Arwen's dress was blue not green!"). That's just annoying.

[adt100]

Originally posted by Undome-Elenamin
Arwen substituting Glorfindel-Why?! I don't care about all her other scenes, those can stay. But why replace Glorfindel?

Because Glorfindel only really appears in that scene, and it would seem pretty strange to have him just make such a brief cameo appearance. More importantly it allowed Arwen (who being Elrond's daughter and Aragorn's future wife is one of the most important 'lesser' characters) to be introduced to the audience rather than having to add addtional scenes in Rivendell to achieve this.

The Warg Battle- Am I the only one that thinks that if they hadn't inserted this there might've been time for the whole Saruman thing at the end?


The Warg attack itself wasn't too big a deal (after all, there was one in the book), it was Aragorn's false death that I found totally unecessary. (and now, time was emphatically not hy Saruman was cut!)

Legolas's moves- Yes he's an elf. Yes he's supposed to be very agile but there's no real reason for the sliding down the shield.

Got to agree with that, but then this is Hollywood, and I suppose they thought adding a bit of fun like that would appeal to the large teenage audience.

[adt100]

Sometimes I really despair when I hear such nitpicking over such a vast project. This is PJ's and co's adaptation based on their interpretations of the book on what would make a good FILM.

No-one could deny that all the key players were clearly fans of the book and were pretty knowledgeable on the subject. Maybe not the level of many Tolkien Scholars, but enough. The people that want all their favourite scenes/characters transferred onto screen may produce a film that is certainly very faithful, but is ultimately not very good, and not one that will be very popular with most film audiences. Like it or not, film are made for the general public, and are made to make money. What you can do in a book is infinitely more difficult to achieve in a film.

There are many scenes that if I were in charge I would have changed, and certainly some scenes that I cannot understand the need for the change from the book. One of my biggest annoyances/disappointments ever since the Autumn of last year was regarding the confrontation between the With King and Gandalf at the gates of Minas Tirith. Much as I have ranted and raved about this though I have learned to live with it, and separate what is the scene in the book, and that which is/will be in the film.

The film is not THE lord of the rings as JRRT wrote it, of course not. It is just PJ's vision of it though, and for one think he did as ood a job as almost anyone could have.

[fineus fog]

it is pj and ADAPTATION of the book and personaly if they made it 100% the same audience would have stayed away in droves cos of all the singing and poems

[KenM]

My main problem with the movies is that they end. :(

[Kurufinwe]

@fineus fog

No one says it has too be 100% true too the book, because it would just be plain boring then. But there ware just a lot of small changes that easily could have been done better. Like when I was at the movies, and Frodo says to Sam thast he should go home, I was like wtf just happened… And then we uses a lot of screen time that could be used in Mordor, too see Sam crawling down from the mountain to find out that he actually didn’t eat the Lembas?? Then when the orcs takes Frodo to mordor, Sam has around 60 seconds to find Frodo, rescue him from the tower, and deliver some of the most cheesy lines in the trilogy, walk into Mordor (now in orc costumes) and has just enough time to reach a hill were they can see Mount Doom (Very good job PJ :clown: !!!!!!! ).

But Of cause there were good changes also… few but they were there (like Boromir witch I loved in the movies but hated in the books)

[LordofKings]

I just watched TTT again tonight. Still don't really like Treebeard.

AND


i really don't like the Flooding of Isengard. It looked Rushed and it is clear its minutures. Anyone else have a problem with this scene

I liked the Warg Battle. Otherwise TTT in the middle would have gotten really slow. The warg battle was a way to get the audience back into the film and stay awake. As much as i like TTT, it drags for a little bit.

[fineus fog]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
@fineus fog

No one says it has too be 100% true too the book, because it would just be plain boring then. But there ware just a lot of small changes that easily could have been done better. Like when I was at the movies, and Frodo says to Sam thast he should go home, I was like wtf just happened… And then we uses a lot of screen time that could be used in Mordor, too see Sam crawling down from the mountain to find out that he actually didn’t eat the Lembas?? Then when the orcs takes Frodo to mordor, Sam has around 60 seconds to find Frodo, rescue him from the tower, and deliver some of the most cheesy lines in the trilogy, walk into Mordor (now in orc costumes) and has just enough time to reach a hill were they can see Mount Doom (Very good job PJ :clown: !!!!!!! ).

But Of cause there were good changes also… few but they were there (like Boromir witch I loved in the movies but hated in the books) 0



totally agree about the rushed rescue part im not saying you are wrong just wanted drop a point but you seem to have covered what i wanted to say anyways

[KenM]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
@fineus fog

No one says it has too be 100% true too the book, because it would just be plain boring then. But there ware just a lot of small changes that easily could have been done better. Like when I was at the movies, and Frodo says to Sam thast he should go home, I was like wtf just happened… And then we uses a lot of screen time that could be used in Mordor, too see Sam crawling down from the mountain to find out that he actually didn’t eat the Lembas?? Then when the orcs takes Frodo to mordor, Sam has around 60 seconds to find Frodo, rescue him from the tower, and deliver some of the most cheesy lines in the trilogy, walk into Mordor (now in orc costumes) and has just enough time to reach a hill were they can see Mount Doom (Very good job PJ :clown: !!!!!!! ).

But Of cause there were good changes also… few but they were there (like Boromir witch I loved in the movies but hated in the books)

I think some of that stuff will be expanded in the EE. PJ has said that if you just do a pure translation, it would be unfilmable.

[aegon IV]

The super close up fighting.
Lack of the King Nazgul going through the gates and Gandalf turning him aside.
That stupid white light when Gandalf rescues Faramir.(Plus Pippen riding with him? give me a break!)
Pippen "song"
ARagorns "song"
The 1 hour ending.
The 450 emotional moments.
THe tiresome dialogue.

I read the books twelve times. i loved fellowship. downhill from there...

[Kurufinwe]

Originally posted by KenM
I think some of that stuff will be expanded in the EE. PJ has said that if you just do a pure translation, it would be unfilmable.

Hey do not come tell me that an actual skilled screenwriter could have done a much better job??

[Andrey83]

Originally posted by adt100
It really irks me (that's put mildly) when people criticise the films from what is clearly a book standpoint, and seem to think that were they or their choice of director at the helm, they could achieve a a better, richer, more in-depth, more faithful adaptation of LOTR than PJ and co have. Over 7 years in the making, vast budgets and 3 3hour+ films, and still people have criticisms which, while perfectly valid, have little bearing on reality when it comes to making a film quite frankly.

NO ONE will ever be able to make an LOTR that's as in-depth or true to the story as the book itself. It's a futile exercise. The book is the book, the film is the film(s). How many times does it have to be said. You can't compare completely different mediums in this way.

Would "Mona Lisa" be better if piccasso painted it ;)

Thats to those who think that *they* could have made it a better film.....

[adt100]

What, like Tolkien you mean. :r

[Andrey83]

?

No i meen there is no way to know if it would be better if someone else made it, and it is stupid to talk about.

Hence, "would mona lisa be better if piccasso painted it?" Stupid comment ;)

[adt100]

Sorry, I was referring to Kurufinwe post above Andrey. I somehow missed your post. :o

[Kurufinwe]

Originally posted by adt100
What, like Tolkien you mean. :r

No, I mean don't tell me that in a 3-hour movie (or something like that?) you couldn’t have given Sam more then 60 seconds to reach Cirith Ungle(sp?), kill the orcs, rescue Frodo, get in the orc clothes and get into Mordor?? I refuse to believe that. It just shows that the screenwriters were pure crap!

[JackBauer]

ROTK sucked in many ways. i was realy disapointed with the battle at the black gates. then some stuff was just too long and too boring. FOTR was good, TTT was ok.

[HellaGood]

The ending of TTT seemed incomplete. Yes, I know that is because it doesn't really have an end but its little things like you never saw all the women and children coming out of the caves etc.

Gandalf vs. Wiki being cut and Saruman being cut, but they'll be back!

And that's about it!

[adt100]

OK, I'll agree that the whole CU to Mount Doom section was all a bit rushed, and looking at it purely as a film (therefore disregarding book changes/cuts) was one of my only major problems with ROTK.

However, I completely disagree that the screenwriters were pure crap. That's a really juvenile comment to make given the immense size of this project. Filming 3 3hr+ epics concurrently, spending 7years+ on their making, trying to condense a 1000pg+ fantasty novel onto the screen. Not an easy task for any screenwriter.

[adt100]

Originally posted by JackBauer
ROTK sucked in many ways. i was realy disapointed with the battle at the black gates. then some stuff was just too long and too boring. FOTR was good, TTT was ok.

Insightful comments there, from someone that rates Fight Club so highly. :rolleyes:

[Kurufinwe]

Originally posted by adt100
OK, I'll agree that the whole CU to Mount Doom section was all a bit rushed, and looking at it purely as a film (therefore disregarding book changes/cuts) was one of my only major problems with ROTK.

However, I completely disagree that the screenwriters were pure crap. That's a really juvenile comment to make given the immense size of this project. Filming 3 3hr+ epics concurrently, spending 7years+ on their making, trying to condense a 1000pg+ fantasty novel onto the screen. Not an easy task for any screenwriter.

Agrees... and that’s why I think that the movies should never have been made in 3 movies only :)

[PsYkOoOoO]

Originally posted by JackBauer
ROTK sucked in many ways. i was realy disapointed with the battle at the black gates. then some stuff was just too long and too boring. FOTR was good, TTT was ok.

Why dont you list them?

[thewickedchild]

Something that I think a lot of people overlook when whining about some of the changes/omissions is that some of them probably HAD to be made to appease New Line, and others were probably made to try to appeal to the general public more... for better or worse, that's the movie business... ESPECIALLY when we're talking a project of this magnitude and $$$ wise.

I'd like to see any of these backstreet directors go back in time with their version of the screenplay and actually get ANYONE to pick up their movie and allow them to film it exactly as they want. I'd also like to see how popular those movies would have been in comparison to these.

Like it or not, these movies were NOT just for Tolkien fans. While you might have liked seeing six 3 hour movies so they could include everything, that just isn't reasonable. The way Tolkien has the books set up is brilliant, but obviously NOT feasible for movies.

The movies are by no means perfect, but then again, neither are the books, IMO. I am a fan of both, and while certain changes might make me scratch my head, I am certainly not going to allow them to ruin my enjoyment of 3 excellent movies, and I am certainly not going to get my panties in a bunch over ROTK when I have yet to see the "true version".

</rant>

[Kurufinwe]

@thewickedchild

Perhaps so… but for me the ”true” version was the one I saw at the cinema and I did not like it. I respect that many ppl like it, but I am just not one of them. I love Tolkien’s works, and that’s why I find it hard to accept (in my opinion) PJ’s rape of Tolkien’s master peace. Hey you like it, and can overlook a lot of the changes, and that’s great. I think the first one was...ok or though from the moment it started there were changes. I really looked forward too see Elendil and Gil-Galed take down Sauron, but it never happened but okay small change and not something to freak out over. It’s just a lot of those small changes like this that just ruined the experience for me…

[adt100]

Enough of the 'PJ has raped the text' rubbish, because that it something he certainly did not do. Whether you like the film(s) or not. Adaptation is not always about literal translation (either in entirety or individual scenes), and you can have a good adaptation of a book that can be very different from the text from which it was taken.

There is so much more than just the set-piece scenes as written. After all, Bakshi's effort (that which he completed) was very faithful in general, certainly moreso thatn PJ's, yet it is a far worse film, and by all accounts a pretty lamentable adaptation of LOTR.

That IMO was raping JRRT's work.

[secant]

In the credits at the end of ROTK, I think Christopher Lee should have been included in the pictures of the characters. He wasn't in the film, but they could have said "with special thanks to Christopher Lee" or something. After all, Sean Bean was up there and he was only in the film for about 10 seconds, and those were flashbacks to FOTR.
That's my only serious problem. Anything else would be nitpicks. ;)

[JackBauer]

Originally posted by PsYkOoOoO
Why dont you list them?

the list would be too long. ;)

@adt100

to even use Fight Club in the same sentence as LOTR... :rolleyes: i don't know. 2 totaly different worlds.

[Kurufinwe]

@adt100

and you can have a good adaptation of a book that can be very different from the text from which it was taken.

Yep… but in my opinion PJ failed too do so. Rape was maybe a strong word to use, but honestly that’s how I feel about the movies.

@secant

In the credits at the end of ROTK, I think Christopher Lee should have been included in the pictures of the characters. He wasn't in the film, but they could have said "with special thanks to Christopher Lee" or something. After all, Sean Bean was up there and he was only in the film for about 10 seconds, and those were flashbacks to FOTR.
That's my only serious problem. Anything else would be nitpicks.

eh… okay, whatever you say :rolleyes:

[adt100]

Originally posted by JackBauer

to even use Fight Club in the same sentence as LOTR... :rolleyes: i don't know. 2 totaly different worlds.

Exactly, Fight Club isn't in the same league as LOTR.

[PsYkOoOoO]

Originally posted by JackBauer
the list would be too long. ;)

@adt100

to even use Fight Club in the same sentence as LOTR... :rolleyes: i don't know. 2 totaly different worlds.

Why dont you list a few.

Because if you dont,Im going to list you under the "I hate LOTR for no apparent reason" category.

[secant]

eh… okay, whatever you say :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL Get your point (I think). I went back and put a smiley by my comment to clarify. Yes I think they should have put in CL's picture. And yes that is most definitely a nit pick.
Unless you have so many serious problems with the film that you are referring to that, in which case, pretend I didn't respond to you. :)

[Andrey83]

Originally posted by JackBauer
ROTK sucked in many ways. i was realy disapointed with the battle at the black gates. then some stuff was just too long and too boring. FOTR was good, TTT was ok.

And this is from someone who thought the battles is Troy was so unbelievable good ;)

Just messing with ya JB :)

[Necross]

Don't say your just messing with him, you absolutely right, Andrey.

[fattybolger]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
No, I mean don't tell me that in a 3-hour movie (or something like that?) you couldn’t have given Sam more then 60 seconds to reach Cirith Ungle(sp?), kill the orcs, rescue Frodo, get in the orc clothes and get into Mordor?? I refuse to believe that. It just shows that the screenwriters were pure crap!

Not just picking on you, Kunu, but with all due respect to you and the others ragging on Mr. Jackson:) :

Those that can, do...those that can't, criticize...I sat in the bleachers at SBC a few weeks ago and listened to a very inebriated individual taking off on Barry Bonds...I asked him to join me at the batting cages so I could enjoy his talent, since he obviously thought he could swing the bat better than Barry...

He declined:D

If you can do a better job, write a screenplay and remake the flicks...I'll be the first in line to see your work... :)

[beyond_th3]

The one thing that I don't like about the lotr movies is that it had to end. I miss getting excited knowing that for my birthday I would get to see lotr the opening day.

[Kurufinwe]

Originally posted by fattybolger
Not just picking on you, Kunu, but with all due respect to you and the others ragging on Mr. Jackson:) :

Those that can, do...those that can't, criticize...I sat in the bleachers at SBC a few weeks ago and listened to a very inebriated individual taking off on Barry Bonds...I asked him to join me at the batting cages so I could enjoy his talent, since he obviously thought he could swing the bat better than Barry...

He declined:D

If you can do a better job, write a screenplay and remake the flicks...I'll be the first in line to see your work... :)

Hey sorry to say this, but that’s the most childish arguments I have heard in a long time. First I would like to say, that I’m not a screenwriter... does it make sense that I can't write a good screenplay then… that’s not how I get my salary? Look I just hate when I watch a football game and some one really messed up. Then I express my self, and then suddenly someone says: But could you have done it better?? No but hey I’m not a football player, but are you then saying that if I can't write a good screenplay myself, then I am in no position to argue and say what I think could be better?? :confused:

[Andrey83]

Its just as childish as saying that the screenwriters where pure crap because they didnt have half an hour of the thing you liked the most in the book. If you dont know i would like to fill you in here: they had to please millions of different types of fans of the book. AND they had to please millions of non-book readers, and they did. Hence, they did a good job.....

Personally i think they had enough of it, and 2. it was more then 60 seconds.

[Kurufinwe]

Okay I’ll explain why I think the Screenwriters were pure crap. I think that in a 3.3 hour film, you have time enough to conjure up unnecessary scenes that wasn’t in the book (E.g. Sending Sam down from the mountain and use a lot of screen time on that), but you don’t have enough screen time for a pretty important part in the book? How is that good Screenplay? A talented screenwriter would easily have come up with a way to keep the things that were impotent to the storyline, and still keep people exited about the movie. To me there were a lot of unnecessary scenes that could just as easily have been planted ells were in the movie. Apparently we have enough time to see crazy Legolas stunts (That seemed an awful lot like Luke Skywalker in Star wars :evil: ), but the main character can only get like 5 minutes to cross Mordor… is that good screenwriting?

[PsYkOoOoO]

No that will work in the pages but not on film.Think about it.

In the book,Frodo battles Shelob out while Gollum fights with Sam in the background.Sam tries to save Frodo,but was held back by Gollum.Try to imagine this on screen.It will not work out.You cannot have two actions happening on screen at the same time.Like Phillipa Boyens said,it cancels each other out.

Secondly,try to follow every line in the book on screen.The battles in the book were so briefly covered,you hardly think that it is a battle of life and death.I dont see that harm by adding a bit of action here and there.

And as for the 5 minutes to cross the plains of Mordor.Well,in the book,Frodo and Sam used more than a whole chapter to do that.Are you willing to see that happen on screen?If it does happen,you might just start complaining about bad screenplay again.Can you do a better job?

Like i said,why do you think this book was deemed impossible to adapt.It has its reasons,and these screenwrites pulled it off.I think thats got to count for something,even if its flawed.

[thewickedchild]

Not to mention that their trek through Mordor is almost certainly going to be longer in the EE. There is only so much time available in the TE. I don't agree with all the cuts PJ made, but I think the results speak for themselves.

[PsYkOoOoO]

Haha.Agreed.:)

[Andrey83]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
Okay I’ll explain why I think the Screenwriters were pure crap. I think that in a 3.3 hour film, you have time enough to conjure up unnecessary scenes that wasn’t in the book (E.g. Sending Sam down from the mountain and use a lot of screen time on that), but you don’t have enough screen time for a pretty important part in the book? How is that good Screenplay? A talented screenwriter would easily have come up with a way to keep the things that were impotent to the storyline, and still keep people exited about the movie. To me there were a lot of unnecessary scenes that could just as easily have been planted ells were in the movie. Apparently we have enough time to see crazy Legolas stunts (That seemed an awful lot like Luke Skywalker in Star wars :evil: ), but the main character can only get like 5 minutes to cross Mordor… is that good screenwriting?

As I said, should they just think about you? ;)

They have to think of everyone, action freeks only in for stunts ala Legolas, romance, scary, emotional, etc.. They had to cut something out. They just had to. Not to mention that it could have slowed down the film alot. I may sound good when you say it, but try to imagine how it would be on film. From an objective perspective of cource. Not personall. Thats what you have to think of as a screenwriter as well. Hell, they even cut out Saruman (yes i know he is not in the 3rd book, but the scene that is cut is in the end in the 2nd book, so it is there). You may call that bad screenwriting, but somehow i understand it because of the pacing of the movie. Somethings that works in the book may sound like they obvious would work in the films, but that is not certain. I think PJ and Co has more knowledge of this then anyone speaking here, so there is a reason why he did it that way, and it is probably a good one. I wouldnt call LOTR for bad screenwriting. You must look of this as a film based on the books. Not a direct convertion of the books. Thats how it works. Imagine you havent read the book. Just imagine. And then see the movie, and see if you think it is bad Screenwriting. I doubt it.

[Andrey83]

Originally posted by thewickedchild
Not to mention that their trek through Mordor is almost certainly going to be longer in the EE. There is only so much time available in the TE. I don't agree with all the cuts PJ made, but I think the results speak for themselves.

Yeah it probably will. But remember that the TC is the official and complete edition of the film. The EE just have some extra for the fans. But as PJ say, the TC IS the real complete version. ;)

[Kurufinwe]

Originally posted by Andrey83
As I said, should they just think about you? ;)

They have to think of everyone, action freeks only in for stunts ala Legolas, romance, scary, emotional, etc.. They had to cut something out. They just had to. Not to mention that it could have slowed down the film alot. I may sound good when you say it, but try to imagine how it would be on film. From an objective perspective of cource. Not personall. Thats what you have to think of as a screenwriter as well. Hell, they even cut out Saruman (yes i know he is not in the 3rd book, but the scene that is cut is in the end in the 2nd book, so it is there). You may call that bad screenwriting, but somehow i understand it because of the pacing of the movie. Somethings that works in the book may sound like they obvious would work in the films, but that is not certain. I think PJ and Co has more knowledge of this then anyone speaking here, so there is a reason why he did it that way, and it is probably a good one. I wouldnt call LOTR for bad screenwriting. You must look of this as a film based on the books. Not a direct convertion of the books. Thats how it works. Imagine you havent read the book. Just imagine. And then see the movie, and see if you think it is bad Screenwriting. I doubt it.

Actually Saruman is in the third book, but lets leave that alone ;)

And I agree that there were some things that won’t work in the movie… but I have to disagree about sending Sam home. It would make much more sense if Gollum carried out his nasty little plan and tricked the hobbits in an ambush, then Frodo suddenly trusting the murderer Gollum rather then his life long (best friend) Sam. Sorry but hey that’s just me. :)

[PsYkOoOoO]

I dont know about you but,when Sam cried at the stairs of Cirith Ungol,it was one of the most emotional parts of the trilogy.

[Andrey83]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
Actually Saruman is in the third book, but lets leave that alone ;)

And I agree that there were some things that won’t work in the movie… but I have to disagree about sending Sam home. It would make much more sense if Gollum carried out his nasty little plan and tricked the hobbits in an ambush, then Frodo suddenly trusting the murderer Gollum rather then his life long (best friend) Sam. Sorry but hey that’s just me. :)

oh, i must have remembered wrong then. Sorry bout that :)

Of cource, you may have your opinions, just tried to make some points to convince you that the screenwriters wasnt bad ;)

[PsYkOoOoO]

Saruman appears while the hobbits were on their way home,and in Scouring of the Shire.:)

[adt100]

The screenwriters are far from bad, as the critics and fans will attest. There are some areas in this respect that could have been improved upon, but other than that most of the complaints are purely from a book perspective. The film could have missed out half of the 'key' scenes in the entire book, yet the wouldn't make it a 'bad' screenplay. Again, this is a film!

[Andrey83]

Originally posted by PsYkOoOoO
Saruman appears while the hobbits were on their way home,and in Scouring of the Shire.:)

Yeah of cource. I didnt think of that, lol. well, i ment VoS :)

[Necross]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
Actually Saruman is in the third book, but lets leave that alone ;)

And I agree that there were some things that won’t work in the movie… but I have to disagree about sending Sam home. It would make much more sense if Gollum carried out his nasty little plan and tricked the hobbits in an ambush, then Frodo suddenly trusting the murderer Gollum rather then his life long (best friend) Sam. Sorry but hey that’s just me. :)

I do agree with you on this a bit. I mean I can understand why they did it, it was just much easier to have Frodo running from Shelob alone. I mean in the book she only appears for like 2 seconds before she stings frodo and its just her eyes, they needed to extend upon that PLUS that scene with her sneaking up on Frodo will go down in history. I mean everytime I saw the movie, the theatre went absolutely silent when that part happened, it wouldn't have been as tense if Sam was with him in the backgroun struggling against Gollum. Anyway the thing I agree about it Sam actually leaving, they should have just had him show up. He would never have turned back and it wouldn't have been confusing if he just appeared, people would just assume he followed frodo simple as that. This is my ONLY complaint about the films.

[fattybolger]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
Hey sorry to say this, but that’s the most childish arguments I have heard in a long time. First I would like to say, that I’m not a screenwriter... does it make sense that I can't write a good screenplay then… that’s not how I get my salary? Look I just hate when I watch a football game and some one really messed up. Then I express my self, and then suddenly someone says: But could you have done it better?? No but hey I’m not a football player, but are you then saying that if I can't write a good screenplay myself, then I am in no position to argue and say what I think could be better?? :confused:

No offense taken:) I was merely pointing out the similarity between your pejorative absolute judgement on the screenwriters work ("pure crap") and the pejorative judgement
on Mr. Bonds...you are entitled to well-reasoned opinions, as we all are...that is the nature of discourse:) but to characterize someone else's work as "pure crap" without a working knowledge of their craft I thought was a tad overboard:)

[Andrey83]

^^thats what i ment too. i think "pure crap" was a bit harsh on someone that have worked on this for 7 years ;)

[fattybolger]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
Okay I’ll explain why I think the Screenwriters were pure crap. I think that in a 3.3 hour film, you have time enough to conjure up unnecessary scenes that wasn’t in the book (E.g. Sending Sam down from the mountain and use a lot of screen time on that), but you don’t have enough screen time for a pretty important part in the book? How is that good Screenplay? A talented screenwriter would easily have come up with a way to keep the things that were impotent to the storyline, and still keep people exited about the movie. To me there were a lot of unnecessary scenes that could just as easily have been planted ells were in the movie. Apparently we have enough time to see crazy Legolas stunts (That seemed an awful lot like Luke Skywalker in Star wars :evil: ), but the main character can only get like 5 minutes to cross Mordor… is that good screenwriting?

Tolkein wrote the finest myth of our time, and, like all myths through history, his work will be embellished, edited and revamped many times through the centuriies...:) being the scholar that he was, I think he would quail at the thought of us treating his writings as a sacred text...

Jackson and company adapted the myth to film in the best way they knew how...their attention to detail shows their reverence...their winning over of lots of "old-timers' like me shows they at least partially succeeded in preserving Tolkein's intent...:)

[Kurufinwe]

Originally posted by Andrey83
^^thats what i ment too. i think "pure crap" was a bit harsh on someone that have worked on this for 7 years ;)

Not when we are talking about ruining one mans lifework, to turn it into a Hollywood flick. I tell you what... Tolkien would turn himself in the grave if he knew how cheap his lifework has been treated. So yes some changes might have appealed to the audients, but talk about seven years of work… well try to imagine how long Tolkien used.

[Kurufinwe]

I think he would quail at the thought of us treating his writings as a sacred text...

Probably, but I also think he would have liked his work to be treated with respect rather then pleasing the Audience at a cinemas. Tolkien would have hated the expanded story of Arwen and Aragorn because it would overshadow what the book was really about: The Hobbits and the Humble. He stated why in Letter 181:

Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees. That is why I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is part of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobitto-centric', that is, primarily as study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble.

So yes Tolkien would probably not quail his texts as Sacred… But I think he would have liked them to be treated with respect. :)

[Samwise Gamwich]

Originally posted by adt100
Insightful comments there, from someone that rates Fight Club so highly. :rolleyes:

DOH!
(touche'!!)
:applaud: :applaud:

[Samwise Gamwich]

Originally posted by flukeman
It was the same orc - and the spear was through his side, you can see it sticking out the front of his body when he is chasing Merry and Pip through the forest.

I watched it again last night (prelude to watching ROTK TE DVD today)and still did NOT see it...

[fattybolger]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
Probably, but I also think he would have liked his work to be treated with respect rather then pleasing the Audience at a cinemas. Tolkien would have hated the expanded story of Arwen and Aragorn because it would overshadow what the book was really about: The Hobbits and the Humble. He stated why in Letter 181:

Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees. That is why I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is part of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobitto-centric', that is, primarily as study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble.

So yes Tolkien would probably not quail his texts as Sacred… But I think he would have liked them to be treated with respect. :)

Excellent quotation...:applaud:

I guess I would contend that the "hobbito-centricity' is not in the least diminished by the expansion of the Arwen-Aragorn relationship...The story begins and ends in the Shire...Frodo and Sam are always kept at the fore ...even the culminating coronation is capped with all Middle-Earth (in representation) bowing to the hobbits...

The visual medium is much different than the written(you are allowed a big DUH:) )...with all the changes PJ made, I still maintain he was true to Tolkein's intent...though I definitely see your well-taken points:)

I just stumble over characterizing the effort as rubbish...:confused:

[Necross]

Originally posted by Samwise Gamwich
I watched it again last night (prelude to watching ROTK TE DVD today)and still did NOT see it...

Its not the same orc. At least he doesn't look the same to me, and he has a different voice. the one who got hit with a spear = dead. The one chasing them into Fanghorn = Different orc

[Brock Landers]

I watched ROTK on DVD today, since I bought it, and I still don't really like the Dead Army all that much. I mean, they're not poorly portrayed, they just weren't what I was expecting and thus that is my fault for being letdown because of my....."expectations" from the book. I was hoping for something like rotting corpses who can move at a considerable pace. Something like old soldiers of Gondor who are rotting - e.i. maggots where their eyes were, missing jaw, etc. etc. Sort of like the Pirates from POTC.

Know what I mean?

[Necross]

They did look like that...to me anyway. I think they seemed just like the pirates from POTC except they were glowing green.

[Brock Landers]

Maybe it was the Green that pissed me off. It's just my opinion but rotting corpses would look cooler rather than "Chemical ghosts"(as one of my friends described it). But I'm not PJ, and I can't wait to hear some commentary about it on the ROTK EE. :)

[flukeman]

Originally posted by Brock Landers
Maybe it was the Green that pissed me off. It's just my opinion but rotting corpses would look cooler rather than "Chemical ghosts"(as one of my friends described it). But I'm not PJ, and I can't wait to hear some commentary about it on the ROTK EE. :)

I don't really mind the green - I guess it's a little Ghostbuster-ish though. Although the dead as they appear in the mountain aren't really green, they're extremely muted colors of what they once were. I liked that look.

Watching ROTK yesterday, I am reminded how I really dislike the Pyre of Denethor scene :( Especially the close zoom-in shot of Shadowfax rearing before he knocks Denethor off Pippin back onto the pyre. There's just not as much emotion in that scene as I had thought there would be from the book. It turned into more of an action sequence. And Gandalf constantly knocking Denethor around - I understand the one time was to get him off the pyre, but the others - ugh. And the cliff-jumping just took away any dignity or nobility that Denethor had. Even without the palantir, I would rather have seen him staying atop the pyre.

[adt100]

Definitely, I was (unfortunately) reminded of that while watching Try last week and comparing pyre scenes.

[flukeman]

Originally posted by Necross
Its not the same orc. At least he doesn't look the same to me, and he has a different voice. the one who got hit with a spear = dead. The one chasing them into Fanghorn = Different orc

Really, it is the same orc :) He is the only one dead set on eating Merry and Pip, and the only one who noticed them going into Fangorn. He's the orc who grabs Merry's belt as they run past him as well, lying wounded on the ground. And you can see the spear point sticking out the front of him. In the close up shot of him coming into the forest, facing the camera, the point is kind of under his right arm. Really!

[Andrey83]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
Not when we are talking about ruining one mans lifework, to turn it into a Hollywood flick. I tell you what... Tolkien would turn himself in the grave if he knew how cheap his lifework has been treated. So yes some changes might have appealed to the audients, but talk about seven years of work… well try to imagine how long Tolkien used.

i know i'm not hearing you saying that his lifework has been treated cheap. Dislike the movies all you want. But dont come here and tell me that PJ havent worked his ass of for this. TRy, just try to stay to facts on not crap statements....

[Andrey83]

Originally posted by Brock Landers
Maybe it was the Green that pissed me off. It's just my opinion but rotting corpses would look cooler rather than "Chemical ghosts"(as one of my friends described it). But I'm not PJ, and I can't wait to hear some commentary about it on the ROTK EE. :)

Thats pretty much the only thing I hate about LOTR...the green glowing army...but hey, thats me :)

[Kurufinwe]

Originally posted by Andrey83
i know i'm not hearing you saying that his lifework has been treated cheap. Dislike the movies all you want. But dont come here and tell me that PJ havent worked his ass of for this. TRy, just try to stay to facts on not crap statements....


i know i'm not hearing you saying that his lifework has been treated cheap.

Yes you are, and agree with it or not it is true. PJ somehow manage to give the whole story a twist so you focus more on Aragorn’s Story then on Frodos witch was not the intent. Sure it fits the audient but Tolkien would still have hated it no matter how you try to justify the changes.

Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature, physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees. That is why I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn as the most important of the Appendices; it is part of the essential story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into the main narrative without destroying its structure: which is planned to be 'hobitto-centric', that is, primarily as study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble.

Letter 181

Dislike the movies all you want. But dont come here and tell me that PJ havent worked his ass of for this. TRy, just try to stay to facts on not crap statements....

Yeah and love the movies all you want, but you will never convince me that Tolkien would have likes this Hollywood-FX-pop-culture-flick of his own scholar works. And was it really important to steal scenes like Theodens death Scene from Starwars??

Eowyn: I must save you.

Theoden: You already have.

One word = Cheap

[flukeman]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
Eowyn: I must save you.

Theoden: You already have.

One word = Cheap

OK, this I actually agree with - I didn't care for that exchange between them.

[Andrey83]

Kurufinwe: you where talking about something else now...

nevermind, i dont bother discussing it.

You can read my post over again, and try to understand what i ment, or just leave it ;)

[fattybolger]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
Not when we are talking about ruining one mans lifework, to turn it into a Hollywood flick. I tell you what... Tolkien would turn himself in the grave if he knew how cheap his lifework has been treated. So yes some changes might have appealed to the audients, but talk about seven years of work… well try to imagine how long Tolkien used.

I will offer my opinion once more...

1) Tolkein was an eminent scholar, steeped in literary tradition, and well aware of the transformation of myth as it passes from story-teller to story-teller. He was not the egocentric prig of your characterization, at least from what I have read.. :)

2) Film is a very different medium from the written word...Jackson's work is an adaptation, and I am wondering how "cheap" can join "crap" and "ruin" in your dislike of his work...it is this use of language in defending Tolkein's legacy that surprises me...he might spin in his coffin if he heard you using such terminology on his behalf...:)

3)Call me childish if you wish, but buying a ticket to observe any performer's expression earns one the right to an opinion, but is not license to abuse.

[thewickedchild]

I feel sorry for people who get so caught up in changes that they can't enjoy one the best films ever made. Oh well, no skin off my back. :)

[Andrey83]

Thanks Wickedchild. Finally a good point :)

[Necross]

Originally posted by thewickedchild
I feel sorry for people who get so caught up in changes that they can't enjoy one the best films ever made. Oh well, no skin off my back. :)

Agreed, I just wish I could let it go as easily. I find myself argueing when I know full well its not going to make a difference, I am getting better at avoiding it though. ;)

[fattybolger]

Originally posted by Necross
Agreed, I just wish I could let it go as easily. I find myself argueing when I know full well its not going to make a difference, I am getting better at avoiding it though. ;)

I have the same challenge, Necross. All have a right to differing opinions; I would hope that those differences could be stated with courtesy and respect :)

[Kurufinwe]

1) Tolkein was an eminent scholar, steeped in literary tradition, and well aware of the transformation of myth as it passes from story-teller to story-teller. He was not the egocentric prig of your characterization, at least from what I have read..

No matter how good the movies were I still don’t buy he would have liked PJ to twist the story around. I think that if one have made something special, and it doesn’t matter if you spent a year on it or your whole life… that person would like his work to be treated with respect. In your opinion Tolkien would have liked this Hollywood-pop-flick and accepted it, and that’s find but I don’t buy it.

2) Film is a very different medium from the written word...Jackson's work is an adaptation, and I am wondering how "cheap" can join "crap" and "ruin" in your dislike of his work...it is this use of language in defending Tolkein's legacy that surprises me...he might spin in his coffin if he heard you using such terminology on his behalf...

Again that’s your opinion not mine, and I have the right to think that Jackson did a bad job on the movies. I think the movies were crap just like some people loves them with and extreme passion. And I know Film is a deferent media, but just because the audient’s likes it doesn’t mean Tolkien would.

3)Call me childish if you wish, but buying a ticket to observe any performer's expression earns one the right to an opinion, but is not license to abuse.

If I have done that plz let me see were… I have only said what was on my mind, and I have the right too do that just as well as you do!

[flukeman]

I'd like to think that Tolkein would have understood that his work could not be translated exactly to the screen the way he had written it, but that he would embrace another's vision. As an intelligent man, I think he would have.

[fattybolger]

Originally posted by Kurufinwe
No matter how good the movies were I still don’t buy he would have liked PJ to twist the story around. I think that if one have made something special, and it doesn’t matter if you spent a year on it or your whole life… that person would like his work to be treated with respect. In your opinion Tolkien would have liked this Hollywood-pop-flick and accepted it, and that’s find but I don’t buy it.



If I have done that plz let me see were… I have only said what was on my mind, and I have the right too do that just as well as you do!

I applaud you stating your mind; it is your coarseness of language that makes me shudder...crap, ruin, etc...PJ seems to have paid obsessive attention to detail...if you hate his vision and work, that's fine...there are artists whose work I abhor, but still treat their efforts with respect...

Is the crux of your disdain not enough Sam/Frodo and too much battles/Aragorn-Arwen?

And I am not saying JRR would have been entirely thrilled with PJ"s work, but I don't think he would have blasted him...like I have said, he was steeped in mythic tradition and knew how all stories are amended through the ages:)