Opinion Thread

[Captain Stern]

This excuse is starting to wear thin now Gerbil:

I agree the film is not perfect, but I've already stated why I think that will always be the case for any book->film adaptation.

It's not just the interpretation that's important, it's how competently it's carried out. And anyway, P.J should have considered how other people may have interprated the story, not just his own @&%$}£ up interpretation.

[Pailan]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
That wasn't harsh.

That wasn't even a flame. It was a list of examples why the above poster was wrong. I called his statement bull and his excuses pathetic. Both were correct.

I agree with Wayfarer. I found the post to be refreshing. It's good to see folk actually support their opinions with refrences and reason. I almost didn't post my Arwen support because of all the other strong female roles that exist in his books. But being as this is an opinion thread I figured what the hey.

Tolkien's women are real characters, real people. But of course you don't see the difference, do you?

Now that hurt a bit. I still feel that Tolkien, in LotR gives women the back seat. They are always incomplete unless they are betorthed to a man. (Excluding Shelob, of course ). So for PJ to bring one to the forefront early in the movie, works for me. AND I really thought Liv Tyler did a good job with what she had to work with. So it goes.

[Wayfarer]

Was Galadriel incomplete?

I'll give you Varda. Yes, she needed manwe. But then... manwe needed her equally, so it's a non-issue.

Now, Luthien... Luthien would have been one of the major players in events regardless of beren's involvement. She was important enough that, in the earlier mythology, Morgoth wasted an army trying to get her.

Eowyn was also incomplete... that's part of her character. But she's a stronger character than most of the MEN in contemporary books.

But you have Idril (quite smart and strong)... you have Maeglin's mother(left her husband)... you have Melian(best singer ever)... you have the female valor primarily responsible for both the two trees and the sun and moon. You have Uinen, who alone can restrain Osse's wrath. You have the entwives, the loss of which makes a profound difference to the Ents. Et cetera.

I will give you that most of tolkien's women are incomplete without men. But only if you accept that in Middle Earth, as in Our Earth. Most men are incomplete without women.

And I say, heck yeah. The story centers around men. But that's because anything that is likely to involve melee combat and extreme hardship is going to fall to them. Galadriel may be athletic and all that, but she wouldn't have been able to do what legolas did at Helm's Deep.

And that's the way it should be. In most modern fantasy that I've read which tries to make women 'strong' by placing them in traditional male oriented combat/wizard/leader roles and giving them qualities with which they fill those roles, the female in question is not only diminished, but decidedly one-sided.

Tolkien's are not. They have an authentic and genuine feel, even those that only appear shortly.

PJ's arwen does not. She is in the former category-Unimaginative, unrealistic, and rather one sided. Tell me honestly that you don't think most everybody would have settled for the aragorn/arwen 'love' scene (which adaquately portrays her in the film). There's no need for this foolish 'she's gotta be in combat' method of directing.

[Foul_Dwimmerlaik]

Once again, in the movie, Arwen did not so much as take a swing at a bad guy. Where are the combat scenes people are referring to? The skills she exhibits are riding and magic, certainly not out of tune for an Elf princess that reminds people of Luthien.

[Pailan]

Originally posted by Wayfarer

PJ's arwen does not. She is in the former category-Unimaginative, unrealistic, and rather one sided. Tell me honestly that you don't think most everybody would have settled for the aragorn/arwen 'love' scene (which adaquately portrays her in the film). There's no need for this foolish 'she's gotta be in combat' method of directing.

Yeah a little love scene thrown in the middle with out any background story as to who is who would've been just fine... I disagree. And I don't see PJ portraying her as a Xena type. It will be interesting to see what the director's cut (if there will be one) contains about her role.

[jerseydevil]

My complaint is the fact that Jackson destroyed what was a great scene in the book and deminished the characters of Aragorn and Frodo through his Arwen rewrite. Aragorn has abandoned his heritage and is now fighting for her hand - instead of fighting for Middle-Earth.

The changes were unnecessary. Jackson could have shown the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen without having her play such an overpowering role at the Flight to the Ford.

He could have shown more of Galadriel and her power. Nenya should have been mentioned in Lothlorien and if it is on the cutting room floor, it should have been kept in the movie. It states that three rings went to the Elven-kings - and Galadriel is wearing one of those rings. Yet in Lothlorien - it's completely over looked.

[Agburanar]

Tolkien's female characters were waaaay above their time, there's no way they would have been given that much rights aty the time.

[Gerbil]

Why is everyone arguing without me?
I'd type more but this nordic keyboard is giving me hell

[Laurelyn]

It was a really great movie, IMHO. I'd give it ten out of ten.

But since I love to nitpick, here's my official complaints:

The Ford Scene:
"If you want him, come and claim him"????? ACK! CHEESY! And having Arwen be all brave detracted from Frodo's character.

Council of Elrond:
The ring only says 'Ash nazg durbatuluk, Ash nazg gimbatul' over and over again. The rhyme is never finished.

Wizard duel: Hollywood. Pure hollywood. Ick.

Arwen/ Aragorn romance scene: See Wizard duel.

Galadriel's temptation:
Wierd special effects . . .

There. Complaints . . . aw heck it was a GREAT film! I gotta go see it again!

[Billadillo]

Hmm...I've got a question for you Laurelyn.

How can you have complaints about the movie if and still give it a 10/10? (btw, I'm not attacking you personally...I've seen the same from other people too.)

Honestly, I'm just curious. In my mind at least, 10 implies perfection. Logically, your complaints show it wasn't perfect in your eyes, so why the 10?

I think (just my personal theory) that too many Tolkien fans are raving about/defending the movie just because it is Tolkien. It's certainly the best Tolkien movie so far, and honestly, it's even better than most book -> movie adaptations. But I'd still have to give it an 8/10.

I think they did a great job with most of it, but fell flat in others. Overall it's a very good movie that I would recommend, but it sure ain't perfect...(see any of my numerous Arwen rants for details)

[LuthienTinuviel]

i really truly liked the movie, i only have two major complaints
flgiht to the ford and the fact that PJ left stuff out that could have helped and wouldn't have added bareley any extra time.
but still... what other movie is out there? the CARTOON?
i like spongebob and invader zim and ren and stimpy.. but i wouldn't watch a LOTR cartoon.
right now, this is all ive got.
im going thu the books for the fith time ( i started today) just so i can have a bit of LOTR in my head while i sit thru my day.
on the weekends i go see the movie. after school i come to this site while i search for more.

what else do i have?
next to my undying love for anything LOTR, my two comp,laints seem like dirt on linolium, easily wiped off and forgotten.
so, even though i have some beef on the film i would still give it a ten out of ten.

[Billadillo]

Originally posted by LuthienTinuviel
next to my undying love for anything LOTR, my two complaints seem like dirt on linolium, easily wiped off and forgotten.
so, even though i have some beef on the film i would still give it a ten out of ten. [/B]

Now that's exactly what I was refering to in my last post. "...too many Tolkien fans are raving about/defending the movie just because it is Tolkien."

I also have a great love for Tolkien's work. The books get a whole-hearted 10/10 from me. However, my love for Tolkien's work doesn't extend to "anything LOTR". Actually, because I love the books so much, I am that much more offended when I see them twisted for marketing purposes.

I think, as Tolkien fans, we have a responsibility to give an honest account of the movie, not drool over it just because it has his name on it. I am reminded of all the rabid Star Wars fans that declared The Phantom Menace "The best movie ever!!", when most people (and critics) thought it was merely okay.

Again, let me reiterate my opinion...I thought the movie was very good. In many ways, I think it was excellent. But, as even the most stalwart defender on these boards has admitted, the movie isn't perfect. So unless you're a cheating, French Olympic judge, why would you give a perfect score to an obviously flawed piece of work?

When I hear people say "I love Tolkien so much, I can ignore the flaws", they lose credibilty with me. They are basically admitting that they are so blindly biased by their love for Tolkien that their opinions are virtually worthless. IMHO

Still an 8/10....maybe 8.5/10.

[Laurelyn]

Originally posted by Billadillo
Hmm...I've got a question for you Laurelyn.

How can you have complaints about the movie if and still give it a 10/10? (btw, I'm not attacking you personally...I've seen the same from other people too.)

Honestly, I'm just curious. In my mind at least, 10 implies perfection. Logically, your complaints show it wasn't perfect in your eyes, so why the 10?

Well, now that you point it out, that didn't make any sense on my part, did it?
Alright, then, I'll give it a 9.99999999999999999999999 out of ten . . .

[jerseydevil]

Billadillo-

I agree, however I give it a 7/10. I think it was above average and I did like it , but I don't consider it a great movie.

Also - for all the people that say they love Tolkien - I don't think he would have liked his books to be turned into an action movie the way they were or for the characterzatiosn to be changed so much. Just my feelings, I could be wrong.

[Nibs]

You know, the whole idea of making these movies in the first place was for profit, not for us fans . I've spoken with a few people about the film who aren't acquainted with the books, and most really liked it, save the three hour time span and the lack of closure. Thus, making it more compatible with the general public, New Line accomplished exactly what it was aiming for - to make this an investment. Filming the whole thing verbatim to the book would have costed more, made more film time, and bugged everyone but fans, and probably generate less revenue.

The Arwen thing... I actually like it how P.J. is involving her in the story more, and I don't really think the ford scene change will permanently affect the attributes of other characters. We certainly get to see more instances of the fortitude of Aragorn and even Frodo later on in the series. I think whatever attention was given to Arwen in the first movie at a cost of the Fellowship can be rectified easily in the next two films.

[jerseydevil]

Well actually Jackson in all his interviews was saying he was making the film as a fan for the fans.

I agree that the movies had to be changed, condensed, so forth - but they didn't have to be changed into an action movie.

Also - just because non-Tolkien fans liked it - incluuding my friends - doesn't mean I should just accept the changes. All my friends just viewed LOTR as an action movie, therefore I think too much of the magic was lost from the books.

[Nibs]

Well, you needn't accept the changes... it's just that crabbin' about it won't change them. But you knew that (I hope )

[jerseydevil]

I know that it won't change it - but I have to state my feelings just like the people that kiss Jackson's feet and praise the movie.

I hope that if LOTR is made into another movie - that it'll be kept a little closer to the book. I just think the movie could have been a lot better.

[Billadillo]

Originally posted by Nibs
I don't really think the ford scene change will permanently affect the attributes of other characters. We certainly get to see more instances of the fortitude of Aragorn and even Frodo later on in the series. I think whatever attention was given to Arwen in the first movie at a cost of the Fellowship can be rectified easily in the next two films.

Well, as much as I'd like to believe that, the little spoilers I've seen of the upcoming films show Arwen annoyingly popping up where she shouldn't be (again!) I'm almost positive she will show up to give Aragorn Narsil. Silly, bumbling Aragorn! Running off to fulfill his destiny without remembering to reforge the sword of prophecy that represents everything he is!! Good thing Arwen will be there to save his butt...again!

Originally posted by Nibs
You know, the whole idea of making these movies in the first place was for profit, not for us fans ...Filming the whole thing verbatim to the book would have costed more, made more film time, and bugged everyone but fans, and probably generate less revenue.

I'm not angry because he didn't film the whole thing "verbatim". (And I don't think most other critics are either) That wouldn't make sense anyway. There are certain changes that had to be made with the transition from page -> screen, and I can accept those. Arwen & the Flight to the Ford are do not fall into that category. And if PJ or anyone else really thinks this film needed Liv to be profitable, they obviously slept through the rest of film!

They could have done the flight to the ford without Liv...just Frodo on the horse. You complain about making it longer? Well, if you take out the bit where Arwen valiantly zig zags in the trees and throws off the riders (What the **** was that??) it would have been shorter (and cheaper).

How much film did they waste with that lame chase scene anyway?? In some vague attempt to make Arwen more heroic, they made the Black Riders, fearsome kings and generals, look like idiots who didn't understand the concept of an ambush!! (y'know, like in the book??)

You really think those changes made it more profitable? I would argue that they made it less. I think people would have enjoyed the film more if they hadn't raped that whole scene.

[Nibs]

Yowza... "raped" is such a harsh word. I'm not saying it's not applicable, however.

Well, I have to disagree with that Arwen argument. Along with adapting the books to the screen and making it a little more modern and understandable, I felt the audience needed some early familiarity with Arwen. The chase and ford scene established that she's brave and what not, but moreso acquainted the audience with her far more than the book did. I almost thought to myself while reading RotK: "Arwen? Who the heck is that? Where did she come from?" The movie adaptation is hand-feeding all that information to the audience instead of leaving you to put things together in your own head.

Well, at least that's what I think. I didn't feel as though I knew Arwen as well as her role dictated I should.