The worst change in FOTR

[bropous]

Well, to classify the film as just an "action film" really misses a lot of the meat of the film, such as the character development, the fine acting, the incredible set and costume design, the absolutely impeccable location scouting, and the beautiful interactions between the major characters.

I agree, though, and see you do too, that no matter whomever made this film, SOMEONE was gonna be disappointed. You make good points in defense of your positions, and for that I applaud, although I may not agree. Good on you.

[jerseydevil]

What character development? For instance - in Bree, seeing the movie - I have no real idea how the hobbits end up in Aragorns room. How do they trust someone that just dragged Frodo by the neck up to his room?

In the book - he explains who he is (Aragorn son of Arathorn). he recites the "All that glitters is not gold' and Sam still does not trust him until he helps Frodo at Weathertop after he gets stabbed. Looking at the movie - he's in the tavern - drags Frodo to his room, and then they're all happily leaving Bree together. I understand why they might trust him after he saves them from the Nazgul - but what made them really trust him in the beginning. They didn't even know who he was until the Council of Elrond when Jackson has Legolas tell Boromir.

And location. costumes and set design are excellent in many action films, along with really good acting sometimes.

I'm sorry - I was really looking to see LOTR brought to life and other than portraying Middle Earth and the different races - I don't think Jackson has succeeded.

[Kevin McIntyre]

The hobbits don't know who Aragorn truly is until the Rivendell anyway. As far as not trusting Aragorn, there definitly was dialog between the Hobbits as they left Bree.

I do agree though that much of the character development elements were left on the cutting room floor, as Im sure PJ got alot of pressure to pick up the pace.

But in these types of movies with large casts and epic visuals, how much character development is there.

[jerseydevil]

I'm just saying he increased the level of conflict throughout FOTR - there is far more action than in the book. If he was truly making LOTR as a fan for the fans as he kept claiming - he should have kept it a little truer to the book. It may not have been even his fault - I mean I agree he had to keep the non-readers of LOTR interested too. And possibly the studio had some input.

At the Watcher in the Water - the thing had to actually hang Frodo in the air and everything? - in the book it just dragged Frodo to the edge and Sam ran to his rescue.

I've seen the movie a number of times - and I keep trying to figure out if I like it or not. Just because he titles it Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring - doesn't mean that he actually kept true to the books - which I think he didn't.

And I didn't expect him to keep every scene or every piece of dialog in there. But he changed most of it - except the underlying plot and the characters names.

[kennebecc]

When I first read the book, I didn't trust Aragorn/Strider either. As for in the movie, as in the book, after the Ringwraiths attack the empty beds, the hobbits had no choice but to go with Aragorn. He was there only hope . . ;-)

[jerseydevil]

Strider saving them from the Nazguls in Bree is really what I was referring to. I understand them going off with him after that just. I just wnated to clear that up in case people thought I meant when he saved them at Weathertop.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Seems to me if you didn't like it, you wouldn't go back.

The problem with the concept of staying 'True to the book' is that everyone has a different interpretation of what that means, let alone different interpretations of the the story itself.

[jerseydevil]

Actually there were only a couple of things I truly did not like. The Flight to the Ford scene and the portrayal of Gandalf. Most everything else I can live with. Gandalf doesn't come off as strong as he does in the book.

I actually like most of the movie as a movie. And I agree it would be very difficult to please everyone. And I knew I would be one of the hardest people to please when it came to seeing this movie.

I'll continue to go see it and I'll get it on DVD. And I'll still cringe at the scenes I don't like. Which contrary to popular belief now - isn't the whole movie.

[Starr Polish]

Well, I can't really comment on the worst change in the movie, since I do not own LOTR, though that is to be remedied very soon. What I can comment on is how fierce the arguments can get around here.
I am a reader, and I love many genres of fiction. I shyed away from fantasy for a long time though, because I saw how ruthless they can be when discussing their favorite books, but now it's one of my favorites, and I attempt at writing it.
What I don't understand is why so many people are taking offense at the way the movie was portrayed. It is a movie adaptation, and it is not going to be exactly the same. Some movies are very loosely based on books. From what I've heard from friends who have read the book and seen the movie, they had no problem with the changes. It's simply another type of media, and yes, of course he was appealing to the 'general audience', because that does bring in a bigger profit. This doesn't mean you can't enjoy the movie because it isn't exactly like the book. It's almost better to enjoy them seperately. I found the movie very long, but good. Yes, they could have cut out some of the action scenes, but it was much more than an action movie.

[Butterburr]

Star Polish, I can't comment on how fierce the arguments get around here, since I joined only recently. I do think though that there are a great number of people who feel strongly about LOTR, and therefore have strong opinions about what was changed in the adaptation to FOTR. We all have our favorite parts of the book, and as many others have pointed out, it would be impossible to include everything in a three hour movie.

I had mixed emotions while watching the movie, but overall it was good. "Seeing" Middle Earth come alive alone was worth the price of admission, as was Bilbo's birthday party, at least for me.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

One would think with the myriad of post this thread has, every facet of the movie would be covered and every problem pointed out. Someone needs to come on here and post some boring thread-killing lame posts. If anyone agrees with me go and find some unoriginal moron who that (preferably) likes to talk about himself.

[fedos]

For those that say there is too much action, I want to point out that Tolkien did have just as many battles. It just didn't seem like a lot of action because he didn't describe much of the action in them unless it would have a lasting effect on the plot (ex: Grishnakh's skewering by the Rider of Rohan). All he would say is the orcs attacked the Fellowship and afterwards Aragorn had slew many and Boromir slew just as much and Legolas turned a couple into pin cushins.

Thus, Jackson is left showing us more action than you get the feelinf of in the book because it's not as easy to skip ahead of the battle in a movie.

[liza disavino]

Good point, Jersey Devil. I think you hit the nail on the head: Peter Jackson made an action movie here. That's the thing that was gnawing me - it's just so busy, all the time, fight after fight, that you don't feel you know the characters. It's possible that in the next two films, where the action with Frodo and Sam slows down a bit, we may get to know them better. I hope so.
It also struck me, reading your post, that I think some of the disagreements over the effectiveness of the movie may boil down to taste. Those who prefer action movies to character-driven movies probably love the filmed FOTR. Those who prefer Braveheart to Rob Roy, for example, most likely think FOTR perfect. Me, I like dialogue , characters, and plot over violent action, which puts me in the Rob Roy group. (Movies where the longest line of dialogue is "Arrrrgh!" just don't do it for me.)
It should be said, of course, that except for that dumb wizard duel, all of the action stuff in LOTR is episodic - it contributes to moving the story forward. I just wish some of it hadn't gone on for quite so long, so we could have had more of the flavor of the different characters.
I am looking forward to the DVD. I know that four plus hours would have been really long for a movie, so Jackson had to cut a lot out, but maybe that's because we Americans have lpretty azy artistic standards. Here's a radical thought: It would have been cool to have a four hour film, with an intermission. It would have been so different, it could have been made into a major event. After all, they do it in Bayreuth with Wagner's Ring cycle! (It's an all day affair for each opera: Act one, lunch, Act two, dinner, Act Three, go home.) I think the scope of LOTR is really comparable to the Ring, but I guess the makers either didn't think of it that way, or thought it was too much of a risk. I'll have to wait to see it in all its glory at home on DVD. I still say it was a lot of fun to see, though. Just to see Middle Earth realized was tremendous, and worth going to see again.

[bropous]

First off, welcome to the Moot, Starr Polish and Butterbur.

As for "why the hobbits trusted Strider" in the book, have you folks handily forgotten the letter from Gandalf delivered [belatedly] by Barliman Butterbur?

As for "how the hobbits got into Strider's room" in the movie, they used the stairs. Hmph. And they TRUSTED Strider because they didn't have a lot of bloody choice, and he showed himself to be trustworthy by not going for the Ring, which he KNEW was in Frodo's possession.

As for "No character development", I hold up Boromir as an example. I hold up Frodo Baggins for example. BOTH developed as the story progressed, and given the constraints of time and the voluminous amount of material that had to be covered, one could not turn it into a four-hour exposition on the inner conflicts of Frodo Baggins. Look in the books, it ain't there. VERY seldom does Tolkien go into what is going on in characters' minds. That happens to be a rather well-known critique of Tolkien's works in literary circles. I do not agree with it, as he does enough in showing the interactions and actions of the characters as to not need to turn it into a total psychological profile of each and every charater and twist and turn of the story. Neither does Jackson.

Just for your information, lisa, I happened to love Rob Roy, and STILL loved Fellowship of the Ring. The battle scenes were necessary to the retelling of the story in Peter Jackson's OWN version of the retelling of the story. This is not verbatim regurgitation of the books, he admits that himself, but since you're so displeased with this-left-out or that-left-out, how can you say the film is too long? You think anything would have been included past what is there had the film even been thirty minutes shorter than the theatrical release?

As for WHY Tolkien never went into great depth as to battle scenes in the books, folks, the man saw ENOUGH blood and guts to last him a lifetime in his time in the trenches of France of World War One. The man was a veteran of the Battle of the Somme, for chrissake, lost EVERY one of his schoolmates but one, and if you have ever talked to a REAL combat veteran, you find VERY few of them revel in relating the blood and guts of the Hell they lived through on a dialy basis. Jackson chose to show the battles, and how in the HELL do you show a battle and no one gets killed? HMMMMM????????

Get over it, sheesh. Peter Jackson took artistic license with the story, you don't like it, TOUGH. YOU get out there, hustle up $270 million, keep the bloody investors happy and not worry them you are making such an arcane and inaccessible film that no one who has never read the books will ever see it twice, and see how easy it is.

No, hallelujiah, he did not make this film just to please the hardnosed Tolkien fans, and I'm bloody glad of it. Had he done so, it would have been fourteen hours long, with seven intermissions, endless debate sessions between each act, and no one but the total Tolkien devotee would have ever watched it more than once, and word-of-mouth would have kept most people away from the theater in the first place.

The man made a film, he introduced MILLIONS of new folks to the world of Tolkien, and now they have the opportunity to take up the books, as they are now doing in the millions, and Tolkien's world will enrich FAR more people's lives than had he run off the new folks by clouding the film with boring, mindless, endless detail, dragging from the word go, and fogging the novice's brain with unnecessary additional names and characters.

[I'll get OFF the soapbox now. Next?]

[jerseydevil]

Actually Liza didn't say the movie was too long - she said that she understood why Jackson had to cut things out - but it would have been cool to have the four hour movie with an intermission.

I know that four plus hours would have been really long for a movie, so Jackson had to cut a lot out....It would have been cool to have a four hour film, with an intermission.

Even Ben in his review of the premier in New York said he had a hard time telling Merry and Pippin apart - it took me two times to be able to tell them apart - and I still get them confused. I don't have the same connection with the characters. I liked Frodo and Sam.

Believe it or not - I agree with Butterbur -

I had mixed emotions while watching the movie, but overall it was good. "Seeing" Middle Earth come alive alone was worth the price of admission

My argument - is the fact that Jackson seemed to increase the intensity of every scene in the book.

And I agree it's his movie and I would not have done it the way he did. I just haven't figured out how I feel about the movie. I like it and I don't.

I don't know if people encountered this in their theaters - but at 12:01am showing where I saw it - when Gandalf was spinning on the floor everyone laughed. And at that showing - it was all diehard Ring fans.

And finally JUST GIVE ME THE Flight to the Ford SCENE as it was in the book! I might have been much happier with the movie then. Even if Arwen took Glorfindel's place.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Originally posted by bropous
First off, welcome to the Moot, Starr Polish and Butterbur.

As for "why the hobbits trusted Strider" in the book, have you folks handily forgotten the letter from Gandalf delivered [belatedly] by Barliman Butterbur?

this is correct, although it said that sam did not really trust him until Glorifindel showed up. In the movie Sam wasn't too happy that Arwen was taking Frodo by herself, but thats nitpicking.

[Kevin McIntyre]

as we go forward with discussions like this, I try to keep in mind that this was really 1/3 of the movie. Like the book, the FOTR was just the begining, only in its entirety will I be able to truly judge.

[bropous]

Well, again, jerseydevil, you make good points in defense of your positions. And I will agree with you, had the Ford of Bruinen scene been at least close to what it was in the book, the film would have been greatly improved. Even a great film has room for improvement!

[Nenya]

One thing that I missed having just watched it again was the poetry. Tolkein included some excellent poetry in the books, both in elven tongues and in English, and unless I missed it, it had all been left out. One of my favorite things about Sam in the book is the way he unexpectedly comes out with relevant poetry, for example the verses about Gil-Galad that he recites at Weathertop, and the troll poem. I was especially dissappointed that they missed out Frodo's song in the Prancing Pony, coz I reckon that is one of the best pieces in there.

[liza disavino]

Thanks, Jersey Devil, for correcting Bropous's misstatement of my viewpoint. Apparently, facts don't get in the way of his assuming a hostile tone. Next time, Bropous, you might want to actually read what a person says before you go off on a rant. You might also learn to accept that not everyone will agree with your viewpoint. So "Get over it" and "Sheesh" to you, too.
And it's Liza, not lisa, Bropous. At least get my name right before you try to get condescending.
As far as Frodo's character development goes, no, Tolkien doesn't get into Frodo's thoughts. But his one-line rejection of the Wraiths at the Ford ("You shall have neither the ring nor me") is crucial to his character, and is a great moment, and it's a pity that it was eliminated in favor of giving Liv Tyler more screen time. And it wouldn't have added to the length of the film to leave it the way Tolkein wrote it.