Fellowship movie makes me ill......

[ThorinOakenshield]

Truly, I would like to make it through Fellowship of the Ring, but inevitably I reach a point where I feel the grip of nausea and must hit the STOP button. You see, it's not just a matter of inaccuracy, or "hollywoodizing", or foreshortening due to time restraint on the part of the director and screenwriters...it's a matter of ouright, blatant re-writing of perhaps the greatest literary works of all time! Specifically, any LotR scholar will note the following (in no particular order):
1) Gimli at no point attempted to destroy the One Ring during the high council meeting in Rivendell.
2) Gimli did not cry upon seeing Balin's tomb, but rather covered his face.
3) The Cave Troll was not the one who struck Frodo with a spear, it was clearly an Orc Captain.
4) An absolutely gripping moment was omitted from the film:
Gandalf, in The Chamber of Mazarbul, warning against shutting the East door. Had they done so, they would have met the very same fate as the dwarves before them.
5) Glorfindel, an elven lord, was omitted in favor of Arwen. It was Glorfindel who bore Frodo to the ford, and he should not lose his place merely to contrive a rather watered-down romance.
6) In Moria, Gollum is never spoken about directly.
7) Orcs cannot climb pillars, at last I checked.
8) Too many Orcs! Balin's reclamation party numbered a mere 75 or so. It is wholey unnescesary for so many Orcs to be about.
9) The scene with the stairs crumbling and the party jumping the gulf never occured.
10) Alot of things about the birthday party are not quite right, but that's nit-picking
11) Frodo never lost the One Ring momentarily, only to have Boromir pick it up and Aragorn reach for his sword (bunk!)
12) Legolas is a skilled bowman, but cmon! The use of his bow as he was, with trick shots and double arrows launched at once, were way too much.
13) It's not like Gimli, a dwarf, would have referred to Khazad-Dum as "Moria". This was a westernesse term for the mines after the unearthing of the Balrog. Gimli would have called it my its proper name.
14) Yes, technically, Galadriel's gift to Frodo was light from the star of Earnedil, BUT, it wasn't called that. Her gift is properly known as the "Phial of Galadriel".
15) Merry of course joined the three other Hobbits at the Buckleberry ferry, not in some corn field at the movie's beginning.
16) No freakin' way are you gonna sneak up on a top-notch Ranger of the North, king in exile, from behind in the woods, elf or no elf. Yet, Arwen somehow did.
17) By the way, Aragorn traveled alone, and quite some distance, to find the herb Athelas with which to help Frodo. Not right around the corner, and no mention of Samwise being there is made.
18) Much of the dialogue from the High Council of Elrond was pretty much ad-libbed. Complete re-write here.
19) Elrond's little speech about "Humans have no strenght, humans are to blame, blah blah blah," and his little crack against the Dwarves not caring about others...mmmmm, never happened!
Nor would it. Elrond, of all people, knows that all races have made errors, and would not place such blame. He is more noble than that. The comments were out of character for him.
20) Arwen cannot, ahem, cannot nor did she in the novels, summon up the waves of the Ford. This was Elven magic of the eldest order, and controlled by Elrond. Not that Arwen was even involved in thise scene anyways. Glorfindel!

Alas, I really could go on. I could speak about the wondrous visuals, or prehaps nag about the shoddy, convuluted Battle Scenes where who the hell knows what is going on.....but perhaps I'll save all that for another time. If the above upsets you, please forgive. But I doubt a true blue LotR fan would be upset. Many of you noticed such things, and many more, for yourselves long ago. Long live the Dwarves! *ThorinOakenshield*

[Blackboar]

Yeah well, What do you expect from Peter Jackson?

I thought the movie was quite good but it was very different from the book!

[Arathorn]

I enjoyed it because I only expected to see images that reminded me of the book and was pleasantly surprised. I also like to read spoilers so I knew what to expect when I watched it.

My advise, if you plan to watch TTT, is to borrow it from a friend and to stay close to the exit and stay away from objects that you can throw at the TV given your take on FOTR. The severity of changes between the FOTR movie and the book are miniscule compared to those for TTT.

[Gerbil]

To be honest no-one here seriously believes that PJ has produced Tolkien's ME.

It's an old topic that keeps recurring simply because of the passions behind it.

What I find funny is that those who reckon PJ did a bad job come up with numerous explicit examples, while those who reckon he did an accurate job simply say 'well I liked it!'.

What many have found helps, is if you simply ignore the fact that PJ's films have anything to do with the books, and enjoy them in their own right, and they ARE enjoyable.

I know it's hard to ignore the connection, especially if you love Tolkien's works so much. But it's well worth the effort, I promise

[Kalimac]

I understand your pain, but the fact is the movie is an "adaptation" . . . a word that means 'change'.

But, I am not a purist . . but I enjoy Tolkienism . . a term I use to describe every avenue of Tolkiens work, from the languages, to the maps, the the material, to the themes, to the various movies (including Jackson's, but not limited to) to spoilers, pictures, to the recent 'new' manuscript found at Oxford, and yeah, even the popcorn boxes. Ha! There are a few of us out here.

Loved reading your list though, ThorinOakenshield . . it is quite interesting the various opinions and disparities between people over Tolkiens work.

[Sister Golden Hair]

5) Glorfindel, an elven lord, was omitted in favor of Arwen. It was Glorfindel who bore Frodo to the ford, and he should not lose his place merely to contrive a rather watered-down romance.

Yes, this was a part that was upsetting to me also.

Just a little nitpick here. Glorfindel did not bear Frodo to the ford. Asfalath did.

I have to say that when I saw this movie the first time, I was not happy with it. After watching it several times on dvd, it grew on me. After seeing TTT, even though it is not all accurate, it was good. I think you have to go into the movies with an open mind. I know what really happens cause I read the books many times, and eventhough the movie alters much of that, I have to accept it for what it is. A pretty good movie.

I doubt that anyone else at any time could have done any better than PJ. I don't think you are ever going to see a movie that is 100% JRR Tolkien. It's just not possible, but this movie gets an A for effort in my book.

[Ërendil]

I agree with both Sister Golden Hair and Gerbil. No movie could ever be 100% like the book.
Some adaptation have to be made, even if some of them don't happen in the book at all.
The book is something entirely different to the film.
The film is great, and the book is great, but even though they are both LOTR, they are both different. That porbably doesnt make sense, but if you just watch the movie without comparing it all the time to the book, you will enjoy it much more.

[Varda Oiolosseo]

That's what i did! I read the book after i had seen the film!
I noticed lots of differences! But i loved them both!
I understand that making a film exacly like a book can be hard but he did miss some important things out that he could have easily put in. like some of the things you were saying!
Even though things were left out I still loved the movie!

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by ThorinOakenshield

5) Glorfindel, an elven lord, was omitted in favor of Arwen. It was Glorfindel who bore Frodo to the ford, and he should not lose his place merely to contrive a rather watered-down romance.



20) Not that Arwen was even involved in thise scene anyways. Glorfindel!

I agree! But I suppose I'm a little biased about that, considering I'm betrothed to Glorfindel back in Middle-Earth.

I also agree with everything else. It makes me a bit ill too, come to think of it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't agree with you on some of those, but yes on most. But you left out my personal favorite part that he left out....

Tom Bombadil!

If you react this strongly to FotR, then either don't see TTT, or close your eyes and plug your ears whenever Faramir comes on the screen.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Good advice there Gwaimir Windgem. Faramir is a big mistake and disappointment.

[Elfhelm]

All points are correct, but why don't I hear people screaming as loudly about what the Hildebrandts did to Tolkien, or worse, Ralph Bakshi! To my taste, Jackson/Walsh/Boyens preserved more authentic material than any previous film or animated version. I think the only truly faithful artist of any medium has been Alan Lee, and if I look closely enough, I'm sure I could find some way to fault him as well.

Tolkien did not think the drama was the proper genre for fairy tales. Understand, he was arguing across time with Shakespeare himself! Why should we, accept Tolkien's elves over Shakespeare's fairies? And must we choose between them? Seen from a mythological stance, Tolkien himself could be called to task for distorting ... say ... Noah into the fall of Beleriand or ... hmmm... the little mermaid into Luthien... or the medieval heirarchy of heaven into the Valar and Maiar.

I don't mind that Tolkien borrowed all that material from myth and changed it to his purposes. But I do mind when Bakshi has Frodo say "I don't know why Bilbo didn't just kill Golllum when he had a cahnce" and Gandalf replies "I don't either"!!!!!!!!!!! You want to scream at something? Start there! oy!

Personally I think what David Lynch did to Dune was far more distorting than what PJ did with LotR. I won't watch Dune again, but I do enjoy these movies. They are the best yet.

[Yazad]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I don't mind that Tolkien borrowed all that material from myth and changed it to his purposes. But I do mind when Bakshi has Frodo say "I don't know why Bilbo didn't just kill Golllum when he had a cahnce" and Gandalf replies "I don't either"!!!!!!!!!!! You want to scream at something? Start there! oy!
[/B]

Elfhelm,

You know, I'm gonna have to disagree with you (and just about everyone else) on the Bakshi v. Jackson business. IMO, Bakshi was far, far more loyal to the story and the language, not to mention the mood, tone and literary feel than Jackson was.

Plus the quote you gave is not in the Bakshi film.

From Bakshi:

Frodo: What a pitty that Bilbo didn't kill that vile creature when he had the chance (throws rock into the stream)

Gandalf: Yes, it was pity; pity and mercy. pause But now the decision lies with you. What will you do with the One Ring?

Frodo: I'll give it to you...

if memory serves.

Again, not to say that there weren't problems with the Bakshi film, but in my book it towers over the Jackson rendition. I'm glad to have both, mind you, but IMO, Bakshi's film is an utter masterpiece. Jackson's is a fun little jaunt.

I know, I know, everyone on the planet disagrees with me. I'll crawl back into my cave now.

Yazad

[akutach]

Just imagine, The Lord of the Rings film where the producers use the books as the screenplay.
It would only run about 30 hours plus an extra 10 hours of apendices that would be necessary for it to make good sense.
It would include far more characters that enter the story for one or two scenes only to leave and play no role in the remainder of the film than central cast members. Many of the characters that would recur, appear in installments 1 and 10 - nine years apart on the 30 hour film edition!!!
The dialogue would be campy and absurd even by 1950's standards (sorry, Tolkien's strength was definitely not dialogue)
The bottom line is that about a thousand people would actually see every installment (many of whom subscribe to Entmoot).

Thorin, I agree with you on #7 about rock-climbing orcs, and #19 about Elrond being portrayed as an elf with a chip on his shoulder. As for the other 18, I think they were very craftilly merged, ommitted or re-written. It takes a lot of hacking to go from 30 hours down to 9.

There is much talk of how empty the glass is when it is worth considering that PJ first sheepishly asked production companies to support a 2-film project. He was offered money to do a single film from one US company and he refused before New Line generously suggested that he should do it in 3 films. Has anybody on the list ever ponied up 300 million dollars before seeing what was going to be done with it? There are an incredible number of places where the story could be nipped shorter or changed to eliminate whole elements of the story where the choice to be faithful to the story drove the decision making. If they stuck by the book 100% it would might make you reconsider whether you really liked the books. If you want to see the books exactly the way you imagine them, then I suggest that you read them again.

[WallRocker]

Originally posted by ThorinOakenshield

5) Glorfindel, an elven lord, was omitted in favor of Arwen. It was Glorfindel who bore Frodo to the ford, and he should not lose his place merely to contrive a rather watered-down romance.
But I doubt a true blue LotR fan would be upset.

You're right. The 'flight to the ford' scene really made me upset. But you almost have to look at the films as aninterepatation of the books, not an actual re-telling of the best books if the 20th century. Also, I've seen FotR about 15 times and TTT four times, but I don't think that makes me any less of a Tolkien fan. But hey, if you don't like the movies, I would say, simply, just don't watch the

[WallRocker]

Originally posted by ThorinOakenshield

5) Glorfindel, an elven lord, was omitted in favor of Arwen. It was Glorfindel who bore Frodo to the ford, and he should not lose his place merely to contrive a rather watered-down romance.
But I doubt a true blue LotR fan would be upset.

You're right. The 'flight to the ford' scene really made me upset. But you almost have to look at the films as aninterepatation of the books, not an actual re-telling of the best books if the 20th century. Also, I've seen FotR about 15 times and TTT four times, but I don't think that makes me any less of a Tolkien fan. But hey, if you don't like the movies, I would say, simply, just don't watch them

[Firekitten2006]

The best I can do is like the movie for what it is. A movie. The book and the movie are two totally different things.

[obscenename]

Please respond as to why I keep seeing the same point about Fellowship being more true to the book than Two Towers. In FOTR, we find:
1) Character replacement for absolutely no possible good explanation (Liv Mercury as Glorfindel)
2) Out of character buffoonery (Merry and Pippin were not even at Bilbo's party)
3) Elves talking so slow they sound like they are on acid
4) Bridges defying gravity and all laws of physics
5) Orcs with apparent suction cups on their claws
6) Gratuitous falling down in the face of danger (Why did Frodo drop his sword and fall down like a damsel in distress on Weathertop. Hobbits are supposed to be quick on their feet
7) Gratuitous and awkward character introduction
8) Gratuitous feet exposition (We got it at the beginning they don't wear shoes and their feet are hairy. Why does Jackson stick feet in our face throughout the movie
9) Bilbo wiggling his ear?
10) Traveling with no sense of time passing or the history of the land
11) Aragorn the Ranger being p-whipped by his girlfriend
12) Frodo being a wuss from the time he leaves the Shire
13) Narsil not being reforged into Anduril
14) Missing characters (e.g. Fredregar Bolger, Gildor, Framer Maggot, Bombadil, Butterbur (virtually), Bill Ferny)
15) Missing fight scenes (e.g. Wargs in Hollin, Wights on Barrow Downs)
16) Missing memorable lines (e.g. You shall have neither the Ring, nor me, Ai, ai! A Balrog has come)
17) Short shrifted scenes and completely missing chapters (e.g. Council of Elrond, Elves in the Shire, leaving Bree, the Old Forest)
18) Horrible morphing of Gandalf and Galadriel (Galadriel was supposed to be "beautiful beyond enduring", not creepy. And Gandalf was "tall and menacing", not like someone being goosed. Theoden's subtle change was much more effective.)

There's more, but I've blathered long enough.

Someone will respond:
You can't make a 3 hour movie and include all that
It's a movie, you <u>have</u> to make it visual
You couldn't have done any better
Liv Tyler is a great actress
You have to make the movie for the average non-Tolkien fan
I don't know why I like it, but I do, so stop complaining
No one made you go see it or buy the DVD

To get back to my original train of thought. I'm sure that a detailed analysis could be done to see which deviated more, but the point is moot. You can debate it if you like, but, in my opinion, TT was no more off-track than FOTR was.

I place much of the blame for the god-awful decision to feature the character of she-who-will-not-be-named and many of the other deviations on the female screen writers, primarily, and on Jackson for listening to them. Perhaps that should be the topic for another thread. "How would the movies have been different if Walsh and Boyens weren't involved?"

In general, there was a lot of script and plot changes that we were stuck with in FOTR too. I've only seen Two Towers once so far, but the only scenes that I wanted to retch at were those where Arwen appears. Every single second of her on the screen is excruciating torment to me. Yes, Faramir is not the book-Faramir, Frodo should never have faced down the Nazgul, and Aragorn's plunge was as contrived as contrived can get, but I have to say that I was stirred by Helm's Deep, both the battle and the people of Rohan (especially the young warriors). The Ents' destruction of Isengard was great. Gollum was very well done. And I'm going to start a petition to have Jackson re-edit ROTK and let Arwen sail away and have Eowyn marry Aragorn at the end. She was awesome.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No, that would be awful. The movies are far enough from the books as it is; I'll cling to what similarities there are, thank you very much.

[Gerbil]

Yes, funny how someone can bitch about the changes and then suggest a much larger one.