m00n Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 So I have been hearing a lot lately that Return of the King has a very emotional ending. I don't know how it ends and don't want to know until I see it myself. Here is something I read just today... ------------------------------------------- An interview with Royd Tolkien, great-grandson of "Lord of the Rings" author J.R.R. Tolkien, was shown Tuesday on Television New Zealand. Tolkien, who has a cameo in the movie, said it was so emotional at Monday's premiere that "I cried like a baby. Literally for the last half-hour of the film I was just ... gushing. Incredible." ------------------------------------------- Ok now... Ummm, not sure bout you guys but I don't need my friends seeing me blubber up like a baby. Think I will be seeing it alone in front of strangers. Not sure I want to reveal the softer side of m00n to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrPyro Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 "Not sure I want to reveal the softer side of m00n" Is that like the Dark Side of the Moon? -Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Istari Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 The director has produced two stories based loosly on J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpieces. The Fellowship od the Ring and The Two Towers. I'm sure that Jackson has managed to screw up the last installment too, The Return of the King. The reason I'm dissing the guy and the two movies so far is that I'm an avid (rabid, maybe) fan of JRR Tolkien's works. I've read and reread the trilogy around 30 times, along with the companion works, The Silmarillion, The book of Lost Tales I & II and of course the Hobbit) I have been waiting for a somewhat accurate rendition of the Trilogy for over 25 years and sad to say that it hasn't happened with these movies. Granted the special effects are great but Jackson and his girlfriend were rewriting the script on a daily basis (got this fact from an interview I read of him during the filming of the movies). The changes and deletions from the real story are really too numerous to mention but I've listed just a few that took place that really changes the nature of the story. 1. What happened to Tom Bombadil?, his introduction and story (along with Goldberry his companion)are completely missing in the movie, not even a mention of his name. And of course the incident at the Barrow Downs is missing too. 2. The character of Aragorn was totally bastardized! His history and right to be the King was totally hosed. Jackson made it look like Aragorn didn't want his inheritence (the Kingdom of Gondor and his marrage to Arwen). In the book Aragorn was striving towards the goal for decades prior to the discovery of The Ring by Bilbo (Aragorn is of the race of the Kings of Old and had about three times the life span of normal mortals, he is directly related to Elrond, though many generations have passed {yes, Aragorn has Elven blood in his veins}). 3. The Character of Arwen... Gad this really pi$$ed me off!!!! She is not the warrior princess that the movie made her out to be, far from it! She had no part in the race to the ford (Bilbo's escape from the Ringwraiths). She was engaged to Aragorn for several decades. Her father, Elrond, agreeded to them being married only if Aragorn was successful in his quest for the Kingdom of Gondor. 4. The character of Elrond was totally screwed too! He was one of the oldest elves in middle earth and full well knew the history and destiny of Aragorn. 5. The Ents!, I like how they looked but Jackson screwed their story up too! Where were the Hurons? The Ents didn't attack Orthanc alone!!! There was no need for Jackson to rewrite this part! 6. The Battle of Rohan at Helm's Deep! Geeze, Jackson musta been smoking dope on this one..... The Ents were supposed to be there along with the forest of Hurons, geeze, I didn't even see a tree in the entire scene... And the only Elf that was there was Legolas, there was no batallion of elvish warriors that came there, and Glorfindel didn't die there either. Well, I could go on for a longgggggg time.... Needless to say, these three flicks are loosely based on JRR Tolkien's life work. I'm sure that if the Old Hobbit were still around he would be pissed. I'm sure that his bones are still rolling around in his grave! Enjoy the movies but please read the books to see what you are missing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 uh, Hobbit... *** IT'S A MOVIE *** ...and it's a *GREAT* movie. did they take some liberties with the books? Of course. Can you think of any great movie based on a great book where there weren't some liberties taken? All in all, if you laid what they held true to against what they changed, I think you'd come out heavily on the side of held true to the books. Compared to other movies based on famous sci fi books, I think they set a new standard of faithfulness. Sure, I'd have preferred it if they didn't do the things you listed, but look at what the *DID* do right. compare LOTR to, say, the first Dune movie (the one with Sting), or the total rewrite of To Your Scattered Bodies Go (which became The Riverboat), or Dick's story "I Can Remember It For You Wholesale" which became Total Recall, or A Boy and His Dog, or Jurassic Park, or... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Istari Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Ray, Yeah, its just a movie, I wouldn't rank it as a Great Movie though. Great movies would be Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind, etc... Have you read LOTR? If so, how long ago? I guess that they did get the names right but not much else. For those who haven't read the Trilogy or have read it many years ago, its a good movie, special effects are very good (Smeagol/Gollum was done very well) and the sound is very good, so enjoy!, but please do read the Trilogy. Oh, yeah, its not a SciFi book its Fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckears Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 ---------------- 5. The Ents!, I like how they looked but Jackson screwed their story up too! Where were the Hurons? The Ents didn't attack Orthanc alone!!! There was no need for Jackson to rewrite this part! ---------------- Hobbit, Perhaps you should try for 31... every one of the 12 times I've read the books has these beings referred to as "Huorns"... I think "Huron" is one of the Great Lakes... ----------------- Enjoy the movies but please read the books to see what you are missing! ----------------- I enjoy both... and who says Peter Jackson had to film the books verbatim? I think they have done a terrific job of making these films... the books are completely unfilmable as written, and while I don't agree with some of the changes (I also don't like the film Aragorn's wishy-washiness, and definitely did not like film Faramir), I understand the film-makers intent with the changes they made, and can live with them. It appears as though you can not. Nearly two years ago, I challenged a forum member (don't remember which forum) who was complaining about the abbreviated Council of Elrond (from FOTR) to read the chapter from the book out loud, and see how long it took... the film would have to be called "The Council of Elrond". Check out the Appendices (discs 3 and 4) of the Extended Editions of FOTR and TTT, and then tell me that these are not the most passionate film-makers to ever attempt an adaptation. The attention to detail is incredible, and we are witnessing film history. BTW, I am starting on number 13 for the Trilogy, hope to finish it (again) sometime around the holidays. Oh, and Moon: I will be seeing ROTK with my family (already have tickets), with Kleenexes in great supply... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Istari Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 OK, I misspelled the name, I at least didn't leave it out... Passionate film makers?...Only about lining their pockets and trying to get an Oscar...which will bring them more money... Yes, I will see the movie when it comes out, (I understand that Shelob is a mockery too) but will be pissed about whatever changes are made. I'm sure that he has changed the ending too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 I have read the Trilogy, three times, maybe not the 30 times like you claim, but still. I have also read the Hobbit. Still need to read the Silmorillion and The Lost Tales, though. ---------------- On 12/3/2003 7:13:55 PM The Hobbit wrote: 1. What happened to Tom Bombadil?, his introduction and story (along with Goldberry his companion)are completely missing in the movie, not even a mention of his name. And of course the incident at the Barrow Downs is missing too. ---------------- That is something that seems to be of much debate. There is one side that thinks he added little to the story and if something had to go, it may as well be him. Others think at least some mention should be made of him, at least put him back in the "extended edition". I would have at least liked to see the Barrow Downs incident in the movie myself. ---------------- 2. The character of Aragorn was totally bastardized! His history and right to be the King was totally hosed. Jackson made it look like Aragorn didn't want his inheritence (the Kingdom of Gondor and his marrage to Arwen). In the book Aragorn was striving towards the goal for decades prior to the discovery of The Ring by Bilbo (Aragorn is of the race of the Kings of Old and had about three times the life span of normal mortals, he is directly related to Elrond, though many generations have passed {yes, Aragorn has Elven blood in his veins}). 3. The Character of Arwen... Gad this really pi$$ed me off!!!! She is not the warrior princess that the movie made her out to be, far from it! She had no part in the race to the ford (Bilbo's escape from the Ringwraiths). She was engaged to Aragorn for several decades. Her father, Elrond, agreeded to them being married only if Aragorn was successful in his quest for the Kingdom of Gondor. 4. The character of Elrond was totally screwed too! He was one of the oldest elves in middle earth and full well knew the history and destiny of Aragorn. ---------------- These points I can agree with. In the case of Arwen, I guess it was easier to film, and made it more dramatic to see her race like that, whereas in the book, the horse itself took Frodo across the river to Elrond. ---------------- 5. The Ents!, I like how they looked but Jackson screwed their story up too! Where were the Hurons? The Ents didn't attack Orthanc alone!!! There was no need for Jackson to rewrite this part! 6. The Battle of Rohan at Helm's Deep! Geeze, Jackson musta been smoking dope on this one..... The Ents were supposed to be there along with the forest of Hurons, geeze, I didn't even see a tree in the entire scene... ---------------- The extended edition of The Two Towers adds this back in. They do show the forests there at the Battle of Helms deep, with the orcs retrating into the trees, with the expected consequences. ---------------- And the only Elf that was there was Legolas, there was no batallion of elvish warriors that came there, and Glorfindel didn't die there either. ---------------- There was a battlion of elvish archers that showed up at Helms Deep. Yeah, I did not like that when they killed off Glorfindel either. Again, probably to try to add more drama to it. ---------------- Well, I could go on for a longgggggg time.... Needless to say, these three flicks are loosely based on JRR Tolkien's life work. I'm sure that if the Old Hobbit were still around he would be pissed. I'm sure that his bones are still rolling around in his grave! ---------------- I bet you could, but then again, the movie is already 3 hours long as it is. Then there is another 43 minutes added into the Extended Edition, which does bring it in closer to the book. To be honost, I think it would have been very difficult, given the time and budget constraints to make this movie truly close to the book. Unless, they had 10 hours per film and a billion dollars, it is unlikely anybody could produce a movie that follows the book exactly. I also don't agree that J.R.R. Tolkien himself would be rolling in the grave. I honostly think he would be pleased with the outcome. Now it could be interesting to think how it may come out if Tolkien himself was there to oversee production. ---------------- Enjoy the movies but please read the books to see what you are missing! ---------------- As I mentioned, I already have read the Trilogy, and I know what is being left out, but still, I think they did a great job, considering the time and budget constraints that are present in any film project, expecially one of this magnitude. Even the Harry Potter movies are not exactly like the books, and J.K. Rowling herself oversaw the productions of those. You darn right that I'll be enjoying those movies, and I do think they are some of the best movies that I have ever seen come out of Hollywood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erdric Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Okay Hobbit, here goes: I've read the Trilogy 6 times, The Silmarillion 3 times (about to start the fourth), Unfinished Tales, The Book of Lost Tales Vol. 1, The Hobbit, and Master of Middle Earth: The Fiction of J.R.R. Tolkien. I've listened to the audio tapes of the Trilogy countless times on long car rides. Does that get me in the credibility door? I hope so. It certainly gets me in the geek door. Here's my take, and let me state up front that it's not a personal attack. First, you're so adamantly against the movies, so over the top in your dislike, that it's hard to take some of it seriously. The first film was hailed, and rightly so, as a cinematic triumph. It's critics are a small, but very devoted minority. Wait, wait, hold on. I know that doesn't mean that they have any less right to their (your) opinion. It's just that with such widespread critical and popular support, it's hard to accept some of your more general comments like "Passionate film makers?...Only about lining their pockets and trying to get an Oscar...which will bring them more money..." Come on, can't you step back and see this is just a bit over the top? I know that there are websites with book purists that despise these films. I don't blame them for feeling strongly about the books as sacred text. I adore the books and will read them over and over again until I stop drawing breath. I choose to treat the books and the movies as two separate entities. However, I don't believe the movies are "loosely" based on the books. Changes to FotR and TTT: Yes, I was unhappy about Bombadil and the Barrows Down. I mean, for crying out loud, the sword Merry uses in the Battle of Pellanor Fields has a very important history with regard to RotK and (well you know who but I don't want to spoil it for others) By cutting out the Downs, you disregard the damned sword and it's importance. I hated the portrayal of Lothlorien and Galadriel in the theatrical version. Thankfully, that was fixed in the Extended Edition, including what should never have been cut, the gift giving scene. Aragorn not getting Anduril and by extension, not getting the great speeches he gives to Eomer and the guard at Edoras. Faramir. Enough said. The Ents. Enough said. The warg attack and it's resulting fake death of Aragorn. Why, other than propping up the Eowyn and Aragorn love angle? Elves at Helms Deep. Sometimes I'm fine with this, sometimes it pisses me off. Other smaller things but those are the big ones. Hobbit, have you seen the Extended Editions? They're far superior to the theatrical versions. See them if you haven't. BTW, I don't know if you already know some of the things that have been cut from RotK but I KNOW you are going to be pissed off when you find out. There are fewer changes than TTT but some of the things that have been left out even have me angry. If you want to know them, post a comment here and I'll send you an email. You might want to know ahead of time to take the sting out. Well, I'll close by saying that even with their flaws, I think these are wonderful films and by far the best this genre has ever seen. I treasure seeing Middle Earth coming to life, even if it's not exactly as the Professor wrote it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erdric Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 >>And the only Elf that was there was Legolas, there was no batallion of elvish warriors that came there, and Glorfindel didn't die there either.<< It was Haldir at Helms Deep, not Glorfindel. I still don't see why they couldn't have had Erkenbrand come instead of the elves. They already switched Erkenbrand with the Rohirrim so why not have the Lord of Westfold show up instead of the elves? At least he was there in some form in the book. The elves weren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 mOON, "Ummm, not sure bout you guys but I don't need my friends seeing me blubber up like a baby." LOL A man should not cry,find a place for your emotions and store them.Later when you are alone with your RF7's and Klipsch gear...start to cry like a child who was deprived of candy. Yes I agree too many changes from the orgininal masterpiece,still the movies are great.I enjoyed the first two and will probably enjoy the last one too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckears Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 ---------------- On 12/3/2003 11:29:58 PM erdric wrote: >>I still don't see why they couldn't have had Erkenbrand come instead of the elves. They already switched Erkenbrand with the Rohirrim so why not have the Lord of Westfold show up instead of the elves? At least he was there in some form in the book. The elves weren't. ---------------- I have heard Peter Jackson (or perhaps one of the others) say that they felt that introducing another character would have been too difficult, given all of the other character introductions in the second film. Just as they simplified by having Arwen meet up with Strider and the Hobbits in FOTR, they integrated Erkenbrand with Eomer. These changes do not trouble me too much, especially considering that Erkenbrand is not a realized character to begin with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonrpayne Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 Ugh, I stay away from the forums for a few days and I miss everying: Hobbit: I'm about as geeky as they come too, I don't know about 30 times but I own the 6-book version of LOTR, the hobbit, lost tales, unfinished tales, silmarillion, etc. In turning a film into a movie some creative rearranging will always need to be done. The movies are almost 4 hours long as it is, and to truly present a watchable film things will need to be left out and changed. Consider also this very important point: the films had to appeal to a wide audience or they woulnd't have been made at all. In my eyes, I have to suffer through some of the inaacuracies in order to have what are my favorite movies of all times. And if anyone can find literature that gives an idea of where Tom Bombadil comes from... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 ---------------- And if anyone can find literature that gives an idea of where Tom Bombadil comes from... ---------------- Here you go!. That link is an interesting essay as to just who Tom Bombadil may be and where he may have come from. That is one topic of some interesting debate within the Lord of the Ring/Middle Earth/J.R.R. Tolkien fan circles. Do a google search on "Tom Bombadil", and you will find all kinds of interesting links about him. Now, about the movies and inaccuracies, I have already made my comments above. However, I'd be willing to bet that even if somebody actually did manage to make a movie that followed the book perfectly, there will most likely still be somebody that will find something to be pissed about in it. Just goes to show that you cannot please everyone all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted December 4, 2003 Author Share Posted December 4, 2003 Is it safe to go back and read this thread? I don't want to read any spoilers for the upcoming movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted December 4, 2003 Share Posted December 4, 2003 ---------------- On 12/4/2003 2:00:43 PM m00n wrote: Is it safe to go back and read this thread? I don't want to read any spoilers for the upcoming movie. ---------------- As far as any "spoilers" in this thread, everything mentioned is anything that you would have already known if you read the books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.