Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: If You Could Change One Thing

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Fellowship of the Ring > If You Could Change One Thing   [1] [2] [3] >>
Okay people (those that may be interested), since the LotR movies are winding down, and there is really nothing left to look forward to save the SEE of RotK, and most likely The Hobbit several years down the road, I thought it would be interesting to sort of go back and take a look at the films again.

Logically to me, FotR is the best place to start. For me, out of all three films, FotR is the one with the least amount of problems (especially the SEE), and as of right now, is the one I like the best (SEE), at least until the SEE of RotK comes out (then weíll see). FotR was the one that from a film making perspective was really designed to stand on its own, and draw the audience in.

So I was wondering, if you could change one thing about the film FotR, what would that one thing be?

I think for me, if I could change one thing, it would have to be including Glorfindel in the film with his proper parts from the book (specifically at the Ford).

I know we had a similar thread a while back when FotR first came out, but again, the question is specifically, if you could change only one thing about the film FotR what would it be?

Iím interested to hear what some others think.
Elf Smilie
ONE Thing?? Ok, seriously:

**A biggie for me would be not introducing the new form of Sauron as a huge, floating, electric eyeball.

Also, I would have liked to see Gandalf fighting the NazgŻl upon Weathertop, as was discussed by flashback in the book. But that wasn't really a big one for me.

Additionally, Aragorn should have been carrying the Shards of Narsil around with him, and they should have been reforged as Andķril before they left Rivendell.

I really would have liked to see the Fellowship fighting wargs in Hollin (not the TTT-type wargs, though....)

It also would have been nice to see a slightly er... different way of 'transforming' Galadriel. More subtle.

And Frodo should have retained some of his book-ish traits; i.e. not falling over on Weathertop (there was no Amon SŻl fight with the Hobbits in the book; it was in a little dell on the western side). He also should have been alone on Asfaloth going through the Ford of Bruinen, and should have had some defiant lines like he had in the book.

Just some of my thoughts,

-Arco.
Orc Going Huh Smilie That certainly is a lot of only ones, Arco. Elf With a Big Grin Smilie

I would like to see the entire Tom Bombadil section: his rescue of the hobbits from Old Man Willow, through their nightly discussions with Tom, and culminating in their rescue from the Barrow-wight.

I'd like to see the Elrond/Aragorn relationship the way it was in the book. I can accept Aragorn being different, but I didn't like how they made Elrond a grumpy, get-your-hands-of-my-daughter, humans-suck, over-protective father. Was happy to see the real Elrond in ROTK, giving Aragorn the sword and some good advise. Better late than never I suppose. Elf Winking Smilie
Not to be unoriginal,but I have to agree with Grondy about Tom Bombadil, and especially Goldberry and their relationship with each other, and also on the Old Forest. And Old Man Willow would have proved a great foe(cinematically) for old Tom,with all the action PJ so desired to impart-he should have looked harder at the actual text of the book for inspiration,it would seem! Also the scene with the group of travellers at the very same statues of the trolls Bilbo vanquished should have played a tiny bit more significance,but I suppose we do not live in a perfect world! Shaking Head Smilie
I would have liked to see Nob inadvertantly rescuing Merry from his kidnappers. What a tense scene that would have been, 2 shadowy figures lifting and unconcious Merry and Nob shouting and all of a sudden, Merry lying alone on the roadside.
Interesting responses so far everyone, and even more interesting that we all basically (for the most part) had something different in mind for the one thing we could change. I guess if we all could actually change one thing, then the film would be perfect wouldnít it?
Elf Winking Smilie

Anyway, I agree with all the things everyone has mentioned so far, I would have liked to see the same things too, and in Amarieís case, I agree that I didnít care for the way Elrondís character was portrayed in the film (did like Hugo in the part though) either.

BTW Ama, I like your new avatar! Orc With Thumbs Up Smilie
Thank you Elfy! She won't give us any copyright troubles, 'cause I made her all by myself! Orc Grinning Smilie

I really liked Hugo-Elrond when Frodo is waking up, and he look all.. elf-like! Big Smile Smilie
But Hugo has that frown making him look angry all the time. Too bad, he was a real cutie without the frown, but I guess it would be like us having to walk around with our eyebrows raised all day if he was suppose to look like that all through the movie.
In a way I have always seen the Tom Bombadil story as a side avenue from the main storyline, so wasn't too disappointed when it was omitted from the movie. Saying that I would have liked to have seen the Barrow Downs and a wight. That would have been quite a tense scene with the hobbits becoming lost in the mist, their only landmarks being the occasional burial mound rising from the ground.

Although seeing the Barrow Downs would have been top of my wish list if I could choose one change, I think my biggest disappointment was actually the absence of Glorfindel. I actually resented Arwen stealing that role from him.
Quote:
if I could choose one change, I think my biggest disappointment was actually the absence of Glorfindel. I actually resented Arwen stealing that role from him.


Why am I not surprised to see that if we both could change just one thing, that it would be including Glorfindel parts in FotR.

Sometimes we think so a like when it comes to all things Tolkien (along with other things) Val that itís scary!
Super Scared Smilie

In a good way though! Elf Winking Smilie
Guess you all know this by now, but I'll say it anyway; I would have changed the title and said it had NOTHING to do with LotR!! (at least that would have been truthful... Wink Smilie )

Seriously though, I would like them to have spent a little more time on their journey to bree, and included crickhollow etc.. get some of the tension Frodo, Sam PIPPIN (hear that PJ???) and eventually Merry were feeling when they were just starting their big adventure.
I would have allowed the 17 years to lapse between Gandalf's leaving after Bilbo's party and returning to the shire. I believe that would have heightened the tension that PJ wanted to keep high (according to the SEE version commentaries) because after the 17 years, he could have then made it a fast paced, "We need to get the ring out of the Shire because Smeagol was found and he broke and the RW's are flying like bats out of Mordor to get you."

At least that's how I see it.

There are a few other changes I'd make as well, but that's one of the biggest. One point that I do not know whether its been addressed, I know it wasn't one of the reasons given in the commentaries on the SEE, but PJ and New Line are not going to put together a screenplay that could not be copyrighted. That is why they changed much of the story from Tolkien's writings, as the screenplay could not be copyrighted by them if they simply did everything Tolkien wrote and its also why they were more true to Tolkien's story in parts that Bashki's animated movie was not and vice versa. Note: This is in addition to the problems mentioned in the commentaries of converting Tolkien's story into a screenplay. Sort of like maps, if you look carefully at a map you buy in the store put out by one company, you'll see "mistakes" on it, such as a mislabelled highway sign or a road that connects to another road that, in fact, it does not connect to, etc. These companies do this on purpose to ensure that their maps are not copied by their competitors.
I would agree about Glorifindel and as far as Arwen goes I would have lightened up a little on the love story. Then as far as the battles go, at Helms Deep, I teally don't remember elves showing up. Then at Peleanor Feilds wasn't a bunch of elves and dwarves supposed to show up. Orc Going Huh Smilie
Quote:
I would have allowed the 17 years to lapse between Gandalf's leaving after Bilbo's party and returning to the shire.


Yes, I agree, that would have been cool Helmthh. Iíve often felt that PJ and Co. didnít do a good enough job showing the passage of time. In the film FotR, they make it seem like Frodo leaves the Shire with the Ring almost immediately after Bilboís birthday party.

Quote:
Then as far as the battles go, at Helms Deep, I teally don't remember elves showing up. Then at Peleanor Feilds wasn't a bunch of elves and dwarves supposed to show up.


Hi Gothmog, thanks for your response! Just so you know, in this thread, we are talking about the film FotR exclusively, and if you could change only one thing, what would that one thing be?

Anyway, there definitely were not any Elves at the battle of Helmís Deep (save Legolas) in Tolkienís LotR. Looked cool in the movie, but did not happen in the book!

Also, I may be wrong on this because some of my details seem to be bit rusty at the moment (time to brush up), but Iím fairly confident without looking it up that the only Elves at the Pelennor were Legolas, and Elladan and Elrohir. To the best of my recollection, the only dwarf present at that battle was Gimli. Anyone can feel free to elaborate on this matter further if you wish, or if Iíve stated something incorrectly.
Elf Smilie
Quote:
Also, I may be wrong on this because some of my details seem to be bit rusty at the moment (time to brush up), but Iím fairly confident without looking it up that the only Elves at the Pelennor were Legolas, and Elladan and Elrohir. To the best of my recollection, the only dwarf present at that battle was Gimli. Anyone can feel free to elaborate on this matter further if you wish, or if Iíve stated something incorrectly.


As far as I remember, that is correct, Elfstone. The confusion may come from the Battle of the Last Alliance, where it was said all races participated. In this battle, all races apart from the elves fought on both sides, although it is said only a few dwarves sided with Sauron. Although the text says all races took part, and that only the elves fought entirely on the side of good, I cannot imagine any hobbits siding with Sauron. It may be they were just overlooked, as always, from history.

Talking about the Battle of the Last Alliance, I would have liked to have seen Gil-galad and Elendil overthrow Sauron, rather than have Isildur steal their honour.
I agree with Gothmog lord of Balrogs, the whole Helms Deep thing annoyed me. I mean visually it was great and it was an epic movie moment as well but why the elves? That's not how it was in the book. Oh well at least my friend got to have a final gawk at Haladir.
Quote:
I would agree about Glorifindel and as far as Arwen goes I would have lightened up a little on the love story. Then as far as the battles go, at Helms Deep, I teally don't remember elves showing up. Then at Peleanor Feilds wasn't a bunch of elves and dwarves supposed to show up.


I think yoiu may be confusing the Pelennor fields with the battle of Five Armies in the Hobbit there, where a bunch of Elves and Dwarves and Goblins and Eagles and all sorts showed up.
Trying to keep to the thread (though not to say that those who've drifted from have not brought up good points, the did) I would also have played the whole Council of Elrond (COE) differently. As with the 17 years passing in the Shire, I also like the way Bashki tackled the COE as PJ mentions in the SEE that he and his writers had some difficulty with that scene. I see nothing wrong with having the narrator sum up much of what was discussed at the council as the only the last little bit was really important. I believe the use of Galadrial as narrator was a good choice and it would not be out of character for her to know what transpired there, as the SEE discussion on who should have been the narrator of the Prologue focused too much, IMHO, on "how would so and so know what happened in during the time of the Prologue?" and why they rejected Frodo and Gandalf, since Celeborn was well aware that Gandalf was missing and he was also aware of how many left Rivendell.

(Note: I did not buy the whole narrator issue that PJ raised, afterall, the whole story of LOTR was not told until all the events transpired, so IMHO Sam, Merry and/or Pippin could have been the narrator(s) of the Prologue and any point during the trilogy and would have been perfectly believeable.)

I do agree with some of the issues raised in the SEE, as LOTR is extremely specific in many ways that it would be a bear to try to get every single detail correct and not leave out a single scene or piece of dialog. Yes the Bombadil scene is missed, but I don't believe it was as big of a loss as others believe.
Why haven't i posted earlier in here??? Oh right, because i can only chťnge just one thing. Heh. How foreseeing, Elfstone!

Newayz, whatever. I'll pick just one thing.

Hmm, i would have done the prologue right, just like in the books, so that at least the movie starts the way it should be, instead of already going astray from the first minute.

For instance, in the prologue we see Elrond with Vilya... while Gil-Galad recieved both Vilya and Narya... well you probably know the real story. And if you don't well... then you have some book(s) to read!

Also, in the prologue the whole "lucky strike" (not referring to cigarettes) by which Isildur cuts Sauron's ring finger/middle finger (heh), after which for some reason Sauron expires (Achilles heel ---- let's change it to Sauron finger!) must go!

The whole prologue is bad bad bad.

Also, didn't Elendil --if the guy with the spear in the movies is Elendil-- have a beard ?? Heh, i have a vision of a bearded Elf (?!) putting some spear in some Orc.

So, i'd make the prologue like in the books (yes, Virginia, that can be done), so that at least the movie starts at the right foot.
Is this just for FotR?? Cause if it is DANG!! Okay but I have one for RotK which comes out today and we have it reserved Smile Smilie but my dad picked it up on his way to work and still has it in his car and won't be home till 8:30 or 9:00 Sad Smilie !!

They could havve showed Saurumon at least once!! What happened to him!! But when you read the books he is hardly in it except for the end!! But still he isn't in the whole movie!! I was like whoa where did he run off to?? But that is the only major correction I had that really ****** me off!! Big Smile Smilie

Moderator Smilie Please watch your language, HH05..... Valedhelgwath Moderator Smilie
Quote:
I would like to see the entire Tom Bombadil section: his rescue of the hobbits from Old Man Willow, through their nightly discussions with Tom, and culminating in their rescue from the Barrow-wight


I totally agree grondy

and the for ROTK the scourging of the shire

also a small detail in the end about sam sprinkling like a seed sort of thing, I wanted that!
Quote:
They could havve showed Saurumon at least once!!

Eh, there isn't any Saurumon in the books, dear.

For some reason, you made a Siamese twin of Saruman and Sauron. But it sounds very nice indeed.
ONE THING ONLY??? Well, I would have put Glorfindel in and canceled out the mushy-mush-mush between Aragorn and Arwen. (That's in the APPENDICES, hello.) In ROTK I would have made the ending the REAL ending. Not this Frodo-fights-Gollum-falls-and hangs-on-and-doesn't-let-go stuff
There were so many adaptions made and unneeded additions that I think PJ partially recked the very heart of the story.
Change's are sometimes good in movies, even sometimes required, but were too often made in Fellowship of The Ring along with the rest of the movie series and I would have improved it numerous amounts of time (Ralph Bakshi's animated version, too..). But if I could only change one thing in the Fellowship of the Ring - I would have added the whole part where Tom Bombadil rescues the Hobbits (and takes care of them for a short time). Not only because Tom is one of my favorite characters but it always felt like an essential (and is really warm) part of the book. That would have redeemed the whole movie in my eyes.
Quote:
In ROTK I would have made the ending the REAL ending. Not this Frodo-fights-Gollum-falls-and hangs-on-and-doesn't-let-go stuff

We are talking about the Fellowship in this forum. Happy Elf Smilie
Very good topic for a forum, Elfy. Smile Smilie Thanks for starting it.
yes!! Saurumon was in the end!! At the scouring of the shire!! Because we find out that he is a poor begger now and that stuff. In the movie they could have somehow implied that so we weren't kept guessing!!
Two items I found completely unncessary and actually slowed down the movie a bit (despite keeping the suspense up in both cases, and a slowdown in the movie is what PJ said he wanted to avoid with scenes he shortened and/or cut out, but yet it was OK to add scenes that did the same) were the bit with the Cave Troll and the stairs of Moria. Don't get me wrong, I liked both scenes but when you think about it they add nothing to the story and slow things down. Not to mention complicate the plot a bit, especially with the troll stabbing Frodo with the spear, albeit, Frodo only got stabbed by the spike that was on one side of the spear head. The stairs portion was almost entirely unnecessary, IMHO. IMHO, how PJ should have done it was to have the characters simply jump over the missing stairs, then as soon as the last couple of people jumped, the rock that came down and broke the stairs away as Frodo and Aragorn were still on them could still have happened, only this time the stairs could have fallen away a bit faster leaving the viewer with the impression that "Whew! That was close, so and so would have been in dire straits had that rock fallen sooner." Although I don't believe it was in the book, PJ could have left the Orcs firing arrows at them as they ran down the stairs.

Anyone else agree? I mean the only thing that the Troll scene kind of setup was the breaking of the gate at Minas Tirith and the immediate incoming of the Trolls, in ROTK. That leant a bit of ironic humor to Gandalf's statement about being men of Gondor and how they should stand their ground to "anything" that comes through the gate. Again, I believe that Tolkien's idea of the confrontation between the WK and Gandalf would have been more powerful than the trolls, but that's best left to the ROTK movie forum, sorry to the mod's.
I agree... and disagree.
If I could do it all again, I would do it all the same, I just wouldnīt do it with you.
Quote:
Hmm, i would have done the prologue right, just like in the books, so that at least the movie starts the way it should be, instead of already going astray from the first minute.

For instance, in the prologue we see Elrond with Vilya... while Gil-Galad recieved both Vilya and Narya... well you probably know the real story. And if you don't well... then you have some book(s) to read!

Also, in the prologue the whole "lucky strike" (not referring to cigarettes) by which Isildur cuts Sauron's ring finger/middle finger (heh), after which for some reason Sauron expires (Achilles heel ---- let's change it to Sauron finger!) must go!

The whole prologue is bad bad bad.

Also, didn't Elendil --if the guy with the spear in the movies is Elendil-- have a beard ?? Heh, i have a vision of a bearded Elf (?!) putting some spear in some Orc


Have to respectfully disagree with you here Vir, the whole Prologue is good, good, good! In fact, as Iíve stated several times before, the Prologue in FOTR is one of my favorite scenes in the entire trilogy (probably why you are criticizing it here, but thatís okay)!

Also, in the Prologue of FOTR, Galadriel, Cirdan, and Gil-galad are clearly the ones shown with their Rings (in proper correlation with the books), not Elrond with Vilya as you incorrectly stated.

Further, Elendil does indeed have a beard in the Prologue. I think you're accidently confusing Elendil with Gil-galad, and Gil-galad is properly shown with his legendary spear ďAeglosĒ.

Quote:
Is this just for FotR??


Yes HobbitHomie05, this thread is for FOTR specifically (sorry). Eventually we will have a thread like this for all three films, but logically FOTR was the best place to start, and I felt it unfair to be properly critical of ROTK at this point until we have all had a chance to see the SEE, which is PJís complete vision.

Quote:
Very good topic for a forum, Elfy. Thanks for starting it.


Thanks Fea! This thread was a slow starter at first, but it seems to be really taking off now. I just personally find it very interesting to read everyoneís viewpoints. We each have our own favorite parts of the story, so itís really interesting to read what each person would change if they could only change one thing. Makes you put much more thought into it too, when it can only be one thing (kinda gets to the heart of the matter).

So far the inclusion of Glorfindel and Tom Bombadil seem to be the runaway favorites!

Quote:
Anyone else agree?


I think the Troll scene served a dual purpose Helmthh. It made for a great transition into Gandalfís confrontation with the Balrog, but chiefly it served to show just how much pain, suffering, danger etc., Frodo and the rest of the Fellowship were going to have to endure to complete the quest, and just how delicate, and hopeless the situation was, how it could all come crashing down if anything were to happen to Frodo. It also served to show that there was a lot more to Frodo than what met the eye, and also to reveal the ďmithril surpriseĒ. Just my .02!
Elf Smilie
Quote:
It also served to show that there was a lot more to Frodo than what met the eye, and also to reveal the ďmithril surpriseĒ. Just my .02!
Well there was a cave troll in that battle who retired with a mighty sore foot caused by 'Sting'óBoromirs sword only bounced off the trolls arm and became notched when it he took a whack at it. Frodo was actually stabbed by a black armor clad orc-chieftain as the set up for Aragorn's later comment, "Here's a pretty hobbit-skin to wrap an elven-princeling in!" .

I would have cut that battle in half time-wise for I felt it lasted much longer that the one in the book.

The only thing I would have done different in the bridge scene, is play "London Bridge is Falling Down", but seriously, I would have added a little more lighting so I could have seen exactly what was actually going on. Like, why in Morgoth's name would nine people running across a multi-arched stone bridge cause it to fall like dominoes? Yes, ten points for style, but minus five for credibility. For another .02 (cents) tell me why I'm wrong here. Elf With a Big Grin Smilie
Help, am split...

But Bombadil was needed. His power over the ring, being a power of the Earth... that was no use for war...adn Elrond the Wise calls him "Irwain Ben Adar" the first of things, the last when all is wiped out... surely he is Vala, or something like...

The barrow weights should have been seen to accelerate the fear and danger

The council of Elrond should have been a little grander - more people and history, however boring in film terms, it is a vital chapter in the story...

Whatever about bringing in Arwen, it should not have been at the expense of Glorfindel (there is a little, very little hint that Glorfindel in conjunction with Cirdain was responsible for Gandalf having a ring..) - even if it is later stated that Glorfindel is not the same Glorfindel that died at after the escape from Gondolin... one might put this in the same bucket as Gandalf the Grey returning... maybe Glorfindel "returned"....
Quote:
Have to respectfully disagree with you here Vir, the whole Prologue is good, good, good! In fact, as Iíve stated several times before, the Prologue in FOTR is one of my favorite scenes in the entire trilogy (probably why you are criticizing it here, but thatís okay)!

The prologue is good? It isn't even remotely close to the books. No heroic duel between Gil-Galad, Elendil and Sauron, just a lucky strike by Isildur, Isildur shown as a weak fool, etc. I didn't even see Gil-Galad until i suddenly woke up one night and said to myself "hey that dude with the spear could be gil-galad". Heck, we only see him one second.

And anyway : Galadriel and Gil-Galad weren't there at the forging of the Rings. Celebrimbor sent two rings to Gil-Galad, and one to Galadriel. LAter on, Gil-Galad gave NArya to Cirdan and Vilya to elrond (before the Great Battle). Of course, this is only a detail... there is no other way to make the public understand that "3 Elven Kings recieved 3 Rings" by showing it to them.... apparently saying it isn't enough.

And Sauron suddenly appearing and hunting some Elf/Man was rubbish. Sauron would never do that, he would only appear at the very very last when he's forced to do that. THat he did in the books, with the duel thing. But Sauron suddenly becoming the cliche evil buttkicking Dark Lord was rubbish. But of course everyone but some like that.

My biggest annoyment is just the fact that there ain't a duel, but instead Sauron had to die suddenly after he lost a finger. Stupid. Even Achilles didn't die after Apollo thrusted in his heel, Paris still had to finish him off (heh thx for making me compare with Troy, compadre).

I've always thought that we see Elrond in the beginning with VIlya instead of Gil-Galad... sure it wasn't Weaving? Maybe Gil-Galad was played by Hugo's twin brother, Guho.

The movie already starts on the wrong foot (or finger) by showing that Men were weak, while only some Men were. Maybe PJ did this to show how great and exceptional, how Ubermensch Barfagorn really was... but apparently he forgot that Barfagorn descended from Isildur. Awww, the price of the blood.

Later on in the movies, Barfagorn says "the same blood of Isildur runs through my veins, the same weakness" : heh, what the? Isildur was a real Numenoran, and had no weakness in him at all. He didn't take the Ring because the Ring seduced him like in the movies, but as a token for his deceased brother and father. That's why he didn't want to destroy it. And that's why the Ring betrayed him later on when Isildur tried to escape the Orcses : the Ring left him because it sensed it couldn't corrupt Isildur.

Why else would it leave Isildur if Isildur was so easily to corrupt anyway?

Ah well, apparently you don't have problems with the fact that PJ ruined the story of the books.

Quote:
But Bombadil was needed. His power over the ring, being a power of the Earth... that was no use for war...adn Elrond the Wise calls him "Irwain Ben Adar" the first of things, the last when all is wiped out... surely he is Vala, or something like...

The barrow weights should have been seen to accelerate the fear and danger

Nah, Bombadil was way over PJ's head. If Tom would've been in, it would've been a total abomination, ripped out of the context of the book anyway. I suspect PJ's Tom would be like a "santa claus" of Middle-Earth. "ho ho ho, Hobbits! You are elf-friends, aren't you?"

Well if you want to read some interesting theories about Tom Bombadil go to the thread "Characters - Was Tom Bombadil important to...". I've included the possibility Tom is an Ainu, but not really a Vala, because he has no bounds with the 8 Ainur who descended to Arda and later became known as Valar.

Quote:
I think the Troll scene served a dual purpose Helmthh. It made for a great transition into Gandalfís confrontation with the Balrog, but chiefly it served to show just how much pain, suffering, danger etc., Frodo and the rest of the Fellowship were going to have to endure to complete the quest, and just how delicate, and hopeless the situation was, how it could all come crashing down if anything were to happen to Frodo. It also served to show that there was a lot more to Frodo than what met the eye, and also to reveal the ďmithril surpriseĒ. Just my .02!

I never had problems with the scene in the chamber of Mazarbul... there were cave trolls in the books as well so... but in the books Frodo wasn't speared by a troll but by an Orc i thought.

I was only annoyed Frodo had to "die" so melodramatically, and with a lot of eye-rolling again. Hyper-Over-Acting. OF course, this is to confuse the audience "Oh no, our cute little hobbit is dead. Let's go home, this movie is a rip-off. We want heroic deeds and happy ends."

I actually felt sorry that Legolamb finished off the cave-troll so brutally... i thought the cave-troll looked kinda cute... he was the character i felt most pity for during the entire movies. Would make a nice pet, such a cave-troll.
Quote:
Isildur was a real Numenoran, and had no weaknes in him at all. He didn't take the Ring because the Ring seduced him like in the books, but as a token for his deceased brother and father. That's why he didn't want to destroy it. And that's why the Ring betrayed him later on when Isildur tried to escape the Orcses : the Ring left him because it sensed it couldn't corrupt Isildur


Viromir, i usually look forward to reading your rants, as they often throw a completely abject light upon the contentious issue of Film art vs Literary art, ibid. Adaptation of one medium to another. All of which i find refreshing as i love dissention.

However, i fear that your point on the weakness of Man and more particularly, the Numenoreans is badly flawed - If you have read the Allakabeth (Akallebeth - not sure hmm...lol) in the silmarillion (and i know you have) you'd know that Numenoreans were far from "incorruptible" - Ar-Pharazon the Last ill-fated King of Westernesse proves in his actions, that he and his predeccessors, were susceptible to Sauron's corrupting influence. Isildur was of the Faithful who left Westernesse to set up shoppe in Middle Earth... but his decision to take the ring was a prideful decision based upon the notion of wereguild - He had lost his brother Anarion and his father Elendil, he took the ring for himself. The ring did "insinuate" itself into his lofty Dunedain principles and corrupted them.
I know about Ar-Pharazon, but I didn't speak about Numenoreans in general, only about Isildur, who as a descendant of the Lords of Andunie (like i wrote, a REAL Numenoran), never got corrupted like other Numenoreans in the history of Numenor. Why not? because they expected their fate, that one day they had to die, unlike other Numenorans who envied Elfies immortality.

And i still feel that at the moment Isildur took the Ring, he only did it as a token. Of course later on the Ring influenced him, as Gandalf read in Minas Tirith. "it is dear to me"
What would the RIng insinuate? "oh, sorry your brother and daddy are dead. Still friends?"

I think Isildur had the same "relationship" with the Ring like Bilbo : he'd never use it under normal circumstances (he did use him of course in dire need) but still was unable to relinquish it.

Hmm going off-topic.

Er i think eh the whole Arwen part should be like in the books as well. It's not that i dislike Liv Tyler, i just think she can't act. Seeing her 5 seconds at the feast in Rivendell would be enough. Hmm, now that i think of it, that part wasn't in the movies as well.
OK ... what about the "incorruptible" Numenoreans - Elendili that came to Arnor, and set up the kingdoms of Cardolan, Rhudaur & Arthedain, and perished as a consequence of unceasing conflict with Angband but in the later years were more concerned with intercenine wars with their fellow Dunedain when they feuded over minor holdings, Rhudaur siding with the Witch-King being theclassic fait accompli. (though they were described as being mixed with the blood of the Dunlending people more than the others). I only mention this as you seem to take a very "black and white" view of how the "good" Numenoreans were in the books. When you refer to the ring being acquired by Isildur as a "token" i take it you mean it was still an important decision for him to have made to possess it, not a glib, off-hand decision - thats why i used the term "were-guild", i think it was a serious cultural choice of Isildurs, to take back something of Sauron's after he had taken Isildur's Father and brother.

Agreed, Liv cant act, but she sure is mighty fine! Wink Smilie
Quote:
The prologue is good? It isn't even remotely close to the books. No heroic duel between Gil-Galad, Elendil and Sauron, just a lucky strike by Isildur, Isildur shown as a weak fool, etc


Actually Virumor, again, the prologue is quite close to whatís in the books! With all due respect, I think maybe you need to go back and re-read the chapter Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age, because your memory of the events seem to be exclusively partially selective.

Iím also curious to know now if youíve ever read Unfinished Tales, specifically the chapter The Disaster Of The Gladden Fields? If you have, it must have been some time ago, because I donít think you would be making some of the statements youíve made about Isildur if youíve read that chapter, or remembered the events a little clearer.

Let me get back to the prologue for a second, you say that itís not even remotely close to the books, but yet the battle of the Dagorlad is shown in the movie to look almost exactly as Tolkien had described it. Elendil is shown very close to the way he wouldíve looked, and the same holds true for Gil-galad.

Elrond and Isildur are also shown to be present at the battle of the Dagorlad, which of course again is in correct correlation with the books. True that the prologue of FOTR does not show the duel between Elendil, Gil-galad, and Sauron the exact way that Tolkien describes it in the Sil. (Tolkien basically described it as a wrestling match between the three), but you do see Elendil and Sauron facing off in combat with Elendil being slain, which does in fact take place in the book!

Also, you seem to keep referring to this ďlucky strikeĒ thing by Isildur like itís some kind of whacked out, far-fetched idea, but in fact, thatís pretty much what happened in the books. Tolkien never describes exactly what happens between Isildur and Sauron in specific detail, but he makes it quite clear that Isildur was responsible for taking the Ring from his hand. Here is the direct quote from page 352 of the Sil. pertaining to this;

Quote:
But at the last the siege was so strait that Sauron himself came forth; and he wrestled with Gil-galad and Elendil, and they both were slain, and the sword of Elendil broke under him as he fell. But Sauron also was thrown down, and with the hilt shard of Narsil Isildur cut the Ruling Ring from the hand of Sauron and took it for his own.


Now in looking at this quote, how can you say that Isildur cutting the Ring from Sauronís hand in the manner it was shown in the prologue didnít, or couldnít happen that way? Tolkien left this open to the readerís individual imagination and interpretation. PJís version of what happened in the film is as good as anyoneís guess, and actually is quite close to the book in terms of having Isildur being the one to cut the Ring from Sauronís hand with the shard of Narsil.

I also have to respectfully disagree with many of the statements youíve made concerning Isildur. First, I personally donít feel that the prologue portrays Isildur as being weak; in fact I think heís shown as being quite strong, resilient, and courageous.

However, Isildur is human, and therefore imperfect, his pride is his weakness (a recurrent theme demonstrated with many of Tolkienís characters), thus making him susceptible to the incredible power, malice, and corruption of the One Ring, which is properly shown in the films.

Quote:
Later on in the movies, Barfagorn says "the same blood of Isildur runs through my veins, the same weakness" : heh, what the? Isildur was a real Numenoran, and had no weakness in him at all. He didn't take the Ring because the Ring seduced him like in the movies, but as a token for his deceased brother and father. That's why he didn't want to destroy it. And that's why the Ring betrayed him later on when Isildur tried to escape the Orcses : the Ring left him because it sensed it couldn't corrupt Isildur.


Ah but he was seduced, and ultimately corrupted by the power of the One Virumor. True enough that his original intent was to keep the Ring as a so called token for his fatherís and brotherís death, but already the malice of the Ring was taking hold of him. Hereís a quote from page 353-354 of the Sil;

Quote:
ĎThis I will have as weregild for my fatherís death, and my brotherís. Was it not I who dealt the Enemy his death-blow?í And the Ring that he held seemed to him exceedingly fair to look on; and he would not suffer it to be destroyed.


Almost instantly Tolkien makes it clear that the Ring is exerting itís power and influence over Isildur, and we immediately begin to see that selfish ďthe Ring is mineĒ corruptive mentality that we witness time and time again throughout the War of the Ring not only with Isildur, but also with Smeagol/Gollum, Bilbo, and obviously Frodo at the end of the quest.

Isildur wasnít a weak person by definition, he was a hero, and a great warrior, but again his pride was his weakness. This is further backed up in UT in the chapter I mentioned with several statements that Isildur makes himself. The following are bits from page 286 of UT;

Quote:
ĎI cannot use it. I dread the pain of touching it. And I have not yet found the strength to bend it to my will. It needs one greater than I now know myself to be. My pride has fallen. It should go to the Keepers of the Three.í


Quote:
ĎForgive me, and my pride that has brought you to this doom.í


Obviously we can see by these statements that Isildur is admitting the error of his ways, and that his pride was his weakness that allowed him to become corrupted by the One. I will say this for Isildur though, he was still strong enough to ultimately realize the colossal mistake he had made, and he did have enough strength and will power of his own left to surrender the Ring of his own free will, because he was on his way to hand it over to Elrond in Imladris when he was killed!

In addition, the Ring left Isildur because it was doing the work of its master, exerting itís malice, and trying always to get back to itís master, not because it sensed that it couldnít corrupt Isildur. The Ring had corrupted Isildur right from the very start, the moment he first laid his eyes on it. The Ring had Isildur serve itís bidding. It hadnít totally consumed him yet, but he was corrupted by it.

Quote:
Ah well, apparently you don't have problems with the fact that PJ ruined the story of the books.


Must we really get into this time and time again? Did PJ really ruin the story of the books? He hasnít ruined the story of the books for me, last time I checked they were still the best books ever written, and nothing will ever change that!
Elf Winking Smilie

Seriously though, as Iíve said many times, sure I have problems with certain things that were done in the films, sure I have things I would change, sure I have my gripes and nit-picks, but IMHO when you look at the entire scope of all three films, the positives definitely do outweigh the negatives.

Once again this just comes down to the simple fact that film, and the written word are two entirely different mediums. When telling a story on screen, filmmakers do not have the same advantages writers do. Youíre dealing with a very short period of time to operate with when making a film therefore creating a necessity for a condensed version. When the same luxury of time does not exist; changes and adaptations must be made.

Like it or not, these movies werenít made to appeal exclusively to just Tolkien fans, they were made to appeal to a broad spectrum, and there had to be things done to make the films understandable for those that havenít read the books. Some sort of balance needed to be established for the sake of the films working, and I think that all those who worked so hard on these films did an outstanding job of achieving a good working cinematic balance!
Elf Smilie
I Wow.... Great post, Elfstone.

Your take on Isildur is exactly as I have always seen him. He was a great hero who rescued a cutting of the White Tree from Sauron's own back garden, and was one of the Lords of the Faithful who never succumbed to Sauron's will when all around him were. He did succumb to the Ring, however. The power of the ring always seemed to work in different ways on different people. It would find a chink in their armour and then exploit it. In Isildur's case he took it because he was mourning the loss of his father. It was revenge. His pride then made him keep it, when the best advice was to have it destroyed.

I think it is important at this stage to look at the "purpose" of the Ring. In the War of the Ring Sauron is back and the "purpose" of the Ring is to reunite itself with Sauron. It can focus its attention on that goal, manipulating people around it to achieve that goal for it. At the beginning of the Third Age, however, Sauron has just fallen. What is the "purpose" of the Ring? If it does not have a definite goal, its effect on Isildur will be less obvious than say that shown on Boromir.

Virumor did touch on a good point though. The Prologue does place the emphesis on Isildur slaying Sauron. He just batters aside Elendil, and you only catch the most fleeting of glances of Gil-galad. I would have liked to have seen this duel extended, if only by a few seconds. I would like to have seen Sauron on his knees before Isildur cut the ring from his finger.

The quote from Isidur in which he says, "Was it not I who dealt the Enemy his death-blow?", does go to prove one of two things. Either it was Isildur who delivered the final deathblow to Sauron, or the Ring has corrupted him into believing he had.
Quote:
Actually Virumor, again, the prologue is quite close to whatís in the books! With all due respect, I think maybe you need to go back and re-read the chapter Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age, because your memory of the events seem to be exclusively partially selective.

No way, Jose. I know that you are trying to challenge me or annoy me like always, but saying that i should reread that part is totally absurd. I base myself of what i have read in LOTR as always. Unless we have read different books?

Quote:
Iím also curious to know now if youíve ever read Unfinished Tales, specifically the chapter The Disaster Of The Gladden Fields? If you have, it must have been some time ago, because I donít think you would be making some of the statements youíve made about Isildur if youíve read that chapter, or remembered the events a little clearer.

Let me get back to the prologue for a second, you say that itís not even remotely close to the books, but yet the battle of the Dagorlad is shown in the movie to look almost exactly as Tolkien had described it. Elendil is shown very close to the way he wouldíve looked, and the same holds true for Gil-galad.

Elrond and Isildur are also shown to be present at the battle of the Dagorlad, which of course again is in correct correlation with the books. True that the prologue of FOTR does not show the duel between Elendil, Gil-galad, and Sauron the exact way that Tolkien describes it in the Sil. (Tolkien basically described it as a wrestling match between the three), but you do see Elendil and Sauron facing off in combat with Elendil being slain, which does in fact take place in the book!

Also, you seem to keep referring to this ďlucky strikeĒ thing by Isildur like itís some kind of whacked out, far-fetched idea, but in fact, thatís pretty much what happened in the books. Tolkien never describes exactly what happens between Isildur and Sauron in specific detail, but he makes it quite clear that Isildur was responsible for taking the Ring from his hand. Here is the direct quote from page 352 of the Sil. pertaining to this;

I think you have read another book than Lord of the Rings? Perhaps you have read the movie version?

The only thing the movie prologue has in common with the book prologue is the fact that Elendil, Gil-Galad, Elrond and Isildur (and Sauron) there and there it ends. In the books there was a duel between Gil-Galad and Elendil vs Sauron, in which Sauronís body was slain, and also Gil-Galad and Elendil were slain. After this, Isildur cut the Ring from Sauronís finger. But Sauron was already dead by then. Sauron was not destroyed because Isildur cut Sauronís ring finger of his hand like in the movies. No, it was first Gil-Galad and Elendil who killed Sauron.

Nothing to do with "own imagination", the above part is mentioned both by Gandalf in chapter "shadow of the past" and Elrond in chapter "council of elrond", Fellowship of the Ring, book 1 of Lord of the Rings, by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien.

So, the lucky strike in the movies never happened in the books. After Sauronís death, Narsil broke and Isildur took a shard from Narsil and then cut off the Ring of Sauronís finger. Period. Isildur didn't kill or blow up Sauron by cutting a ring of his finger like in the movies, no Gil-Galad and Elendil killed Sauron. Not quite close to the books, is it?

I donít quite think I should reread anything of the prologueÖ I just stated what Elrond told about the Dagorlad in the Council of Elrond chapter. Actually, Elrond and Cirdan were present at the duel too. No Cirdan in the movie Dagorlad, eh?

So movie prologue EXACTLY as Tolkien described it? Not.

Concerning all you said about Isildur, in my earlier post (which you didnít read, apparently) I pointed out that Isildur was indeed influenced by the Ring, because he couldnít release it anymore and Ďit became dear to himí. I compared with Bilbo in coining this theory. Isildur was never corrupted by the Ring, which was the reason the Ring left him when Isildur dived into the Anduin. If Isildur would be easily corrupted, the Ring would have stayed with Isildur.

Isildur never got corrupted, only seduced. Did Bilbo get corrupted? No. Some examples of corruption by the One Ring is Gollum or the NazgulÖ not quite similar to Isildur. If he wouldíve been corrupted he wouldíve promptly started a war against the lands of the East, trying to become the ruler of entire Middle-Earth. This would be all due to the power of the One Ring. Isildur never completely lost his senses and was still able to confess his mistake of not destroying the Ring.

Furthermore, Isildur only had the One Ring for one yearÖ it would take more years for such a strong-willed person, Ďheroí, to corrupt, I think.

Isildur took the Ring as a token for his father and brother, but it could indeed already be that this was not the real reason why he took itÖ it could partly or totally be influenced by the One Ring as well. That is possible.

Quote:
Like it or not, these movies werenít made to appeal exclusively to just Tolkien fans, they were made to appeal to a broad spectrum, and there had to be things done to make the films understandable for those that havenít read the books. Some sort of balance needed to be established for the sake of the films working, and I think that all those who worked so hard on these films did an outstanding job of achieving a good working cinematic balance!

I disagree with that. The movies were not understandable, nor for Tolkien fans, nor for ppl who never heard bout Tolkien before. Besides, the story of the books was understandable enough. I can take skipping some parts of the book, like Tom Bombadil part for instance, but changing parts of the story and characters i cannot accept from a movie based on LOTR.

I don't think changing the entire story and characters makes the movie story in any way understandable... who knows perhaps in the SEE it'll be watchable. But of course nobody cares. If a movie recieves 11 Oscars, everyone thinks it's the best movie ever made. Yeah, right. We all know Oscars aren't given for quality.

I have nothing against movies about LOTR, if those movies stay true to the story and characters of the books. PJís movies were NOT. The only thing to look at it without banging my head into the wall, is saying to myself PJís movies have nothing to do with the story of the books. That works.

Anyway : my opinion in this topic is that the Prologue should be changed... so what? You may disagree with my opinion, but it is still my opinion, you know. I think you should try respect the opinion of ppl who don't like the same movies you like.
Quote:
Anyway : my opinion in this topic is that the Prologue should be changed... so what? You may disagree with my opinion, but it is still my opinion, you know. I think you should try respect the opinion of ppl who don't like the same movies you like.


I respect everyone's opinion, Vir, and from what I've seen of Elfstone, he does too. What we have here, is no disrespect for differing opinions but a healthy discussion between those who percieve things differently. Critisising your opinions without arguments to back up the critisism would be disrepectful, as would mocking someone for their opinions. This is not what we have here. You have your opinions, which you back up with your evidence, while those in disagreement present their counter arguments and evidence.

For what it is worth, I think these differences of opinions bring out the best discussions because the parties concerned dig deeper into their knowledge to present their evidence. Over the past few weeks I have really enjoyed "dueling" with you, and I think some really interesting points have come out of these discussions from all parties concerned. And please don't take umbrage with my term "dueling" with you. It has not been personally aimed at you and your opinions, but has come about because we do hold different opinions about the same topic.

I do not disrespect you for not liking the movies, nor would I like you to disrepect me for enjoying them. Everyone is different. Personally, I think being able to enjoy something is better than not enjoying something, and so feel I have gained something from them whereas you maybe haven't. In my view, everywhere I look in the films I see differences to how I imagined those scenes and characters to be, but the film is still very recognisable. Compared to many adaptations, I think the LotR trilogy stays very close to the overall story.

Quote:
Isildur never got corrupted, only seduced.


Okay, accepted. In my posts I was using the term corrupted to represent any influence the ring had on anyone, because the way I see it, any influence at all is a corruption of a character's true persona. Maybe corrupted is too strong a word, and seduced would have been more appropiate.
I think the phrase your both looking for is courtesy of the frech satirist and philosopher Voltaire:

Quote:
"I may disagree with what you say but I will defend till death your right to say it!"


I thank you... *bows*

Wink Smilie
Maybe the prologue discrepancy problem was created because some are basing their side of the discussion on Tolkien's story as edited by young Peter in The Silmarillion, while the other side are basing their argument on only that given in Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring.

I haven't actually made a comparison of the incident in these two texts and I can't now afford the time to check it out, but after reading the above debate, it sounds to me like that is root of the problem as both sides seem to have a textual source to back them up. If so, maybe you will just have to agree to disagree; and besides it has made the reader as well as the writer think about something other than who wins a silly ballgame or from whence is coming their next meal. Elf With a Big Grin Smilie
Quote:
I respect everyone's opinion, Vir, and from what I've seen of Elfstone, he does too. What we have here, is no disrespect for differing opinions but a healthy discussion between those who percieve things differently. Critisising your opinions without arguments to back up the critisism would be disrepectful, as would mocking someone for their opinions. This is not what we have here. You have your opinions, which you back up with your evidence, while those in disagreement present their counter arguments and evidence.

I don't know what the problem is, really but certainly no 'healthy' discussion. There shouldn't even be any discussion, as it is just a fact that the movie prologue is in no way near to the book prologue, let alone "exactly like what Tolkien described". I tried to prove that objectively, but i ran into a brick wall.

It all started when i posted earlier that i wanted to change the movie prologue because it wasn't like the book prologue, then someone started to try to prove that it indeed was like in the books, which is not the case, clearly... i don't think that is respecting my opinion. My opinion is based on a clear difference between movies and books, so i don't really see why suddenly someone has to start picking on that. I don't understand why someone is trying to go into my opinion or try to prove i am wrong...

Pfft, whatever. And then i am the one who is not "open-minded". Like always, movie discussion leads to mindless quarreling and 'yes' vs 'no'. Or perhaps i'm not allowed in any movie threads and i have to be chased away? Blah, nice try. Heh.

i just gave my opinion about what should be changed. Period. If everyone respects each other's opinion, you don't try to go into that or criticize it. Also, commenting that i should reread parts of the books isn't really respecting an opinion, is it? And why is there only comment on what i posted on not what other PT members posted then? It's always the same.
Before I begin what I fear will turn into a rather lengthy post by the time Iím finished due to the fact that there are numerous things I now feel the need to address, let me take a minute to first point out to the rest of the Council, and to any and all other members that have been participating in this thread for that matter that everything was fine in this thread up until recently.

People were enjoying this thread, and everyone in here was having very healthy, constructive discussions on the film FOTR. There were absolutely no problems until Virumor came in here and starting pulling his same old tired, stale routine.

If one were to look back over this entire thread, one can easily see that the problem began with Virumorís first post in this thread on Tuesday 25th May 2004 (11:44pm). Now in this post, Virumor stated that he had a problem with the prologue, and that is what he would want to change. I have absolutely no problem with this, and I can respect the fact the Virumor doesnít like the prologue.

The problem I did have with his post though was the fact that he was listing erroneous information to support his position on why he didnít care for the prologue. Now if he had chosen to support his position with factual information, then obviously I would have had no problem with that, but instead he listed a bunch of things about the prologue that he didnít like that simply werenít true. The following is the exact quote of what he said;

Quote:
For instance, in the prologue we see Elrond with Vilya... while Gil-Galad recieved both Vilya and Narya... well you probably know the real story. And if you don't well... then you have some book(s) to read!

Also, in the prologue the whole "lucky strike" (not referring to cigarettes) by which Isildur cuts Sauron's ring finger/middle finger (heh), after which for some reason Sauron expires (Achilles heel ---- let's change it to Sauron finger!) must go!

The whole prologue is bad bad bad.

Also, didn't Elendil --if the guy with the spear in the movies is Elendil-- have a beard ?? Heh, i have a vision of a bearded Elf (?!) putting some spear in some Orc.

So, i'd make the prologue like in the books (yes, Virginia, that can be done), so that at least the movie starts at the right foot.


Right away anyone can see that the tone of his post was already somewhat confrontational from the start, but again itís the false information he listed to support his argument that I had a problem with. On Wednesday 2nd June 2004 (12:32am), which was at that time my next post in this thread, I responded to a few of the comments that Virumor had made, and the following is exactly what I said concerning those comments;

Quote:
Have to respectfully disagree with you here Vir, the whole Prologue is good, good, good! In fact, as Iíve stated several times before, the Prologue in FOTR is one of my favorite scenes in the entire trilogy (probably why you are criticizing it here, but thatís okay)!

Also, in the Prologue of FOTR, Galadriel, Cirdan, and Gil-galad are clearly the ones shown with their Rings (in proper correlation with the books), not Elrond with Vilya as you incorrectly stated.

Further, Elendil does indeed have a beard in the Prologue. I think you're accidentally confusing Elendil with Gil-galad, and Gil-galad is properly shown with his legendary spear ďAeglosĒ.


All I did here was point out the incorrect information that Virumor had listed to support his position. Anyone can easily see from my post that it was respectful, and in no way confrontational. In addition, if you look at my entire post, I responded to a few different members, and in no way was specifically singling him out (which he has accused me of).

Now the problem began after this because Virumor choose to take exception with the comments I made (again just me correcting false information, nothing more, nothing less), and he flew off the handle with his next post on Wednesday 9th June 2004 (11:40am), where he attacked my response, criticizing my opinion, and being deliberately confrontational.

In his most recent post, Virumor states, ďIf everyone respects each other's opinion, you don't try to go into that or criticize itĒ, well thatís fine, and I wholeheartedly agree, but again, if you look back over the course of this thread you will see that Virumor is guilty of just that, and in fact, he was the one who started attacking me, and criticizing my opinion first!

Further issues arose from his post on Wednesday 9th June 2004, because I had a difference in opinion (which he did not respect) on several things he stated, and once again I felt like he was using erroneous information to support his claims.

Virumor stated that the prologue in the film FOTR wasnít even remotely close to the books, that the ďlucky strikeĒ thing by isildur (as he refers to it) could never have happened, that Isildur was never corrupted by the influence of the Ring, and that the Ring left Isildur because it knew it couldnít corrupt him.

Now I personally have a difference in opinion on all of these, because I feel that Virumorís position concerning these matters is incorrect. Now again, if Virumor would have gone about posting in a non-confrontational manner, and would have supported his position with factual information from the books, then I would have had no problem, but this was not the case!

On the flip side of that coin, I did back up my opinion, and position on these matters with factual information from the books which Virumor has chosen to discount and ignore for the simple fact that he has repeatedly demonstrated through his own actions time and time again that he just cannot, and will not accept the fact that some people like the LOTR films.

So for one last time here, I will attempt to address some of the issues at hand. Iím not going to go into Virumorís argument that the prologue isnít even remotely close to the books, because I feel that argument is very weak. Anyone but Virumor can see that what is shown in the prologue of the film FOTR is a reasonable interpretation of what happens in the books that works well for the sake of the film, and I feel that Iíve already provided more than enough ample proof of that.

However, I would like to address something Virumor has said regarding this matter, and I quote;

Quote:
So movie prologue EXACTLY as Tolkien described it? Not.

"exactly like what Tolkien described".


Virumor is putting words in my mouth here, which I did not say. This is something I do not appreciate whatsoever, and will not tolerate from anyone. I find it completely disrespectful, and extremely insulting!

At no time in my entire life here, or elsewhere have I ever said that the prologue was exactly like the books! So I ask you Virumor, please tell me where and when I ever said the prologue in the films was exactly like the books? Again, I have never once stated that in my entire life, and every single one of my posts pertaining to the films here proves it!

Now regarding some of the Isildur issues, I would like to address the ďlucky strikeĒ blow by Isildur, and the fact that Virumor claims it could never have happened, the issue that Isildur was never corrupted by the influence of the Ring, and the statement made by Virumor that the Ring left Isildur because it knew it couldnít corrupt him.

I guess Iíll start with the following quote from Virumorís post on Friday 11th June 2004 (12:58am);

Quote:
Nothing to do with "own imagination", the above part is mentioned both by Gandalf in chapter "shadow of the past" and Elrond in chapter "council of elrond", Fellowship of the Ring, book 1 of Lord of the Rings, by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien.

So, the lucky strike in the movies never happened in the books. After Sauronís death, Narsil broke and Isildur took a shard from Narsil and then cut off the Ring of Sauronís finger. Period. Isildur didn't kill or blow up Sauron by cutting a ring of his finger like in the movies, no Gil-Galad and Elendil killed Sauron.


Actually what is written in the specific chapters you mentioned here Virumor serve very well to back up my points on this. In the chapter The Shadow Of The Past, Gandalf tells Frodo that it was Elendil and Gil-galad who overthrew Sauron though they themselves perished in the deed, but it does not say definitively that Sauron was already dead when Isildur cut the Ring from his hand!

Then in the chapter The Council Of Elrond, Elrond recounts the tale of the Battle of the Dagorlad, and he states basically the same thing that Gandalf had said to Frodo, but again it is not mentioned anywhere specifically that Sauron was dead when Isildur cut the Ring from his hand.

A little further down on the same page of that chapter, Elrond says this;

Quote:
But few marked what Isildur did. He alone stood by his father in that last mortal contest;


Well if Isildur stood alone by Elendil in that last mortal contest, than whatís shown in the prologue is actually very close to whatís in the books (in terms of just the two of them being there together). If Isildur and Elendil were standing there alone with Sauron (and I think Iíll take Elrondís word for it since he was there) then that means that Gil-galad was already dead by this point.

You can go ahead and assume Sauron was dead when Isildur cut the Ring from his hand if you want, but itís just an assumption, and thatís all it will ever be because again, it says nowhere in the books definitively that Sauron was dead when Isildur cut the Ring, and that was my point. There is no way that you can say that the ďlucky strike thingĒ couldnít have feasibly happened that way.

Quote:
Isildur was never corrupted by the Ring, which was the reason the Ring left him when Isildur dived into the Anduin. If Isildur would be easily corrupted, the Ring would have stayed with Isildur.


Once again Virumor, this is incorrect! I donít how many times I have to keep saying this, but the Ring betrayed Isildur. It left Isildur because it was doing what it was designed to do, heeding its masterís call, always trying to get back to its master, and carrying out Sauronís evil malice. Gollum was easily corrupted by the Ring too, but the Ring left him didnít it? Your argument here is once again very weak.

Quote:
I don't think changing the entire story and characters makes the movie story in any way understandable...


The entire story wasnít changed Virumor, as always this is just one of your many gigantic over exaggerations when it comes to the films!

Also, I like how youíve conveniently dodged my question to you about reading UT. Could it be possible that you just donít want to admit here that you havenít read UT yet, and you just donít want to acknowledge that someone who likes the movies might know more about this than you do? If you havenít read the specific chapter in UT I mentioned, than you definitely donít know the whole story when it comes to Isildur and the Ring!

Lastly, in conclusion I would like to take a look at some of the recent comments Virumor has made in his last two posts in this thread. Iíll start with this;

Quote:
I don't know what the problem is, really but certainly no 'healthy' discussion. There shouldn't even be any discussion, as it is just a fact that the movie prologue is in no way near to the book prologue

Pfft, whatever. And then i am the one who is not "open-minded".


Well Virumor the problem when discussing the films here at PT is you, no one else has a problem, and your own statements prove this. You say that there shouldnít even be any discussion. That right there proves that you do not respect the opinions of others that differ from yours when it comes to the movies, and that you certainly are not in any way open-minded whatsoever when it comes to the films!

Quote:
I think you should try respect the opinion of ppl who don't like the same movies you like.


Maybe you need to take your own advice and look in the mirror! Maybe if youíre going to continue to constantly come into every thread pertaining to the films, and consistently be nothing but negative, and sarcastic, you should try and respect the opinions of people who like these films even though you donít!

In order to receive respect, you need to show the same respect towards others opinions on the films in turn, which is something you have never done, and your repeated actions over the course of the last year or so here prove that!

Quote:
No way, Jose. I know that you are trying to challenge me or annoy me like always, but saying that i should reread that part is totally absurd. I base myself of what i have read in LOTR as always.


Actually Virumor, itís you who is constantly trying to challenge me, or annoy me every chance you get on anything that has to do with PJís LOTR films, and I think everyone here is well aware of this fact! Itís you who continually comes into my threads and criticizes everything I post about the films, and itís you who goes into any thread pertaining to the LOTR films only to always consistently be sarcastic, and negative.


If you donít like the movies, and you hate them so much, and you never have anything constructive to say, then why on Earth do you continually waste so much of your time and energy doing, and saying the same things over and over again?

A good comparison to your hatred of the movies is like watching something on TV you donít like. If you donít like whatís on the channel, then why are you going to continue to watch that channel? If thereís something on TV I donít like, I change the channel. I think even by your own admission, itís time for you to change the channel Virumor!
Elf Smilie
ok first for all of you people that think Glorfindel should have been in the fotr i disagree with you. So here is this character that rides up and carries Frodo to Rivendell and you never see them again. It might make sense to someone that has read lotr but not if u havn't.. Instead why not introduce Arwen who you are going to see though out the rest of the movies. there are already a lot of characters in this movie and we don't need ones that are going to just be in that one part and u never see them again. By putting Arwen in it develops the character more. Elf Smilie

ok second anyone who thinks Tom Bombadil should have been in the movie...sure i would like to see that to but lets be realistic. That would take a long time to get through all of the things that happen. It would be really cool to see but it would take to long. Wiggle Smilie

ok i think that in the extended verson of teh film when Gladariel gives everyone gifts they should have shown Boromir getting his gift. Why they didn't show that i don't know but the should have. other than that i think pj did a great job turning lotr in a movie.
Quote:
The problem I did have with his post though was the fact that he was listing erroneous information to support his position on why he didnít care for the prologue. Now if he had chosen to support his position with factual information, then obviously I would have had no problem with that, but instead he listed a bunch of things about the prologue that he didnít like that simply werenít true. The following is the exact quote of what he said;


Quote:
Actually Virumor, again, the prologue is quite close to whatís in the books! With all due respect, I think maybe you need to go back and re-read the chapter Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age, because your memory of the events seem to be exclusively partially selective.

Iím also curious to know now if youíve ever read Unfinished Tales, specifically the chapter The Disaster Of The Gladden Fields? If you have, it must have been some time ago, because I donít think you would be making some of the statements youíve made about Isildur if youíve read that chapter, or remembered the events a little clearer.


Quote:
Now again, if Virumor would have gone about posting in a non-confrontational manner, and would have supported his position with factual information from the books, then I would have had no problem, but this was not the case!


You call me confrontational? Look at your above posts. It was you who was confrontational, by claiming i should go rereading some books because i gave incorrect information, which i didnít. Iíve tried three times to explain why the movie prologue is not like the book prologue, by basing myself on The Fellowship of the Ring book, written by JRRT.

Quote:
In his most recent post, Virumor states, ďIf everyone respects each other's opinion, you don't try to go into that or criticize itĒ, well thatís fine, and I wholeheartedly agree, but again, if you look back over the course of this thread you will see that Virumor is guilty of just that, and in fact, he was the one who started attacking me, and criticizing my opinion first!

Quote:
Have to respectfully disagree with you here Vir, the whole Prologue is good, good, good! In fact, as Iíve stated several times before, the Prologue in FOTR is one of my favorite scenes in the entire trilogy (probably why you are criticizing it here, but thatís okay)!

Also, in the Prologue of FOTR, Galadriel, Cirdan, and Gil-galad are clearly the ones shown with their Rings (in proper correlation with the books), not Elrond with Vilya as you incorrectly stated.

Further, Elendil does indeed have a beard in the Prologue. I think you're accidently confusing Elendil with Gil-galad, and Gil-galad is properly shown with his legendary spear ďAeglosĒ.

After my first post in this thread, where i gave my opinion on what i wanted to change and why (based on the book), you posted the above. So it was you started attacking and criticizing my opinion first. After you did that, i just tried twice again to explain my opinion on the movie prologue again, again basing myself on the books, but you kept saying that i gave ďerroneousĒ and ďincorrectĒ information and even that i should reread certain parts of the book again.

Quote:
Maybe you need to take your own advice and look in the mirror! Maybe if youíre going to continue to constantly come into every thread pertaining to the films, and consistently be nothing but negative, and sarcastic, you should try and respect the opinions of people who like these films even though you donít!

In order to receive respect, you need to show the same respect towards others opinions on the films in turn, which is something you have never done, and your repeated actions over the course of the last year or so here prove that!

Thank you for getting personal for the second time, after you already claimed that i should go rereading parts of the books. I think you donít give me respect for not liking the movies at all, as you seem to continue fighting my correct opinions on the movie prologue which is not like the book prologue.
Quote:
Well Virumor the problem when discussing the films here at PT is you, no one else has a problem, and your own statements prove this. You say that there shouldnít even be any discussion. That right there proves that you do not respect the opinions of others that differ from yours when it comes to the movies, and that you certainly are not in any way open-minded whatsoever when it comes to the films!

The same counts for you : you are not open-minded at all, as you for some reason seem to think that i am lying or giving incorrect information when saying the movie prologue is not like the book prologue. I never gave any incorrect information at all. So i think it's logical i keep on trying to prove my points, as i know i am not incorrect and that you are incorrect by saying i am incorrect.

Quote:
Also, I like how youíve conveniently dodged my question to you about reading UT. Could it be possible that you just donít want to admit here that you havenít read UT yet, and you just donít want to acknowledge that someone who likes the movies might know more about this than you do? If you havenít read the specific chapter in UT I mentioned, than you definitely donít know the whole story when it comes to Isildur and the Ring!


Quote:
Virumor is putting words in my mouth here, which I did not say. This is something I do not appreciate whatsoever, and will not tolerate from anyone. I find it completely disrespectful, and extremely insulting!

So you find me insulting or disrespectful ? Look at what you posted above. Have i ever said you should reread the books ? Have i ever claimed you never read UT before and that you know nothing about the books? That you donít know the real story? No, i havenít. Tell me, you find the things you posted above to be respectful and not insulting?


Again, if you ask me a question, i am not obliged to answer to you. This is not a court and i am not under oath, and i owe you nothing. You cannot tell me what to do.

ę but yet the battle of the Dagorlad is shown in the movie to look almost exactly as Tolkien had described it ę OK, this is what i read. This is indeed not ę exactly as Tolkien described it Ľ, which i put into your mouth. No, you indeed didnít say that, but it actually comes very close, doesnít it ? Anyway, sorry for not having put the word ę almost Ľ in it. I hope you will be able to forgive me !

Quote:
Actually Virumor, itís you who is constantly trying to challenge me, or annoy me every chance you get on anything that has to do with PJís LOTR films, and I think everyone here is well aware of this fact! Itís you who continually comes into my threads and criticizes everything I post about the films, and itís you who goes into any thread pertaining to the LOTR films only to always consistently be sarcastic, and negative

I think the same of you. Every time i want to discuss the movies and criticize the movies, you come in and pick on me. Apparently, you cannot stand criticism on the movies at all, be it serious or not serious (yes, in some posts about the movies i was sometimes tongue-in-cheek, like with Gil-Galad and the beard).

Quote:
A good comparison to your hatred of the movies is like watching something on TV you donít like. If you donít like whatís on the channel, then why are you going to continue to watch that channel? If thereís something on TV I donít like, I change the channel. I think even by your own admission, itís time for you to change the channel Virumor!

Again, you donít have to tell me what to do. I am allowed to join any thread and participate in any discussion i want. Life isnít all about what you like, you know that ? You canít live by only eating the food you like, or pass school by only learning for subjects you like.


Quote:
Once again Virumor, this is incorrect! I donít how many times I have to keep saying this, but the Ring betrayed Isildur. It left Isildur because it was doing what it was designed to do, heeding its masterís call, always trying to get back to its master, and carrying out Sauronís evil malice. Gollum was easily corrupted by the Ring too, but the Ring left him didnít it? Your argument here is once again very weak.

Not it is not. You were saying that an opinion of mine was incorrect, because my opinion was not equal to your opinionÖ not very open-minded is it ? All people who have other opinions than you, have wrong opinions ? Strange views you have. For instance, trying to get back to his master? His master had left Middle-Earth for a whole while then. If it had stayed by the 'corrupted' Isildur, Isildur would've become a new Sauron, trying to conquer Middle-Earth and totally succumb to the Ring and become a Ringwraith... so then if Sauron would return Isildur/Ringwraith would just return the Ring to Sauron. That was what i was referring to : this is my OPINION. You don't know the difference between fact and opinion?

Well, i could react on a lot of other things you posted in your latest post in this thread, but i shall stop here. Iíve already done the same like you and done a lot of useless name-calling and ranting and whining, so after wasting so much of my time and energy i will no go to sleep.

Also, this is the last post i am going to make in this thread, dear Council Member. Congratulations with whatever your goal was.
I think this argument has gone far enough and the thread will be locked for the time being. I will reopen it when there has been a cooling down period. Moderator Smilie

Personally, I think this discussion could have been done without the personal attacks that have taken place. The best way to prove one's point is to quote directly from Tolkien's books and cite where the quote came from. Read Smilie
Sorry, I didn't mean to leave this locked for such a long time.
As I have mentioned, please keep the discussion from becoming personal. In other words, don't direct your comments at anyone by name. The preception then becomes that it is a personal attack. I also recommend defending your opinion with quotes from Tolkien whenever possible, just to make it more interesting. Smile Smilie
Thanks for your patience.
I think that of all three movies The Fellowship is the one that I would change the least. I really did like the prologue in the movie because being someone that had never read the books it helped me out a bit. After reading all the books I think that I would have made the time try to follow the book a little closer , I mean in the movie it seems like it was 2 weeks between Bilbo giving The Ring to Frodo and Gandalf coming back to the Shire and telling Frodo that he had to leave. We all know that there were years between those two events. I think it would have been better if they would have had the Black Riders come to Hobbitton like they did and encounter The Gaffer like they did in the book that would have made more sense becuase in the book Frodo knows about the Black riders before he starts on his journey not after he begins it. I think that the part where he and Sam meet the elves after they leave The Shire is a fairly significant part of the story and I am not sure why that was cut out except for a scene in the SEE with the elves leaving. Other than that I think that those are the only few things that I would want to change. I did think that after reading the book they should have tried to incorporate Tom Bombadil but then after I re-read The Fellowship again I think that maybe Tom while a great character in the book would not have transferred well to the big screen.

Ashley276
Quote:
I think that the part where he and Sam meet the elves after they leave The Shire is a fairly significant part of the story and I am not sure why that was cut out except for a scene in the SEE with the elves leaving.

If you are referring to the Hobbits meeting Gildor Inglorion, this was still in the Shire : happened in the night before the Hobbits -Sam, Frodo and Pippin (Three is Company)- saw the Black Rider and came to visit Farmer Maggot, etc.
I agree that the Prologue was done pretty well. Yes, it was not completely accurate when it comes to the fight with Sauron and the taking of the One Ring, however, I found nothing wrong with "compressing" the handing out of the other rings to the three races. It was done to be illustrative and not intended to be an accurate representation, IMHO, and the prologue would have gone on too long to show every ring being handed out in a more accurate perspective. I do agree with others on this board that the battle with Sauron would have been better had it been accurate to the texts, though I am certain that the idea of the "lucky strike" was part of the history (have to investigate that a bit better when I get the chance).
I personly like the films though I think it would of been nice if everything was accurate and all included. Yet I think PJ did a great job of making the films because the books are so long and would need some explaining about the history etc. that it would have been difficult to make it with eveything included. (a movie alone would have been about 10hrs. long if everything was exactly like the books.) I also think that the films let people into Middle-earth and knowing the story of Frodo that I like the idea of having them though J.R.R Tolkien disagreed.
  [1] [2] [3] >>