Thread: If You Could Change One Thing
Bottom of Page Message Board > The Fellowship of the Ring > If You Could Change One Thing
<< [1] [2]
Many of the previous posts on this thread have gone through my head, but no-one has yet mentioned the one thing that I would change: the chromatic interpretation of Lothlorien.
Peter Jackson made Lothlorien a mono-chromatic blue colour with twinkles of blue-ish lights in the background that looked like stars, which is not how it was described. Yellow and gold, with gleaming whites and rich greens are predominant colours in the book. And whatever happened to the golden flowers shaped like stars that Sam eventually names his daughter after?
Sam even mentions how sunshiney Lothlorien is:
Quote:
"It's sunlight and bright day, right enough. I though that Elves were all for moon and stars: but this is more elvish than anything I ever heard tell of."
If it was to be a mono-chromatic anything it should have been a yellow wash, not blue.
haha next theyll be saying that the Shire was supposed to have been destroyed and a box that sam gets from Lorien has seeds in it! come on now ppl....
Quote:
If it was to be a mono-chromatic anything it should have been a yellow wash, not blue.
PJ spent his money on Helms Deep and Minas Tirith and couldn't wait for real trees to grow, so to make the set cheap but realistic, he did it at night so we couldn't see there was no there, there.
If I remember correctly, many of the needed Lothlorien scenes occured in the evening or at night anyway; though as you say, it might have been nice to see Aragorn take Frodo up the hill to see the ring of trees, and enjoy the flora on the way.
Quote:
PJ spent his money on Helms Deep and Minas Tirith and couldn't wait for real trees to grow
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well..... I'm willing to wait
I know this is old and that people have heard it a million times, but the one thing I would change is to portray Faramir as he is actually portrayed in the books, as a foil for Boromir. The juxtaposition isn't there, and the depths and complications of their relationship as a family are lost.
Also, I would have to agree with Val that the Bombadil story is really a sideline, and if any part needed to be cut from the movie, that was the obvious choice. For me, he seems to stick out as a character that belongs more in The Hobbit rather than LOTR, and I actually wonder if Tolkien started out along those lines and then everything just grew darker and darker.
This is probably not quite the same thing but I would have loved for J R Tolkien to have made more of Arwen and Aragorns love. I'm just an old romantic at heart.
Also, I would like to have known what really did happen to Legolas and Gimli?????
As for the film - in ROTK I didn't like the way the ending did not show how Sauraman ruined the Shire and Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin saved the Shire - but I suppose the film could only be so long....
It was soooo sad to see Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin just sitting in the pub with a beer as if nothing had happened!
Very true, Marion! I would love to have seen that. They could probably make a fourth movie out of it...hmmmm...
Quote:
This is probably not quite the same thing but I would have loved for J R Tolkien to have made more of Arwen and Aragorns love. I'm just an old romantic at heart.
I think it was quite well done in the books. maybe some earlier scene during the stay at rivendell in fotr in which they have a little talk or something of that style would have given a nice hint (as far as I remember now - I might be wrong - there's nothing concrete mentioned about their love until the fields of comallen). but arwen's character in the movies was kinda put into the front too much, it annoyed me a little... though I very much liked her dresses. :P
I'm kinda glad they didn't take tom bombadil into the movie... I don't think they could have found anyone to be him, and really be him, I think... you can't just take some foolish actor and let him play this ultimate being...
Quote:
(as far as I remember now - I might be wrong - there's nothing concrete mentioned about their love until the fields of comallen)
There's a big hint in ROTK :
Quote:
'It is a gift that I bring you from the Lady of Rivendell,' answered Halbarad. 'She wrought it in secret, and long was the making. But she also sends word to you: "The days now are short. Either our hope cometh, or all hopes end. Therefore I send thee what I have made for thee. Fare well, Elfstone!"'
And Aragorn said: 'Now I know what you bear. Bear it still for me a while!' And he turned and looked away to the North under the great stars, and then he fell silent and spoke no more while the night's journey lasted.
And there's a big hint in FOTR :
Quote:
For the grim years were removed from the face of Aragorn, and he seemed clothed in white, a young lord tall and fair; and he spoke words in the Elvish tongue to one whom Frodo could not see. "Arwen vanimelda, namárië!" he said, and then he drew a breath, and returning out of his thought he looked at Frodo and smiled.
Tolkien put the love story in Appendix A as an after or fore thought, rather than bogging down his adventure story with this "mush" during the hobbits 'safe interlude' stay in Rivendell. Me thinks the Professor did it just right.
ok, I didn't remember those parts, therefor I haven't read the books often enough. forgive me my ignorance.
Don't worry, the first time i read LOTR, i didn't even realise that Arwen and Aragorn had something going on, until in the last chapters of LOTR, where Arwen came to Minas Tirith to be wed.
so that was about what happened to me, too. but I got the feeling there are tons of other things I haven't yet noticed... so, as I feel like reading tolkien at the moment instead of my stupid book-report-books, I think I'll read lotr again...
thats the beauty of it tho... you can read it again and again, and theres still bits that you missed...
or your like.. wow, didnt click..!!
Im thinking of two important things(there is quite a lot I would change, more I think about it I would probably change all the movie).First I would agree that FotR(SEE) is the best of the three movies and I would also like to see Glorfindel instead of Arwen.Second one would probably be whole Tom Bombadil part!!!
Quote:
I'm kinda glad they didn't take tom bombadil into the movie... I don't think they could have found anyone to be him, and really be him, I think... you can't just take some foolish actor and let him play this ultimate being...
I think whole lot of the cast was misscasted (especialy Haldir of Lorien though he is not important char but still)!!!
Exceptions are Ian McKellen,Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchet!!!
I still think Robin Williams could play a purely Tolkien Tom Bombadil, that is to say without playing Robin Williams hamming it up as a comic character, but as Robun Williams the serious actor being the character that the Professor wrote about in LotR and The Adventures of ...
I agree Grondmaster!!!
if i could change something in FOTR, it would probably be Aragorn's sword, it should have been reforged in the FOTR just like in the book, many people who have only watched the films seem to view Anduril as just a sword, it should have been portrayed as a thing of great significance, in the two towers, Aragorn was very protective about it when he went to Rohan, it should have been forged again in the FOTR and and have been shown as something of great value
I viewed the films before I was given the LOTR set for Christmas so I was like a child in wonderland and loved it all. Of course once I read Tolkien I confess to being a little perplexed about some things and still am.Why PJ decided to have emnity between those of the Rohirrim and the White City I will never understand. The leaders aeons back had covenanted with one another high up on that sacred site, they watched out for one another and I felt that King Theoden's wrath and hurt against Denethor and his crowd was very upsetting and threw the story completely out of kilter. Why why why did he do that, surely even though he had to save time and all that he could have showed the truth.
And that whole bit about Haldir upset me.I don't get that. Well at anyrate I still like the shows very much, there is a lot of 'magical beauty' in them and I think Peter did quite a stunning job.
Still I wish that one could be as close to the writer's intent in movies as is possible. Otherwise it really isn't the story he or she created, now is it?
Quote:
The leaders aeons back had covenanted with one another high up on that sacred site, they watched out for one another and I felt that King Theoden's wrath and hurt against Denethor and his crowd was very upsetting and threw the story completely out of kilter.
Well, not aeons back. After the battle of the Fields of Celebrant, around 500 years before the War of the Ring.
Anyway, among many other things, Théoden's ire towards Gondor in the movies was simply absurd.
"Where was Gondor when my son died? Where was Gondor when the Westfold was attacked?" blablablah... => Answer : Gondor was busy with defending fighting off Sauron's forces in and around Osgiliath.
Did he not acuse gondor of something even in the books? Atleast i think he said something like that. But then again i have a bad memory and i dont have the books. I was looking for them just today but no book store had them What to do what to do!
Théoden's tirade came after Aragorn said "Gondor will come", in fact, which is an absolutely absurd comment as well, especially for a future King. Maybe that's why Captain Hill became so incensed.
King Théoden's mother was from Lossarnach, so he'd not even consider badmouthing the country of his mother. In fact, King Théoden was born in Gondor and spent the first years of his life there.
But as usual, PJ, or rather the persons who wrote the script, thought otherwise.
Thankyou for the correction about the time frame Vir.
And 'here here'. you are so right on.
Allright now im sure there is something wrong whit my head i cant remember anything!
Quote:
and i dont have the books. I was looking for them just today but no book store had them What to do what to do!
You might consider ordering them online or via the mail, or ask your book store to order them for you, which is the simplest if you don't have a credit card.
If I were limited to a single change, I would make it a broad change, and start the films off on the right foot. There are so many specific things that make me shift uncomfortably in my chair while I'm watching the films that I think it would be fatuous/moot to change any single one of them in an attempt to improve the storyline. I differ in opinion with Vir in that I would simply eliminate the "prologue" altogether, and just start the films off in the shire with Bilbo's birthday. But that would only be part of my change. My change would be to lead the audience much more gradually into the complexity and depth of the evil. The first film thrust the audience too immediately into the full horror of the situation, and the story plateaus and stagnates (and even degrades with Arwen's role) until well past Moria. In this spirit, Old Man Willow and the barrow wights would be a natural adjunct, and Gandalf would not have summoned Frodo to leave the Shire for many years after Bilbo's party. JRR knew how to build up the story and maintain a steady interest. PJ, not so much.
If I could change something that really bothers me, it would be that the TRUE characters said the words t hat PJ gave to others. That bugs me no end.They gave the line from Aragorn's own mother when she gave up hope and foretold her demise to her son, and a ton of others.
And I would have them have the right relationship between King Theoden and his people and Gondor, that was stupid and perplexing and changed the very fabric of the storyline.
If I could change something in the Prologue of FotR it will be a new scene of Celebrinbior forging the rings,In the First half of FotR wuld be Glorfindel.....you know. The second half of FotR is a deleted scene where Erond and Celeborn had a meeting( It would make the image of Celeborn less than an image of an nobody). In The two Towers I wish Haldir didn't die. In Return of the King I would have added Elladan and Elrohir in it and the Scourging of the Shire. And in one f the eleted seen Galadriel spoke in the Grey Heavens of Annatar and an image of Annatar came up. He looked rather nice ou know. And I forgot, in Rivendell Elrond tells the Hobbits of Beren and Luthien and that they could of slipped it in the movie. It would be pretty interesting.
If I could change one thing I'd ditch PJ and hire John Boorman (check out Excalibur.) He, in turn, would do it without the ghastly computer-generated effects, and avoid all the numerous and cringe-inducing lapses of tone that permeate the movies as they stand:
1. Most egregious: Frodo falling for Gollum's crumby (!) framing of Sam and the latter's banishment.
2. The dwarf-tossing jokes.
3. Legolas as skate-board dude.
4. Gandalf's abominable mugging.
5. The butchering of the Ents' motivation.
6. The dopey conclusion to the Council of Elrond (Re-read the chapter in FOTR, and tell me what is gained by the change. So many of PJ's changes seem to be merely for the sake of change, i.e. pointless.)
7. Faramir.
8. The general trend throughout the movies was away from dignity and towards cheapness: cheap laughs, cheap thrills, cheap pathos.
9. Read Tolkien's reaction to Zimmerman's treatment in the Letters. Imagine his reaction to PJ's product. He somewhere in the letters, regarding a potential movie, writes that one must either settle for cash or kudos; ironically, he (or his estate) wound up with both, but I don't think he'd have been terribly pleased with the movies as they stand. Furthermore, we (or the world) are now stuck with them for at least another 30-40 years.
Now now, all PJ's changes were for the better.
'Better', as in, generating the greatest amount of moolah as quickly as possible.
If I, as a person who saw the Fellowship of the Ring movie before I read any of Tolkien's books, could change one thing about any of the movies it would be this: That it was filmed at all. Viewing just isn't the same thing as seeing. When you read a book, you "see" what is happening by understanding it through your own medium. When you "view" a movie you are impressed by the images that the film makers could create and how they are united with the story, your eyes become the processing medium instead of your thoughts.
Some movies do leap out at me as something beyond a visual impression, but the Fellowship of the Ring did not have that impression on me. It succeeded only in making me curious to see if there was more to what appeared to be some sort of epic journey. After reading the book, I had realized that the reason I didn't understand what I was reading was because the movie was just too limited. Time and money absorbing flashbacks would be the only way to give Tolkien's amazing amount of background information into a movie. Tolkien gives it to you in one sentence sometimes. Also, actors can only do so much. A written character has no human limitations, a description of words can look however an author wants the character to. Basically, I am trying to say that books are typically better than films beacuse they come more directly from the mind. The limitation of senses involved in reading empowers the mind and imagination to work freely, creating a much more personal and specific experience. You see it how the creator saw it first, in your mind. Sight is the only sense involved, and it serves merely to carry, rather than project. A gifted director can capture this effect occasionally, but it still obscures the personal touch that makes books so much more potent to me.
P.S. - Please don't have me stoned to death for seeing the movie before reading the books. I was young and impressionable, my firend wouldn't shut up about how great it was. I wanted to read the book, but I'm very picky and wanted to know if it would be good before beginning it. I mean, come on, who hasn't taken a peak at his or her Christmas presents the night before?
P.P.S. - I am aware that not everyone celebrates Christmas, and I'm sure whatever you celebrate is very important to you and a fine event.
Whether one sees the movie before reading the book or after is immaterial; having actually read the book is the important thing. Even if you first see the movie, when you latter read the book, your mind's eye will probably be filled with PJ's visions; however, Tolkien's words will probably modify many of those visions. If you see the movie second, and are able to suspend your mind's eye's preconcieved visions while watching the movie, you will enjoy it more. Though You may have to watch it more than once to do this. That's the way it happened to me anyway.
And the extended non-theatre version of all three movies are much better than the initial in-theatre versions as they have more explanatory content as well as greater character development.
I saw the movies before I was given the books as a gift, but I was able to enter into both and be swept away. I loved the visual of the movies, actually seeing something before my eyes, hearing persons speak etc. But the books were the real magic, I devoured every word and saw my own versions of what the characters looked and sounded like, the way Tolkien described the places and areas I also visualized quite differently than that of what I saw. I thoroughly loved and enjoyed both.
Obviously the two of you are my intellectual and imaginative superiors. I was really just expressing my regret that I had not encountered the books earlier, and I was railing against the lack of creativity present in films based on movies. The only original movies I ever seem to see are comedies, most of which I find present only to serve as a net to catch people, empty their pockets, and throw their impoverished bodies back. At least the Lord of the Rings movies were filmed long after the book was written and had been read by several generations. Other books were transferred to the reel only a few years after being written. Such as Harry Potter, A Series of Unfortunate Events, and Eragon. I have to admit that I never read or saw any installment of the latter two.
Bringing myself back to the core subject, I agree that the extended editions were better. I own all three. They sit on my shelf awaiting the day that I can forget nearly entirely about them, re-read the trilogy a few more times, and sit down for a re-creation of the feeling the long-time fans must have felt when the movies were first released.
<< [1] [2]
