What would you change about the LotR film trilogy?

B'arelyn Dwarf
Posts: 114

What would you change about the LotR film trilogy?

Post#1 » Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:40 am

I was just wondering, considering some people on the forum have said that some actors weren't right for their roles and so forth, what you would change about the LotR film triliogy (how it was filmed, dialogue, actors, setting ect). I think that legolas should have been played by someone who had more of a connection to the portrayial of english literature, and that he often had very little to say in the film whereas in the book he has much more of an opinion on the world. Oh and Btw you could just suggest a small change, for example Gandalfs hat could have been more blue and pointy, or you could suggest a major change.

What do you think?

User avatar
Gandalfs Beard
Posts: 2311

What would you change about the LotR film trilogy?

Post#2 » Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:29 am

There is very little I think I would change. Personally I loved Bloom as Legolas (not so much in other roles ;) ).

But just off the top of my head, the Wargs defintely needed a makeover :lol: . They are supposed to be Large wolves, not some creature that escaped from the show Primeval.

GB

User avatar
inaholeintheground
Posts: 18

What would you change about the LotR film trilogy?

Post#3 » Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:56 pm

The Scouring of the Shire should have been included in the film--I would have even been satisfied with its inclusion in a Director's Cut alone, if not the theatrical release itself. Christopher Lee was greatly disappointed that he did not get a chance to play this scene--maybe this could be incorporated somehow into one of the latter Hobbit movies (I've heard that there will eventually be three), but frankly I just don't see how, as it takes place at the tail end of the LOTR action.

Tom Bombadil might have been an interesting episode as well.

User avatar
Odo Banks
Posts: 1883

What would you change about the LotR film trilogy?

Post#4 » Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:26 pm

Still sad Old Man Willow, Tom, and Willow Wights missed out!

Also thought the Black Riders could have been treated better. Their build up in the book is excellent. The Hobbits going to Crickhollow has always been a good part of the story for me. Jackson is not Hitchcock - but maybe if he was, he might have built the same suspense about the Black Riders that is in the book.

As to the intro - I guess fair enough, but I would have preferred starting with The Long Expected Party. Non readers of LOTR would surely have coped with it.

Did not like Denethor - sorry.

Loved the fact that Arwen replaced Glorfindel. Loved the Romance between Aragorn and Arwen (the way their story in the appendixes was translated into the movie too).

Having Pippin and Merry get stuck under the roots in Fangorn Forest didn't work for me.

Regards,
Odo

User avatar
Odo Banks
Posts: 1883

What would you change about the LotR film trilogy?

Post#5 » Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:28 pm

And yes, I agree - the Scouring of the Shire should not have been left out!

Regards,
Odo

User avatar
Gandalfs Beard
Posts: 2311

What would you change about the LotR film trilogy?

Post#6 » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:52 pm

I didn't like Denethor in the books, so I thought the film actually portrayed him as I read him.

I also loved that Arwen replaced Glorfindel and the expansion of her role. I always felt that the Aragorn/Arwen romance belonged in the body of the text.

Have you seen the Extended Edition DVDs Odo? Much more of Bilbo's party is shown, including Bilbo avoiding the Sackville-Bagginses.

And by the way, Old Man Willow does actually make an appearance, but apparently in Jackson's version he's visiting cousins in Fangorn ;) .

GB

User avatar
Odo Banks
Posts: 1883

What would you change about the LotR film trilogy?

Post#7 » Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:36 am

GB,

You trickster. I almost went off to check where Old Man Willow visits Fangorn! As to the extended versions, yes I've got them. It's not the length of the Party scenes that bother me though - it's the opening battle scenes. They could have been placed where Gandalf reveals the identity of Bilbo's ring to Frodo. The Black Riders could have come in gradually - an unknown menace whose identity and purpose is shrouded in mystery until Aragorn tells the Hobbits the truth about them in Bree.

Mind you, I feel there should have been six films - one for every book. I'm probably showing my innocent impracticality.

Regards,
Odo



Hey! This is probably not the place for it, but...

TH = Movie One: The Hobbit: Hobbiton to Mirkwood (when Gandalf goes off to White Council and Dol Guldur and Bilbo begins his rise to quasi-leader of expedition!)
Movie Two: The Hobbit: From Mirkwood right through to Bilbo arriving home!
Movie Three: Gandalfs' LOTR like adventures elsewhere while the Erebor Quest (off screen) continues. Here we have the White Council, and the fight in Dol Guldur, and the flight of the Necromancer. Gandalf doesn't have to specify what his adventures were in southern Mirkwood when he arrives at The Battle of Five Armies. In Movie Three Gandalf could fight all sorts of monsters and foes, and this way give fans a view of his true prowess. (A lot of poetic license would be required - but this would be right up PJ's alley, I reckon).

Second Regards,
Odo

User avatar
Gandalfs Beard
Posts: 2311

What would you change about the LotR film trilogy?

Post#8 » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:18 am

We have three or four threads regarding how the Hobbit films should be handled :mrgreen: . Plus some digressing into that on other threads :oops: . I expect you'll have a lot of fun hunting them down ;) .

I keep vacillating on the issue of where to cut the films and where to place the White Council/Dol Guldur stuff. As only two films are curently in the works, i am leaning back to my original notion that film one should end with Smaug's death (keeping all the fun "innocent" stuff together) and putting the bulk of the LotRish Sturm und Drang into the second film (Dol Guldur and the battle of 5 Armies). Yes this would take some artistic license on PJ's part, but I think it would work.

Anyway before this thread turns into yet another "How to film the Hobbit thread" :roll: , pop over to one of the other ones and browse and post your notions.

But yes, I quite agree that LotR would have been nice with maybe three 6 hour films (or 6 three hour films ;) ). Still, I'm beyond happy with how PJ adapted the books. I honestly don't think any other director would have come closer. And I think he actually improved a bit on the narrative flow (for the film screen).

Which is why I actually prefer the films without The Scouring of the Shire. It's probably just because I'm a big Softy. But I always found that scene a wee bit anti-climactic in the books. I think a happy end should just be happy, and not have a slightly sour digression after the World has been saved. It's bad enough Elves and Wizards were deserting Middle Earth. But again, just my soppy take on things :roll: :lol: .

GB

User avatar
Odo Banks
Posts: 1883

What would you change about the LotR film trilogy?

Post#9 » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:00 am

GB,

I'll go off and read those Hobbit Movie Threads.

But one passing shot over your bowels, if I may.. sorry 'bows':

Perhaps, the Scouring (or Souring?) of the Shire makes the LOTR stay true to it's 'Adult' story line? Aren't totally happy endings devised for Childrens Stories? (Nudge nudge wink wink).

Regards,
Odo

User avatar
Gandalfs Beard
Posts: 2311

What would you change about the LotR film trilogy?

Post#10 » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:07 am

You've got me there Odo. :lol: Like I said, I'm a bit of a Sap sometimes :mrgreen: .

GB

Return to “The Lord of the Rings”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest