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 Nazg’l 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 And’ril 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 S’l 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.

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.

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.

Thank you Elfy! She won't give us any copyright troubles, 'cause I made her all by myself!

I really liked Hugo-Elrond when Frodo is waking up, and he look all.. elf-like!
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.

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 it’s scary!


In a good way though!

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.

Yes, I agree, that would have been cool Helmthh. I’ve often felt that PJ and Co. didn’t 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 Bilbo’s birthday party.



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 Helm’s Deep (save Legolas) in Tolkien’s 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 I’m 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 I’ve stated something incorrectly.

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.

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.

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 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 !!

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!!

Please watch your language, HH05..... Valedhelgwath

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.

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.

We are talking about the Fellowship in this forum.
Very good topic for a forum, Elfy. Thanks for starting it.

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.

Have to respectfully disagree with you here Vir, the whole Prologue is good, good, good! In fact, as I’ve 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 that’s 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 ’Aeglos’.



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 PJ’s complete vision.



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 everyone’s viewpoints. We each have our own favorite parts of the story, so it’s 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!



I think the Troll scene served a dual purpose Helmthh. It made for a great transition into Gandalf’s 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 ’mithril surprise’. Just my .02!

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"....

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.

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!

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.

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.



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.

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.

Before I begin what I fear will turn into a rather lengthy post by the time I’m 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 Virumor’s 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 doesn’t 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 didn’t 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 didn’t like that simply weren’t true. The following is the exact quote of what he said;



Right away anyone can see that the tone of his post was already somewhat confrontational from the start, but again it’s 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;



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, ’If everyone respects each other's opinion, you don't try to go into that or criticize it’, well that’s 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 wasn’t even remotely close to the books, that the ’lucky strike’ 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 couldn’t corrupt him.

Now I personally have a difference in opinion on all of these, because I feel that Virumor’s 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. I’m not going to go into Virumor’s argument that the prologue isn’t 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 I’ve 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;



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 ’lucky strike’ 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 couldn’t corrupt him.

I guess I’ll start with the following quote from Virumor’s post on Friday 11th June 2004 (12:58am);



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;



Well if Isildur stood alone by Elendil in that last mortal contest, than what’s shown in the prologue is actually very close to what’s 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 I’ll take Elrond’s 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 it’s just an assumption, and that’s 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 ’lucky strike thing’ couldn’t have feasibly happened that way.



Once again Virumor, this is incorrect! I don’t 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 master’s call, always trying to get back to its master, and carrying out Sauron’s evil malice. Gollum was easily corrupted by the Ring too, but the Ring left him didn’t it? Your argument here is once again very weak.



The entire story wasn’t changed Virumor, as always this is just one of your many gigantic over exaggerations when it comes to the films!

Also, I like how you’ve conveniently dodged my question to you about reading UT. Could it be possible that you just don’t want to admit here that you haven’t read UT yet, and you just don’t want to acknowledge that someone who likes the movies might know more about this than you do? If you haven’t read the specific chapter in UT I mentioned, than you definitely don’t 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. I’ll start with this;



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 shouldn’t 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!



Maybe you need to take your own advice and look in the mirror! Maybe if you’re 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 don’t!

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!



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


If you don’t 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 don’t like. If you don’t like what’s on the channel, then why are you going to continue to watch that channel? If there’s something on TV I don’t like, I change the channel. I think even by your own admission, it’s time for you to change the channel Virumor!

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 didn’t. I’ve 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.



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 ’erroneous’ and ’incorrect’ information and even that i should reread certain parts of the book again.


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 don’t 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.

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.




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 don’t know the real story? No, i haven’t. 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.

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


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).


Again, you don’t have to tell me what to do. I am allowed to join any thread and participate in any discussion i want. Life isn’t all about what you like, you know that ? You can’t live by only eating the food you like, or pass school by only learning for subjects you like.



Not it is not. You were saying that an opinion of mine was incorrect, because my opinion was not equal to your opinion’ 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. I’ve 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.

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.
Thanks for your patience.

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 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.