Thread: FOTR
AH! This is the best movie of all time. Why are some people complaining about parts being different from the book! Ok a movie is different from a book. Some things might work in a book but they don't work in a movie. Such as Frodo coming up with the password at the gates of Moria. When in the book Gandalf came up with them. PJ said something like that Frodo wasn't really involved at that time and the story was about him so there you go Frodo came up with the password in the movie. And Tom Bombadil should be left out but that is pretty obvious because it would take so long. Another thing Glorfindel wasn't in the movie. Think about it. There is a character and they do something a then they are gone. There is no point in doing that. Maybe someone who read the book will understand but people who haven’t will wonder.. Uh where did he go? Who was he?...Why not put in a character that would be in all three movies (Arwen) and develop that character more. There are already a lot of characters so why confuse people more. Some people have said they don’t like the Aragorn and Arwen love-story, there is nothing wrong with having a lovestory between Aragorn and Arwen. It adds emotion. It also brings out more of Arwen’s story. You have to have emotion like that in a movie. Also people who are complaining about other numerous things that are different from the book it is a movie and that is a book. Some things work others don’t. PJ stayed to the story but changed thing to make it work on screen and added his own touch. You can’t turn this book right into a movie. It would be to long and boring. It is not boring as a book but think of those things on screen. I know people love this book and want to see it the right way in the movie but just see the two as two different things and try to watch the movie the way it is and see how truly amazing the story is and Merry and Pippin’s comedy. hehe The scenery is truly amazing and think of how much worse it could have been. It is the best it could be and I love it. Also I love the book! Thanks people that understand that books have to be different than movies! And I don't mean to offend anyone. You just have to watch the movie a couple of times to stop looking at the things wrong with it. oooo and also there are things that are kind of annoying to me such as some of the characters and the way they act but I just look at the movie and book as two different things.
Look at it like this.....
Your god creates a world and it is glorious. You are spellbound by it and awed. How did your god take nothing and turn it into a world of light? You wait in anticipation to see more. It fills you with harmony and discord, you weep for the people, you celebrate with them. You dream of living in this world, you nuture it... It is all things, all consuming......... you watch the histroy unravel..... you need more..
Then someone wants to make a film......... your god is pushed aside by makeup artists and writers ... this isn't good enough, that isn't good enough....... too much detail, cut it, change it, rewrite it, EDIT EDIT EDIT! ...
Rewrite the word of your god?
Get the idea.....?
Your god creates a world and it is glorious. You are spellbound by it and awed. How did your god take nothing and turn it into a world of light? You wait in anticipation to see more. It fills you with harmony and discord, you weep for the people, you celebrate with them. You dream of living in this world, you nuture it... It is all things, all consuming......... you watch the histroy unravel..... you need more..
Then someone wants to make a film......... your god is pushed aside by makeup artists and writers ... this isn't good enough, that isn't good enough....... too much detail, cut it, change it, rewrite it, EDIT EDIT EDIT! ...
Rewrite the word of your god?
Get the idea.....?
Then someone wants to make a film......... your god is pushed aside by makeup artists and writers ... this isn't good enough, that isn't good enough....... too much detail, cut it, change it, rewrite it, EDIT EDIT EDIT! ...
i get it but just try to acept what pj did. And are you talking about Tolkien as a god??? And if they are pj never pushed aside Tolkien. He tried to make this film as close to the book as possible. Never too much detail! He did that to make to story work on film. PJ did the very best he could to ture the book into film. The movie shoudl spell bind and awe you but whatever. Just understand it can't be a movie that is directly based off of a book. Thats all i am trying to say is accept the movie and how great it is and stop saying all the things wrong with it cause alot of things just don't work on film.
i get it but just try to acept what pj did. And are you talking about Tolkien as a god??? And if they are pj never pushed aside Tolkien. He tried to make this film as close to the book as possible. Never too much detail! He did that to make to story work on film. PJ did the very best he could to ture the book into film. The movie shoudl spell bind and awe you but whatever. Just understand it can't be a movie that is directly based off of a book. Thats all i am trying to say is accept the movie and how great it is and stop saying all the things wrong with it cause alot of things just don't work on film.
Aiya!!!
I must say that your point of view is very valid. truth it is that no movie can be exactly the same as the book, and it is truth that the main idea was followed..., but on the other hand must of PT members knew Tolkien since several years before the movie was planed. and PJ knew that when he decided to film the movie. there was definitely going to be a lot of persons qho were not going to like all of his adaptations. It was a very heavy burden to carry with. now, there are a lot of things that we loved when we first read the books, ans there are very subtle things that made each character to grow in our minds, that whenever the movie was filmed, were lost.
when Vee compares Tolkien with a god, he might be speaking about the incredible talent to create a whole brand new world that only Tolkien could. Must of us have been living in two different dimensions since we meet Tolkien. the first is the one that mankind knows as reality. the second and not the less important is the middle earth, and we have lived there, suffered there, and even died there. so it is perfectly natural that we can compair Tolkien’s dreams with the reality as you know it. im my personal case, I beleive more in Tolkiens concept of the creation of the world than in any other religion. ( it is far more beautiful) and for many of us Tom bombadil, Radagast and many other of the characters that were eliminated on the film were as important as if they were fisical persons... so by eliminating them made me feel like if they were considered less important and I do not think Tolkien would have liked that.
besides there is too much material for PJ to use..., Tolkien’s world could be a mine of gold for him, and he could have use it to its full capacity. that way he could have get more money...( which is the soul of Hollywood’s film enterprise) and more of us could have been pleased.
do not misunderstand me..., some of the adaptations he did were great..., but some other adaptations he did faded the real story. I.E:
in the battle of helm... on the second movie..., What was Haldir doing in there? , The only Elf who fight that battle was Legolas. and what about the magical forest that Gandalf and threebeard Brought? ( I do not know the name for those threes in English, in spanish they are called Ucornos.) They were a key part for victory. without them, Orcs should have been able to scape.
In the Fellowship OTR.. the first movie...., Why is Elrond acting like if he despises Aragorn, when actually Elrond was like a father for him...( as a mather of fact he was like a great great great great uncle for Aragorn.)
and why is Galadriel always acting like if she was High with some kind of forbiden substance.? I know that Elves act diferent, but why does Pj choose her instead of Wineth Palthrow?
Why does Pj places Detenthor as a mad Sadist, instead of the tormented strong man that he was?
Why is the Battle in the Shire not included, when it is one of the favorite parts of the book for a lot of people?
so in resume, evethough it is, on my personal criteria, one of the best adaptiations that the movie industry has produced ( i could say that compairing it sith other moviesw this is the most atached to the book) it has also a lot of changes that had no reason to be.
My main concern is not to be offesive to anyone, so if there is anything that anyone feels as ofensive , I shal justify me by saying that english is not my mother language, there might be some ideas not correctly written.
Thank you for your comprenhension
Elen sila lummen’omentielvo
I must say that your point of view is very valid. truth it is that no movie can be exactly the same as the book, and it is truth that the main idea was followed..., but on the other hand must of PT members knew Tolkien since several years before the movie was planed. and PJ knew that when he decided to film the movie. there was definitely going to be a lot of persons qho were not going to like all of his adaptations. It was a very heavy burden to carry with. now, there are a lot of things that we loved when we first read the books, ans there are very subtle things that made each character to grow in our minds, that whenever the movie was filmed, were lost.
when Vee compares Tolkien with a god, he might be speaking about the incredible talent to create a whole brand new world that only Tolkien could. Must of us have been living in two different dimensions since we meet Tolkien. the first is the one that mankind knows as reality. the second and not the less important is the middle earth, and we have lived there, suffered there, and even died there. so it is perfectly natural that we can compair Tolkien’s dreams with the reality as you know it. im my personal case, I beleive more in Tolkiens concept of the creation of the world than in any other religion. ( it is far more beautiful) and for many of us Tom bombadil, Radagast and many other of the characters that were eliminated on the film were as important as if they were fisical persons... so by eliminating them made me feel like if they were considered less important and I do not think Tolkien would have liked that.
besides there is too much material for PJ to use..., Tolkien’s world could be a mine of gold for him, and he could have use it to its full capacity. that way he could have get more money...( which is the soul of Hollywood’s film enterprise) and more of us could have been pleased.
do not misunderstand me..., some of the adaptations he did were great..., but some other adaptations he did faded the real story. I.E:
in the battle of helm... on the second movie..., What was Haldir doing in there? , The only Elf who fight that battle was Legolas. and what about the magical forest that Gandalf and threebeard Brought? ( I do not know the name for those threes in English, in spanish they are called Ucornos.) They were a key part for victory. without them, Orcs should have been able to scape.
In the Fellowship OTR.. the first movie...., Why is Elrond acting like if he despises Aragorn, when actually Elrond was like a father for him...( as a mather of fact he was like a great great great great uncle for Aragorn.)
and why is Galadriel always acting like if she was High with some kind of forbiden substance.? I know that Elves act diferent, but why does Pj choose her instead of Wineth Palthrow?
Why does Pj places Detenthor as a mad Sadist, instead of the tormented strong man that he was?
Why is the Battle in the Shire not included, when it is one of the favorite parts of the book for a lot of people?
so in resume, evethough it is, on my personal criteria, one of the best adaptiations that the movie industry has produced ( i could say that compairing it sith other moviesw this is the most atached to the book) it has also a lot of changes that had no reason to be.
My main concern is not to be offesive to anyone, so if there is anything that anyone feels as ofensive , I shal justify me by saying that english is not my mother language, there might be some ideas not correctly written.
Thank you for your comprenhension
Elen sila lummen’omentielvo
Oh dear.... humour is lost sometimes.
My post was a simple supposedly humorous analogy. I was playing devil's advocate. I love the books, I love the films. They are different. I prefer the books. Oh and I am not a he.
My post was a simple supposedly humorous analogy. I was playing devil's advocate. I love the books, I love the films. They are different. I prefer the books. Oh and I am not a he.
Why is everyone whining about the movies "cannot exactly be like the books". We all know that. It's just that not everyone has to like PJ's flicks or Pj's adaptation or whatever you call those fabrications. All that blabla about "enhancing characters" makes me vomit. You don't have to change the storyline nor the characters of a book. Period.
I give an example bout what PJ did : it's like he filmed Romeo and Juliet without letting the two lovers die in the end. Or make Romeo gay, or something. Whatever.
And btw, FOTR the best movie of all time?? What's with that? That's just your opinion. According to moviesceptics.com, the LOTR trilogy is just #1547 in the chart of best movies of all time.
I give an example bout what PJ did : it's like he filmed Romeo and Juliet without letting the two lovers die in the end. Or make Romeo gay, or something. Whatever.
And btw, FOTR the best movie of all time?? What's with that? That's just your opinion. According to moviesceptics.com, the LOTR trilogy is just #1547 in the chart of best movies of all time.
AH pj didn't change the storyline. Ok lotr trilogy being the best movie ever is just my opinion but "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" took the Oscar in each category in which it had been nominated, eleven of them in total, thereby joining "Ben Hur" and "Titanic" with the most Oscars in the record books.
THINGOL77 pj used the book to its full capacity. most details and characters to me seems like less money becasue it is going to be a film with an overwehlming amount of information that you just don't need to know in a movie that can only be 3 hours long.
btw i am only talking about the fotr cause i havn't read the other two books
at http://www.pax-romana.net/refracted/lotrmovie.html it explain some reasons for stuff not being in such as for tom bombadil
"Anyhow. The Fellowship of the Ring is the longest of the three volumes of Tolkien's trilogy, and the movie's makers condensed it in many instances. The most notable change is the removable of Tom Bombadil. However, I find this large cut perfectly understandable. As Tom Shippey puts it, "For the first nine chapters at least the action of The Lord of the Rings does not move very far." The reason for this is an accepted fact: "that Tolkien was initially groping for a story" (Author of the Century, pgs. 64, 66). Tolkien had a hard time coming up with a plot, and in the meantime wrote a sequence of charming and interesting, and even intense, events, but events which had almost nothing to do with the eventual plot of the trilogy. Therefore, the removal of Tom Bombadil from the movie, while he certainly has his own appeal, is a logical and, in my opinion, well-advised step. The movie would probably have dragged had he been included."
THINGOL77 pj used the book to its full capacity. most details and characters to me seems like less money becasue it is going to be a film with an overwehlming amount of information that you just don't need to know in a movie that can only be 3 hours long.
btw i am only talking about the fotr cause i havn't read the other two books
at http://www.pax-romana.net/refracted/lotrmovie.html it explain some reasons for stuff not being in such as for tom bombadil
"Anyhow. The Fellowship of the Ring is the longest of the three volumes of Tolkien's trilogy, and the movie's makers condensed it in many instances. The most notable change is the removable of Tom Bombadil. However, I find this large cut perfectly understandable. As Tom Shippey puts it, "For the first nine chapters at least the action of The Lord of the Rings does not move very far." The reason for this is an accepted fact: "that Tolkien was initially groping for a story" (Author of the Century, pgs. 64, 66). Tolkien had a hard time coming up with a plot, and in the meantime wrote a sequence of charming and interesting, and even intense, events, but events which had almost nothing to do with the eventual plot of the trilogy. Therefore, the removal of Tom Bombadil from the movie, while he certainly has his own appeal, is a logical and, in my opinion, well-advised step. The movie would probably have dragged had he been included."
Quote:
And btw, FOTR the best movie of all time?? What's with that? That's just your opinion
And btw, FOTR the best movie of all time?? What's with that? That's just your opinion
Yes, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even the poll that you are quoting is a collection of individual opinions done through some sort of voting system, no doubt. Evaluating a book, movie or piece of artwork is very subjective and therefore, the word "best" actually loses its meaning.
Quote:
AH pj didn't change the storyline. Ok lotr trilogy being the best movie ever is just my opinion but "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" took the Oscar in each category in which it had been nominated, eleven of them in total, thereby joining "Ben Hur" and "Titanic" with the most Oscars in the record books.
AH pj didn't change the storyline. Ok lotr trilogy being the best movie ever is just my opinion but "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" took the Oscar in each category in which it had been nominated, eleven of them in total, thereby joining "Ben Hur" and "Titanic" with the most Oscars in the record books.
OH, but PJ did, by for instance letting the Army of the Dead vacuum clean the Pelennor Fields, by letting Elves appear at Helm's Deep, Gollum making Frodo believe Sam ate all the lembas, Frodo pushing Gollum into the lava, etc etc I could give myriads of examples. And he didn't only change the storyline, he also changed characters completely : Elrond, Arwen, Kermit the Frog.
And again, if a movie wins 11 oscars, 50 oscars or 5000 oscars doesn't mean it is the best movie that is ever made. That's just the opinion of a jury, probably bribed by New Line Cinema i shouldn't wonder.
Quote:
btw i am only talking about the fotr cause i havn't read the other two books
btw i am only talking about the fotr cause i havn't read the other two books
If you haven't completely read the books, and thus don't know the complete story of the books, how can you claim then that "PJ didn't change the storyline"? Of the three movies, FOTR is closest to the books, but that movie already has a lot of small changes. The next two are significantly changed and opposed to what's in the books.
Quote:
Yes, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even the poll that you are quoting is a collection of individual opinions done through some sort of voting system, no doubt. Evaluating a book, movie or piece of artwork is very subjective and therefore, the word "best" actually loses its meaning.
Yes, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even the poll that you are quoting is a collection of individual opinions done through some sort of voting system, no doubt. Evaluating a book, movie or piece of artwork is very subjective and therefore, the word "best" actually loses its meaning.
Well i doubt whether that poll really exists, as i was a bit joking, but indeed a best movie doesn't exist, as there are so many movies made since Fritz Lang made Metropolis, and so many genres... that it is impossible to watch all movies, and compare all different genres. So indeed, a best movie objectively doesn't exist.
If we put LOTR in action/adventure/fantasy : would it be the best movie ever made in that genre? Not in my opinion. To me, the movie about the freeing of Jessica Lynch was the best fantasy movie ever!
Probably not a good idea to accuse them of bribery - hope that doesn't put PT in the quicksand. Lawyers at dawn!
As long as it puts PJ in the quicksand, it's OK.
Seriously, the Oscar jury kinda was forced to give all them oscars to ROTK, as the entire trilogy was such a gigantic commerical success. And they only gave FOTR and TTT a few spite-oscars. So they were forced to give a large amount of Oscars to the worst of the three... ironic?
Just one Oscar for PJ "for the entire trilogy" should've been enough. Clearly, there were better movies than ROTK. "Crouching Dragon, Hidden Bilbo" for instance, deserved at least an Oscar for best movie, imo.
Seriously, the Oscar jury kinda was forced to give all them oscars to ROTK, as the entire trilogy was such a gigantic commerical success. And they only gave FOTR and TTT a few spite-oscars. So they were forced to give a large amount of Oscars to the worst of the three... ironic?
Just one Oscar for PJ "for the entire trilogy" should've been enough. Clearly, there were better movies than ROTK. "Crouching Dragon, Hidden Bilbo" for instance, deserved at least an Oscar for best movie, imo.
Well, IMO, the only oscar that film deserved was for sheer nerve or perhaps for the most amount of pain inflicted on an audience....
(Edited by Vee on Tuesday 15 June: I was, of course, referring to Hidden Tiger, Shrinking Violet, not LOTR.)
(Edited by Vee on Tuesday 15 June: I was, of course, referring to Hidden Tiger, Shrinking Violet, not LOTR.)
Quote:
Well, IMO, the only oscar that film deserved was for sheer nerve or perhaps for the most amount of pain inflicted on an audience....
Well, IMO, the only oscar that film deserved was for sheer nerve or perhaps for the most amount of pain inflicted on an audience....
I didn't experience anything of that, it was just annoying that the movies didn't seem to end. I thought it had ended with Frodo and Sam on a rock, but 5 minutes later BAM we were on Pride Rock in Minas Tirith where we saw Barfagorn kissing Legolamb... or Arwen, i don't remember; then BAM black screen, everyone stood up again to leave, but 20 seconds later again we were back in the Shire... then we saw Sam marry Rosie (awwww) and then BAM another black screen and to the Grey Havens!!
i don't know whether those black screens were just due to incompetence of the theatre crew or just because PJ cut some SEE scenes out, but it certainly made the ending confusing. In the theatres, i heard someone behind me screeching in agony : "Will it never end??!!! I wanna go home!!!".
Maybe someone mailed PJ to say i was possibly epileptic, so "black screens could make him go electric". Heh, nice try.
Quote:
In the theatres, i heard someone behind me screeching in agony : "Will it never end??!!! I wanna go home!!!".
In the theatres, i heard someone behind me screeching in agony : "Will it never end??!!! I wanna go home!!!".
That would have been Ross, then.
One reason why movies will not be exactly like the books they are adaptions of can be handled in one word: copyright. The books and stories are copyrighted by the authors who write them, screenplays are copyrighted by the people who produce the movie. Changes are made to the screenplay which allows them to copyright it, if it were a direct translation of the book into a movie, I don't believe the script or movie could be copyrighted by the producers, the copyright would be held by the author. Could be wrong, I'm no lawyer and I don't play one on TV. Just my own observations.
BTW, one of the most literal translations from book to movie that I am aware of is actually the Hobbit cartoon. Yep the Beorn scenes were cut out and there is a lot of missing stuff, but for a general translation from book to movie, its the closest I've seen.
BTW, one of the most literal translations from book to movie that I am aware of is actually the Hobbit cartoon. Yep the Beorn scenes were cut out and there is a lot of missing stuff, but for a general translation from book to movie, its the closest I've seen.
I think that I posted a reply in a thread about liking the movies. I am one of those people that had to really teach myself to seperate movies from books. Being a Stephen King fan we all know that most of his books DO NOT translate well into film at all IMO. I think that to enjoy a movie that was made from a book you need to seperate the two. I liked all three movies for different reasons however I would have to agree with a poster on a previous thread that TTT was the weakest of the three and it was the one with the most liberties taken by PJ. I know that everyone in this forum was a Tolkien fan long before the movies were even a thought in PJ's head. I think that they are wonderfully written and I am glad that I discovered them even if it was only after watching the movies. I think that both the books and the movies are an art form that should be taken seperately and enjoyed for all of their qualites.
In my humble opinion
Ashley276
In my humble opinion
Ashley276
Oops!!! sorry about the "HE" Vee, my mistake!!! 
evenstar: pls do not take any offense for the comentaries in here. we sometimes can get passionate with this subject, but we will always respect all the different points of view. keep posting in here and you will see!!!
and I must admit that even though the movies are not really atached to the book, I loved TRotK. the batlle of pelennor and the rohirrim really fulfilled my expectations. now, there were many things that I would have loved to see too, but well, " you can’t always get what you want !!! "
as a movie I must admit that it is one of the best adaptations I have seen, although it is not as atached as I would have liked to.
and Virumor: I share rednell’s point of view. "to respect each ones points of veiw, I think we have" would have said Yoda!!!
evenstar: pls do not take any offense for the comentaries in here. we sometimes can get passionate with this subject, but we will always respect all the different points of view. keep posting in here and you will see!!!
and I must admit that even though the movies are not really atached to the book, I loved TRotK. the batlle of pelennor and the rohirrim really fulfilled my expectations. now, there were many things that I would have loved to see too, but well, " you can’t always get what you want !!! "
as a movie I must admit that it is one of the best adaptations I have seen, although it is not as atached as I would have liked to.
and Virumor: I share rednell’s point of view. "to respect each ones points of veiw, I think we have" would have said Yoda!!!
In the year leading up to the release of the movie FotR, I heard from different sources that there would be some differences in the characters as well as the storyline. In addition, I also had seen the original Lord of the Rings and Return of the King cartoons, as well as The Hobbit. There were major changes in those movies too, such as Legolas intercepting Strider and the hobbits on their way to Rivendell, instead of Glorfindel; and there was absolutely no mention of Arwen in either movie.
So, when the first movie was finally released, I did what any sensible Tolkien fan should have done:
I left the book at home (figuratively speaking) when I went to the theater, and enjoyed a great movie. In fact, I sat through it twice the first time I went: alone the first showing, and met up with friends for the second showing. And since I'm the acknowledged Tolkien expert in our circle, they asked my opinion of the movie. I told them it was fantastic for what it was: a great movie with great special effects and an interesting storyline.
So, when the first movie was finally released, I did what any sensible Tolkien fan should have done:
I left the book at home (figuratively speaking) when I went to the theater, and enjoyed a great movie. In fact, I sat through it twice the first time I went: alone the first showing, and met up with friends for the second showing. And since I'm the acknowledged Tolkien expert in our circle, they asked my opinion of the movie. I told them it was fantastic for what it was: a great movie with great special effects and an interesting storyline.
Quote:
In the year leading up to the release of the movie FotR, I heard from different sources that there would be some differences in the characters as well as the storyline.
In the year leading up to the release of the movie FotR, I heard from different sources that there would be some differences in the characters as well as the storyline.
Yes, but luckily that rumour turned out to be false.
