# Petition to fix Saruman problem in ROTK



## jdavis (Nov 19, 2003)

Well it looks like a petition has been started to get the 7 minutes put back into ROTK: http://cinecon.com/news.php?id=0311183


----------



## jdavis (Nov 19, 2003)

gee maybe it would help if I had given you the petition link, sorry: http://www.petitiononline.com/smanrotk/petition.html


----------



## diaglo (Nov 19, 2003)

cool. thanks for the link jdavis.


----------



## kengar (Nov 19, 2003)

I signed it, but I very much doubt it will matter. The film is in the can by now and the time and $$ to change it is probably prohibitive. New Line would probably cut the scene even if PJ had left it in. Why would the studio worry about even 30,000+ signatures of people who will pay to see the movie anyway AND buy the DVDs?


----------



## diaglo (Nov 19, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> I signed it, but I very much doubt it will matter. The film is in the can by now and the time and $$ to change it is probably prohibitive. New Line would probably cut the scene even if PJ had left it in. Why would the studio worry about even 30,000+ signatures of people who will pay to see the movie anyway AND buy the DVDs?





i'm boycotting that trash.


----------



## kengar (Nov 19, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i'm boycotting that trash.



then why did you care about the link?


----------



## diaglo (Nov 19, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> then why did you care about the link?




read what i posted there.


----------



## kengar (Nov 19, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> read what i posted there.




oooo clever


----------



## Bass Puppet (Nov 19, 2003)

Done...

Although I doubt that this will happen, one can hope for a better and longer explaination in the Extended Edition because of this.


----------



## Pants (Nov 19, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> read what i posted there.



So very poetic diaglo...


----------



## Rhialto (Nov 19, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> read what i posted there.




I honestly don't know which is sadder--the childishness of what you posted, or your sense of self-satisfaction for doing so...


----------



## Pants (Nov 19, 2003)

Rhialto said:
			
		

> I honestly don't know which is sadder--the childishness of what you posted, or your sense of self-satisfaction for doing so...



Both are pretty sad.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 19, 2003)

what i find sad is you dug thru the petition to find what i wrote.  

you don't even know my real name.


----------



## Tsyr (Nov 19, 2003)

Searching for the word "diaglo" isn't hard...


----------



## Holy Bovine (Nov 19, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> what i find sad is you dug thru the petition to find what i wrote.
> 
> you don't even know my real name.




Rachel?



> Rachel - Elijah Wood is hott!






The only version worth watching is the real one on DVD next year.  But I'll still go see this 'extended trailer'.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 20, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i'm boycotting that trash.



 Because it's so obviously stolen from the original D&D box set, no doubt.


----------



## Pants (Nov 20, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Because it's so obviously stolen from the original D&D box set, no doubt.



Plus, it was made after 1974


----------



## MulhorandSage (Nov 20, 2003)

We'll see it in the extended version. Let Jackson make the movie he wants.

Scott Bennie


----------



## Krug (Nov 20, 2003)

Yes I'm sure all the fans know better than Jackson...


----------



## kkoie (Nov 20, 2003)

I completely agree with Krug.  The idea that a petition was made is ludicress.  The idea that a bunch of pimply fanboys know more about making a film than filmmakers is just plain silly.  Jackson has shown us he knows what he's doing with the first two LOTR films.  If those fans still don't trust him after two masterful films, they should do themselves a favor and take a class on film, because they definately need to expand their knowledge of cinema if they think they are ready to edit a 3 hour movie.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Nov 20, 2003)

Classy Diaglo, very classy...


----------



## Tallok (Nov 20, 2003)

Yeah Diaglo, genius, you're the next great poet


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Nov 20, 2003)

kkoie said:
			
		

> Jackson has shown us he knows what he's doing with the first two LOTR films.






He hasn't shown me anything except the fact that he knows how to butcher someone's life work.

The movies are good, I'll grant, but to say they are anything but remotely based on the actual novels is just a clever ploy to sell tickets.


----------



## Berandor (Nov 20, 2003)

I'll try to phrase it carefully.
Yes, the LotR trilogy is based on the books by Tolkien. Yes, that is apparent at nary a glance. Yes there are differences and departures. These differences and departures have been explained by the filmmakers who believe they have a very good reason to do so.
Do the changes make sense? Most of them, speaking in cinematic terms, do. Are they necessary? You could argue about that. Perhaps the unchanged version would have gotten even better, perhaps it wouldn't have worked. We don't know.
There's also no sense in argueing. We are watching Peter Jackon's Lord of the Rings, his interpretation of a book he obviously holds in high regard, as seen by the generally respectful approach of the movies.
Also, the Extended Versions come very close to the books, even with many minor changes (who says what and when, etc.).

This is not a book. Things that work in a book don't necessarily work in a movie. There were no elves at Helm's Deep? But was it a cool scene, and did the elves bring a shimmer of hope to the hopeless situation? Yes on both accounts. It worked for me.

The movies can't butcher anyone's life work who hasn't worked on them. Tolkiens books are still there for us to relish, and the movie is there for us to relish as well.
From a purely technical standpoint, the movies are awesome, masterfully done. Casting, cinematography, score, effects, everything is excellent. You must admit at least that.

So the book is better in your opinion. That's fine, and probably true to me as well. But they're not the same. And, frankly, when someone puts out the fantasy movie everybody I know has always dreamed of, _based_ on one of the greatest works in (fantasy) literature, producing some of the best movies period, then I can forgive a few misconceptions - especially if it will be redeemed by the Extended Cut. 

Jackson had his reasons for leaving the Saruman scene out of TT, and thought it'd work better in RotK. Now he finds it doesn't and also thinks it might work without it. Let's find out if he's right in the cinema in one month's time.

I honestly think it even a little insulting, some of the imo anal complaints ("Theoden didn't say that! That's Aragorn's line!" - not necessarily the Saruman argument). I mean, I also didn't like TT at first, but now I can sort of understand his reasons for most of the changes, and I certainly can live with them, especially in the EE. Peter Jackson really tries to do his best _adaption_, and I think he's earned a little trust.

Finally, it is an old saying that if it don't bleed, than you didn't really cut - especially in film-making.

Berandor
getting a little riled up


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Nov 20, 2003)

The thing is, they changed stuff for no other reason than to put their fingerprints on it.  By "they" I mean Peter Jackson and his crew.  He did a pretty thourough character assassination on both Theoden and Faramir.  For no reason, whatsoever.  Faramir was one of the most noble heroes in Middle Earth.  There was no reason to make him as bad, or worse than, Boromir.  He made Theoden look like an idiot for going to Helm's Deep.  Then the elves come to Helm's Deep.  Why?  Their leaving Middle Earth set the tone that this was MAN'S war.  The hobbits have to talk the Ents into attacking Saruman.  That made these ancient beings as dumb as a rock.  Now they leave Saruman's downfall out.  Hell, even in FOTR, Frodo solves the riddle to get into Moria instead of Gandalf?  Why?  All those except possibly the Saruman closure were needless changes.  They were not cut for time, nor did they improve the film one iota.  It's just a hack job for PJ to try and improve on an already terriffic piece of work.  It's like someone copying the Mona Lisa and turning her smile into a frown.


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 20, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> Yes I'm sure all the fans know better than Jackson...




From what I've heard, Jackson wasn't the one driving this decision.  He wanted to keep the scene in there.


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 20, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> He hasn't shown me anything except the fact that he knows how to butcher someone's life work.
> 
> The movies are good, I'll grant, but to say they are anything but remotely based on the actual novels is just a clever ploy to sell tickets.




What an exaggeration.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 20, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Searching for the word "diaglo" isn't hard...





but my name is David.


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 20, 2003)

Your Indian name is probably "Beats Dead Horse".


----------



## Berandor (Nov 20, 2003)

Possible Spoilers ahead!
Also, I use "PJ" to mean Peter Jackson & crew (notably Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens)


			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> The thing is, they changed stuff for no other reason than to put their fingerprints on it. By "they" I mean Peter Jackson and his crew. He did a pretty thourough character assassination on both Theoden and Faramir. For no reason, whatsoever. Faramir was one of the most noble heroes in Middle Earth. There was no reason to make him as bad, or worse than, Boromir.



Reasons: 
1) Faramir is a noble character from beginning to end. He's got no personal journey in him. He is not conflicted, and doesn't have to make difficult decisions, because he is who he is. In cinema terms, he is boring, a cutout character. Now, he's got a development towards being the hero he becomes. This is much more gratifying and interesting for both the actor and the audience.
2) The danger of the ring would be downplayed, to PJ's thinking. Spending two whole movies trying to show its power, showing how much Frodo suffers from it, to bring up a character who is immune to its influence harms the overall story. Why doesn't Frodo give Faramir the ring to bring to Mt. Doom? He seems better suited. Not now.
3) As they put Shelob into film 3, they needed an obstacle for Frodo's journey. They decided Faramir would be that obstacle, a sound choice in connection with the reasons above. Did it have to be that way? No. Do I agree with their choices? Not necessarily. Does it work? Yes.


> He made Theoden look like an idiot for going to Helm's Deep.



1) But he wasn't. With 10,000 Uruks, Theoden's army would have been destroyed on the field, elves or no elves. 
2) Theoden also clearly resents being told what to do, shortly after being dominated by Saruman/Wormtongue. 
3) Also, in the book, Aragorn is a much less conflicted character (again, see Faramir), and therefore Theoden can be, too, without harming his character. Now, they use Theoden as a means for Aragorn to find his confidence as a leader, a king.
4) Theoden suffers from the domination. At first, he is rather weak still, but gradually through the film, he gains more and more strength and confidence, even as he is losing hope. To PJ, this is a more believable approach.


> Then the elves come to Helm's Deep. Why? Their leaving Middle Earth set the tone that this was MAN'S war.



1) Why not? How many are they? Not much. It shows that some elves see that there is something worth fighting for, and indeed, in the books the elves fight against Morder, even if they don't do it at Helm's Deep.
2) It is reminiscent of the battle in the beginning of the movie, when the forces of elves and man stood together.
3) It brings a shimmer of hope into the dark situation.
4) They are used to great cinematic effect, or "cool scenes".


> The hobbits have to talk the Ents into attacking Saruman. That made these ancient beings as dumb as a rock.



1) Well, I sort of agree. However, PJ wanted to give Merry and Pippin a more active role, to show the fundaments of heroism even before they are squired (Well, sort of, when riding in disguise instead of staying home counts). Instead of only waking the Balrog and stealing fireworks, they actually acted instead of reacted to something.
2) Also, it's soemwhat boring when you cut back and forth between an Entmoot where Ents are discussion sssllllooooowwwlllyyy, and then come to the decision of helping. You don't get to see drama in the decision, which is what he wanted to provide. I agree, though, that this is a change that likely could have been avoided without much harm. However, PJ had his reasons for it.







> Now they leave Saruman's downfall out.



Yes, and I believe PJ when he says he miscalculated the effect of the scene.


> Hell, even in FOTR, Frodo solves the riddle to get into Moria instead of Gandalf? Why?



You probably mean, instead of Pippin, right? Isn't it he who thinks of the solution? It's because they wanted to bring Frodo a little more to the foreground, instead of just being the ringbearer giving him something useful to do, and clearly show him as a/the main character of the series (I know, Sam may be regarded as even more important).


> All those except possibly the Saruman closure were needless changes. They were not cut for time, nor did they improve the film one iota. It's just a hack job for PJ to try and improve on an already terriffic piece of work. It's like someone copying the Mona Lisa and turning her smile into a frown.



As you can see, I feel different.

BErandor


----------



## diaglo (Nov 20, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> Your Indian name is probably "Beats Dead Horse".




no. it's "Rides the White Pony"


----------



## KenM (Nov 20, 2003)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> From what I've heard, Jackson wasn't the one driving this decision.  He wanted to keep the scene in there.




  I heard it was some top excutive at New Line/ WB that told Jackson to cut it. PJ tryed to fight to keep it in there, but the guy already made up his mind. He saw an early cut of the movie and thought the scene dragged down the movie, so he ordered it cut.


----------



## kengar (Nov 20, 2003)

> Quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hell, even in FOTR, Frodo solves the riddle to get into Moria instead of Gandalf? Why?
> 
> ...




Actually, in the book, Gandalf figures it out himself after wrestling with it for a while. I think I read something back when the first film was released that PJ changed it to Frodo in order to build the relationship between Gandalf & Frodo. He wanted Frodo to be Gandalf's friend, not a piece of baggage to be lugged to Mt. Doom.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 20, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> Actually, in the book, Gandalf figures it out himself after wrestling with it for a while. I think I read something back when the first film was released that PJ changed it to Frodo in order to build the relationship between Gandalf & Frodo. He wanted Frodo to be Gandalf's friend, not a piece of baggage to be lugged to Mt. Doom.




in the book it was Frodo who figured out the "Friend" riddle.


----------



## kkoie (Nov 20, 2003)

All these tears over _needless changes_.   Obviously the filmmakers would disagree, but what do they know, I'm sure _we_ know much better.

You should at least wait until the film comes out before you complain about its changes.  Complaining now, when all you've seen is 2 1/2 minute trailer, is crazy.


----------



## kengar (Nov 20, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> in the book it was Frodo who figured out the "Friend" riddle.




Sorry, no cigar for Diaglo 

_"With a suddeness that startled them all the wizard sprang to his feet. He was laughing! 'I have it!' he cried. 'Of course, of course! Absurdly simple, like most riddles when you see the answer.' Picking up his staff he stood before the rock and said in a clear voice: 'Mellon!'"_

*The Fellowship of the Ring* p. 401, Ballantine paperback, authorized edition.


----------



## aliensex (Nov 20, 2003)

Well, at least we will finally have a good census of the most pathetic brand of geek/loser ever amassed.  A great day for statistics!


----------



## diaglo (Nov 20, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> Sorry, no cigar for Diaglo
> 
> _"With a suddeness that startled them all the wizard sprang to his feet. He was laughing! 'I have it!' he cried. 'Of course, of course! Absurdly simple, like most riddles when you see the answer.' Picking up his staff he stood before the rock and said in a clear voice: 'Mellon!'"_
> 
> *The Fellowship of the Ring* p. 401, Ballantine paperback, authorized edition.




now i'm gonna have to go look it up.

i could've swore in my unabridged version. Frodo asked Gandalf what the elven  word for friend was. and when Gandalf spoke it aloud the door opened.


----------



## Null Boundry (Nov 20, 2003)

aliensex said:
			
		

> Well, at least we will finally have a good census of the most pathetic brand of geek/loser ever amassed.  A great day for statistics!




Once a suitable amount of names has been collected specialist squads will visit each person. Force each to have a shower, wear clean clothes and get some fresh air. Then if they haven't died of shock given a brief talk on how it really doesn't matter in the end.


----------



## Rhialto (Nov 20, 2003)

Tsyr said:
			
		

> Searching for the word "diaglo" isn't hard...




Right--plus, I figured you'd be close to the more recent posts, and just looked there....

And guess what--having to look bugged the hell out of me, you smug little man...


----------



## diaglo (Nov 20, 2003)

Rhialto said:
			
		

> Right--plus, I figured you'd be close to the more recent posts, and just looked there....
> 
> And guess what--having to look bugged the hell out of me, you smug little man...





the point of my joke on this forum was you wouldn't find me cuz you didn't know my real name...but obviously...some things weren't meant to be.

i'm glad someone got a kick out of it...   whomever diaglo is.


----------



## kengar (Nov 20, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> ... whomever diaglo is.




<"Highlander" Kurgen voice>

_*I know his name*_

< /"Highlander" Kurgen voice>


----------



## KnowTheToe (Nov 20, 2003)

I am glad they changed the story.  I have tried to read the book several times and have quit every time.  I love the story, but find the writing long winded and boring.  I like the movies better.  PJ has worked hard to keep the movies close to the books and has made an excellent product.  Yes PJ didput his mark on the movies and a very good mark indeed.  I trust his judgement and feel that having the scene on the cutting room floor is probably best for the mass audience.  It will be on the DVD for the rest of us who love the extended version.

More new fans have found the books because of the movies.  Frodo Lives Again because of these movies.


----------



## takyris (Nov 20, 2003)

Berandor: Massive ditto to all aspects of your posts.  Nicely put.

Re: Who solved the riddle: The quote leaves out a BIT of the context.  Gandalf does solve it... but as I recall, he solves it after Pippin helps him, right?  Pippin uses common sense to give Gandalf a clue -- something like, "Wouldn't they want it to be something easy, something that would let people in?"  That was how I remembered the scene -- and then Gandalf says, "Oh, crud, yeah, Mellon," and the door opens.

So, the movie was not quite as massive a change as others were implying.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 20, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> The thing is, they changed stuff for no other reason than to put their fingerprints on it.



Saying something like this just makes you look foolish.

I think we all know that you have no idea WHY they made these changes. None of us do. Even after listening to assorted explanations from assorted film-makers, we still won't actually know -- we could be listening to well-conceived justifications made after the fact.

We can argue that the changes are good or bad, necessary or not, but to go around claiming knowledge of other people's motives is just silly -- not to mention inconsequential to the actual debate.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Nov 20, 2003)

Well, after seeing the last two moives and knowing that there is no conclusion to Saruman and Wormtongue in RotK theatrical release, I'm just hoping that the petition is atleast heard for the Extended Version. The pattern of events so far is the LOTR: Extended versions are much better than original Theatrical release. I understand that PJ plans on putting the cut scene in, but maybe because of the response from fans such as you and I, that the explanation is atleast fair.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Nov 20, 2003)

PJ has already said that he plans on putting the footage back into the extended edition of RoTK.  He's said that if he had realized that it wouldn't work in RoTK earlier, he would have put the footage into the Two Towers Extended Edition.


----------



## jdavis (Nov 21, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> I heard it was some top excutive at New Line/ WB that told Jackson to cut it. PJ tryed to fight to keep it in there, but the guy already made up his mind. He saw an early cut of the movie and thought the scene dragged down the movie, so he ordered it cut.



IF Jackson did want to keep the scene then the petition might just help, of course at this point it's probably too late to change things anyway. 

For me, as long as the scene makes the extended version then I'll live, the extended version is the version that matters to me as it is the version I'll be watching for years to come. They've already said it will be in the extended version so I'm fine. I just thought people might want to know about the petition (heck I didn't sign it myself as I felt it was too late to change things anyway).

As for the changes they made from Book to movie well their is a whole documentary on disk 3 of the extended verson dedicated to them explaining changes they made from the book and why. They didn't make any changes at all just to leave their mark, heck Peter Jackson is probably as big a fan of the books as any of us are (he apparently agonizes over every change too). 

Also sort of funny is the documentary where they talk to authors and the original publishers of the books. They pointed out that the books were such a mess storywise that they would of never been published today and talked about all the things that Tolkin did wrong because he wasn't a profesional author, yet everything came together so well in the end. Sort of funny that the books that set the standard for modern fantasy might of never been published by modern standards. For all of us book purist it seems the books were actually flawed by professional writing standards (sort of funny isn't it).


----------



## Krieg (Nov 21, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> no. it's "Rides the White Pony"





Hmm, I never figured you for a Heroin addict.



			
				jdavis said:
			
		

> Sort of funny that the books that set the standard for modern fantasy might of never been published by modern standards. For all of us book purist it seems the books were actually flawed by professional writing standards (sort of funny isn't it).




It also nicely illustrates what happens when "the formula" becomes more important than the story.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Nov 21, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Saying something like this just makes you look foolish.
> 
> I think we all know that you have no idea WHY they made these changes.
> 
> ...


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Nov 21, 2003)

*My comments in bold.*





			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> Possible Spoilers ahead!
> Also, I use "PJ" to mean Peter Jackson & crew (notably Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens)
> Reasons:
> 1) Faramir is a noble character from beginning to end. He's got no personal journey in him. He is not conflicted, and doesn't have to make difficult decisions, because he is who he is. In cinema terms, he is boring, a cutout character. Now, he's got a development towards being the hero he becomes.
> ...


----------



## takyris (Nov 21, 2003)

JRRNeiklot: All I have to offer is my own opinion, just as all you have to offer is yours.  As long as we both realize that that's all it is, we can all get along just peachy.

My opinion is that leaving everything as it was would have slowed the movie down and made for some fairly flat characters.  I'm not saying that they're flat in the book, but that certain elements of them would not have translated well to the screen -- if only because on the screen, you can't stop the for half a page and give the viewer direct exposition on what this all means.  On the screen, character is defined by action, and in order to present a more consistent message, PJ made the decision to change things.

I know it offends you, because you are, from what I understand, a purist.  You would have loved it if everything in the book was included in the movie, am I right?  Every line as it was, every action in place, nothing added, nothing removed.  Is this correct?  This is not a leading question.  I honestly want to know.

It's fine for you to say that you would have loved a movie like that.  I, personally, would have been bored by it, I suspect -- it would most likely have been far too long, and it would have felt dragged-out and unwieldy and flat in many areas.

So, you're a movie producer, trying to make a great movie out of a series of books that you love.  You are faced with a question: Do you make changes as you feel it necessary, knowing that you might irk some purists, or do you keep it utterly faithful to the book, creating a movie that, most likely, only the purists would love?

PJ chose the former.  From a marketing perspective, it was the right choice -- many people saw the movie who never read the book.  From an artistic perspective, it was the right choice *in my opinion* -- I'd rather see a movie that does its best to be a movie, not a movie that does its best to be a line-by-line retread of a book that I could just go read instead.  From the purity-of-Tolkien perspective, it was the wrong choice.


----------



## jdavis (Nov 21, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> It also nicely illustrates what happens when "the formula" becomes more important than the story.



Particularly when the story is responsible for the formula. I mean where would fantasy fiction be today if it wasn't for Lord of the Rings, yet if written today Lord of the Rings probably wouldn't get published into the genre it basically created. LotR is the formula, it is the holy grail of fantasy fiction, would the next Holy Grail of fantasy fiction get published or would it be sent back because it was too off the wall or didn't match preconcieved notions? Would we even be here at this board discussing D&D if the publisher had sent Lord of the Rings back to Tolkien and told him it was too convoluted to even mess with? Just thought that was a odd little point in one of the documentaries.

As far as the purist book arguement goes, well in all actuality I'm sort of a book purist myself but I have the very informative circumstance that I have friends who have never read the books to go see the movies with. Everybody I talked to who hasn't actually read the books has loved the movies(except my wife but she never likes fantasy stuff), after we watch them the ones of us who have read the books talk about what has been changed, for the most part the people who haven't read the books prefer it the movie way, heck one guy decided that he will never go back and read the book as it sounds terribly boring where the movie is so much more fun.

When you get right down to it it's not the book purist that Peter Jackson has to please it's the general viewing audience, he didn't want a cult classic movie with a small rabid fanbase he wanted a huge crossover audience of all the vast majority of the people out there who have never read the books. Lets face it most people have never read the books, heck most people really are not fans of fantasy fiction in general. He had to make a movie that would bring in the vast general audience to the theater or else no movie production company would of touched such a expensive production. Do I wish he had stuck closer to the books, oh hell yes, but I do realize that I can't argue with the huge numbers and tremendous amounts of money these movies are making and I can't argue with the significant number of people who are now LotR fans who were totally ignorant of the books before the movies came out. It's hard to say he did it wrong in so many areas when so many people are going to see it and talking about how great it is. A lot of people thought I was nuts for not liking Two Towers in the theater (many of my close friends included) and I have to admit I was in the minority. It's hard to say he's making a mistake with the Saruman scenes when so far everything he has touched has turned into a big mint of gold, of course I'm not in the movie buisness either (my friend with the film degree likes what he does and basically says Peter Jackson is what Lucas used to be when he first made Star Wars and these movies will be as important as Star Wars was to the industry). So I sit through the movies and occasionally twich and wince and for the most part they are pretty good but more important they are all I got. I do like the stuff he added in the extended version and I do understand the changes he had to make, I don't like a lot of them but I do understand their side of it. Heck the first movie had some pretty sizable changes in it too. At least it makes me twich and wince less than the new Star Wars movies do.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Nov 21, 2003)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> I am glad they changed the story. I have tried to read the book several times and have quit every time. I love the story, but find the writing long winded and boring. I like the movies better. PJ has worked hard to keep the movies close to the books and has made an excellent product. Yes PJ didput his mark on the movies and a very good mark indeed. I trust his judgement and feel that having the scene on the cutting room floor is probably best for the mass audience. It will be on the DVD for the rest of us who love the extended version.
> 
> More new fans have found the books because of the movies. Frodo Lives Again because of these movies.



Amen. I'm in the same boat. Every gamer I meet keeps saying what a classic the books are, and I keep thinking "I'd rather watch paint dry than attempt to read those books again*." I happen to think that a lot of the characters and scenarios in those books are frankly kinda hackneyed. I appreciate that Professor Tolkien wanted to build this mythology, this milieu to populate with peoples constructed from whole cloth. I just don't happen to think it makes particularly compelling reading.

But these movies are GREAT, especially the Extended versions. I marvel at how Peter Jackson was able to take a book I absolutely can't stand and make films that I don't know how I lived without before I saw them. He took characters I found boring and one-dimensional and turn them into people I root for, laugh with and cry over. He took a narrative I found turgid and uninvolving and built scenes with tension, pathos and depth.

As a lifelong appreciater of great cinema, I feel quite bad that you don't like these films JRRNeiklot. Maybe these movies just weren't made for people like you. Maybe they were made for people like me.


* The Tom Bombadil scenes get me every time.  If I ever find myself in a firefight, I might use those pages as Kevlar.  They're about as impenetrable.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Nov 21, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> JRRNeiklot: All I have to offer is my own opinion, just as all you have to offer is yours.  As long as we both realize that that's all it is, we can all get along just peachy.
> 
> My opinion is that leaving everything as it was would have slowed the movie down and made for some fairly flat characters.  I'm not saying that they're flat in the book, but that certain elements of them would not have translated well to the screen -- if only because on the screen, you can't stop the for half a page and give the viewer direct exposition on what this all means.  On the screen, character is defined by action, and in order to present a more consistent message, PJ made the decision to change things.
> 
> I know it offends you, because you are, from what I understand, a purist.  You would have loved it if everything in the book was included in the movie, am I right?  Every line as it was, every action in place, nothing added, nothing removed.  Is this correct?  This is not a leading question.  I honestly want to know.




Some omissions I was fine with.  Most of them, even.  It's the CHANGES I abhor.  For instance, I was okay with leaving out Bombadil.  The barrow downs scene, however, should have been in.  It's going to be might funny when the hobbit blade just turns out to be magical that pierces the nazgul.  But I'll bet money that's not even in there.  Eowen will probably do for him all by herself.  

And I realize the inclusion of Arwen as a main character had to be done.  Every movie has to have a female lead.  There are probably other changes as well that I'd have been perfectly happy with, but some just plain suck.

Merry and Pippin just happening to run into Frodo and Sam for one.  Merry had been watching Frodo for years, due to his strange behaviour after receiving the ring.  But they went for the comical scene instead - and yes, I realize they did steal the man's crops in the book, but that gets in and not the barrow downs, which has a MAJOR impact later?  C'mon.  Perhaps you're right, I am a purist.  But to me these omissions and much worse, the changes took what could have been a GREAT movie and turned it into a cheap ripoff.

A good film, but it's hardly the Lord of the Rings.  I find myself not even wanting to see RotK, except to get a bit of closure from the entire experience.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Nov 21, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> As a lifelong appreciater of great cinema, I feel quite bad that you don't like these films JRRNeiklot. Maybe these movies just weren't made for people like you. Maybe they were made for people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## diaglo (Nov 21, 2003)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Hmm, I never figured you for a Heroin addict.




well, OD&D is like a drug.


----------



## kengar (Nov 21, 2003)

takyris said:
			
		

> Re: Who solved the riddle: The quote leaves out a BIT of the context.  Gandalf does solve it... but as I recall, he solves it after Pippin helps him, right?  Pippin uses common sense to give Gandalf a clue -- something like, "Wouldn't they want it to be something easy, something that would let people in?"  That was how I remembered the scene -- and then Gandalf says, "Oh, crud, yeah, Mellon," and the door opens.
> 
> So, the movie was not quite as massive a change as others were implying.




I guess it's some sort of mental illness on my part, but I will respond anyway 

Sorry, 'fraid not. All Pippin says is "I wish Gandalf would do something quick!" because the wolves are starting to howl and Bill the pony is running away. In the book, the hobbits were totally uninvolved in the solving of the riddle. 



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Some omissions I was fine with.  Most of them, even.  It's the CHANGES I abhor.  For instance, I was okay with leaving out Bombadil.  The barrow downs scene, however, should have been in.  It's going to be might funny when the hobbit blade just turns out to be magical that pierces the nazgul.  But I'll bet money that's not even in there.  Arwen will probably do for him all by herself.




Uhhh, I assume you meant to type "Eowyn." 

Also, in the extended FOTR DVD, they include the scene with the Gifts of Galadriel. Galadriel gives Merry & Pippin Noldorin daggers, which -I assume- are to replace the "Barrow Blades" in the films.

I _do_ think that leaving that scene out of the theatrical release of FOTR was a continuity error. It's in that scene that things like Lembas, Elvish Cloaks, Sam's Rope & Merry's blade are addressed; all of which end up being mentioned or used later in the story.

That said, I didn't mind the "Moria riddle change" in the movie in the least. I felt it worked very well in the scene and didn't detract from the spirit of the story at all.

FWIW, when I respond to these messages about "being true to the book," all I'm really trying to do is tell people what the books actually _said_. I'm not trying to say the movies should always stick to the books or even that I always dislike when they varied from the novels. Overall, I've been very impressed with PJ's adaptation and rank it among some of the best films I've ever seen. Granted TTT was not the better of the two so far and I have not yet gotten my extended DVDs for it. As far as the Saruman issue in ROTK is concernced, my _only_ beef with leaving it out is a plot-continuity one (Pippin going to Minas Tirith with Gandalf, etc.). If PJ can fill that plot hole without the scene at Isengard, then I'm fine with it being cut. I will -of course- look forward to my extended version of ROTK on DVD so I can see the scene.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Nov 21, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> *Bleh.  It worked just fine in the book and would have been just fine in the movie.*



Really? Heck no! I don't find Faramir to be an interesting character at all in the 
movie, but goshdamnit, he's *so* much better than in the books where's he's 
just an one-note-Barry-Allen-'n-Steve-Rogers-lovechild-plot-device-character. 

In the movie, he's at least a guy one can relate to.

All IMO of course.


----------



## Gnarlo (Nov 21, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> I guess it's some sort of mental illness on my part, but I will respond anyway
> 
> Sorry, 'fraid not. All Pippin says is "I wish Gandalf would do something quick!" because the wolves are starting to howl and Bill the pony is running away. In the book, the hobbits were totally uninvolved in the solving of the riddle.




Well, they didn't solve the riddle, but Gandalf does give them a bit of credit. In the chapter "A Journey in the Dark", Merry asks "What does it mean by _speak, friend, and enter?_" [p 297 in my HM one volume editiion]. Then, once he solves the problem, Gandalf says on page 300 " 'I was wrong after all,' said Gandalf, 'and Gimli too. Merry, of all people, was on the right track. The opening word was inscribed on the archway all the time!' "

Just getting my geek credentials in 

And, for the record, the SE DVD has lifted up TTT to the equal of FOTR for me as well; I also was disappointed in the theatrical release of it after the beauty of Fellowship, it just felt to hurried and disjointed. PJ redeemed it


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Nov 21, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> I guess it's some sort of mental illness on my part, but I will respond anyway
> 
> Sorry, 'fraid not. All Pippin says is "I wish Gandalf would do something quick!" because the wolves are starting to howl and Bill the pony is running away. In the book, the hobbits were totally uninvolved in the solving of the riddle.
> 
> ...




Oops.  Quite right, Eowyn it is!


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 21, 2003)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> The thing is, they changed stuff for no other reason than to put their fingerprints on it.





			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Saying something like this just makes you look foolish.
> 
> I think we all know that you have no idea WHY they made these changes.





			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Because the changes were not needed.  But thanks for resorting to name calling.



Sorry if you felt like I was calling you a fool. That was not my intent, and let me say that I do not think you are a fool.

I'm just saying that pretending to knowledge you don't possess does you no favours, and doesn't help you to make your case. The fact that you can't see a purpose in the changes doesn't mean that they were made to serve ego-gratifying motives. If you want to say you don't understand why they made the changes, that's one thing.

But if you're going to pretend you have secret insight into the minds of others, I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously.

I posted my takes on the changes in TT over in the OTHER thread. Maybe these have become candidates for thread merging?...


----------



## jdavis (Nov 21, 2003)

The feeling I got from the Documentaries was that tTTs was the hardest of the movies to make and it was a real chore for Jackson, there is all sorts of remarks in the documentaries from several of the people involved about how hard this one was and how unsure of it they were when it was finished, This part of the story just doesn't translate to film very well. They made just as many huge sweeping changes in the first movie and they didn't get near as much flack, this was just a much harder movie to make. Myself I have very high hopes for Return of the King as it seems to be the one that Jackson was almost giddy about getting to make and it's a much more straightforward story (although I can invision several huge changes they probably had to make). All and all I look for it to be much better than Two Towers.


----------



## Orius (Nov 23, 2003)

Oh, boy more Tolkien purists....

I think Jackson has done a fair job with the movies.   I've seen movie adaptations of books that were a hell of a lot worse, and had almost nothing to do with the original.s  Anyone see the _Time Machine_ movie that was made abouta year or so ago?  That was virtually unrecognizable.  At least Jackson got most of the plot right for the first two movies.  

Even so, there are scenes that do irritate me, because they are outright changes, because they lack subtlety, or because they remind me of typical action-flick cheesiness.  The biggest offenders are the collapsing stairs in Moria, Galadriel turning green, and Aragorn going over the cliff.  It's not just that those things weren't in the book, it's also that too me, they don't really add anything to the movies either.  Still, I'm not such a purist that I'm not going to see the last installment.


----------



## kengar (Nov 24, 2003)

Orius said:
			
		

> Even so, there are scenes that do irritate me, because they are outright changes, because they lack subtlety, or because they remind me of typical action-flick cheesiness.  The biggest offenders are the collapsing stairs in Moria, Galadriel turning green, and Aragorn going over the cliff.  It's not just that those things weren't in the book, it's also that too me, they don't really add anything to the movies either.  Still, I'm not such a purist that I'm not going to see the last installment.




To me, the collapsing stairs at Moria was a great piece of film. That JRRT didn't write that individual scene is irrelevant. It was exciting, it was true to the spirit of that part of the book and looked cool on screen. Just as every step the fellowship took isn't described, why _not_ have a fun "extra" in their flight from Moria? I didn't come across as cheesy to me, but I'm sure the film makers figured it didn't hurt to have some extra action snippets in the film.

Aragorn going over the cliff and the river was odd, IMO. Since TTT came out I've heard several explanations for that whole sequence, but I'd just as soon it was left out. That said, it wasn't a super-big deal to me. Or, have him go over the cliff, have Legolas, etc. looking down at the river after the fight, then cut to Aragorn washing up on the river bank & skip the Arwen stuff. 

Galadriel turning green, well to quote the good Professor (from the scene at the mirror when Frodo offers her the One Ring):


> _"She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful."_




To me, the "turning green" etc. is just PJ's interpretation of that scene from book to screen. I thought it worked quite well and the green even makes sense if you consider the Nenya is the ring of Water (though I honestly don't know if that was PJ's inspiration for the color scheme or not  ).


----------



## BSF (Nov 24, 2003)

Trying to resist replying ... must resist ... failing the tempation ...

OK, I will toss a few coppers in here.  Let me be clear, I am a book purist.  I generally re-read the books once a year or so.  I find it unfortunate that there are others that do not enjoy the books as much as I do.  But, I respect that everyone has completely different tastes.  If you didn't like the books, or were unable to even read them through, that is one thing that I don't share in common with you.  Of course, those differences can also help make the world an interesting place.  

That being said, it is a monumental task to translate the books to a movie.  I liked FotR, but I was prepared to hate Arwen's character.  They introduced her and took out Glorfindel.  He is one of my favorite unsung characters!  We are talking about the guy that led the elves when they routed Angmar in the Battle of Fornost.  This guy rocks!  Oh yeah, that doesn't really come out in the main story.    So, while I can understand why they cut him, I was still not sure if I would like it.  It worked.  Overall, they did a good job with FotR.  

Then came the Two Towers.  Blech.  Admittedly, it is not an easy translation by any account.  I could stomach most of it.  But, the sullying of Faramir's character infuriated me.  I'm glad that people like the movie.  I'm glad that people felt empathy for Faramir.  I understand what they were trying to represent by having Faramir fall under the influence of the ring.  But, I still disagree with it.  

To me, Faramir represents everything that the waning blood of the Stewards of Gondor should be.  His relationship with his father was strained because Boromir always seemed to be far more noble.  Boromir was willing to fight the good fight to defend his city.  Borormir was willing to do nearly anything for victory.  Boromir is the type of guy you want helping you when all the cards are on the table and you are fighting for your life.  Faramir would stop and think before acting.  In the eyes of Denethor, Faramir appeared to be timid in comparison to his older brother.  Faramir had a closer relationship with Gandalf and loved lore instead of battle.  Faramir had wisdom and nobility.  He was a distant reflection of the nobility of the race of men, nearly on par with Aragorn himself.  Faramir had the wisdom to discern what "Isildur's Bane" might be, to recognize that Boromir would have fallen prey to that temptation.  Faramir resisted the lure of the ring because he did not thirst for battle victory.  He focused his attention to merely helping Frodo and Sam.  Boy, I could go on, but I am just rambling.  

Faramir is a much deeper character than many people seem to give him credit for.  That's fine.  We each interpret the story in our own ways.  Obviously, I disagree with the interpretation of the character on the screen.  But, it would have been difficult to convey this depth in a movie.  I don't like the interpretation, but I respect that the movie is focusing on specific aspects of the story.  You can't possibly examine every character in depth in a movie the same way you can in a lengthy novel.  I'll deal with my disappointment if it means that I can debate the finer points with more people later on.  The movie is one interpretation of the story, that's all.  And in that context, it is a pretty darn good one.  

Personally, I would love to debate these points with Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.  It is clear that they put a lot of love into the movie.  It would be an honor to try to sway them to my line of thinking.  Who knows, maybe I will even have that chance someday.  For that matter, I would like to discuss a lot of the changes that I disagreed with.  There are many.  But, I enjoy the movies and love the books.  I will be seeing Return of the King on December 17th.  I think it will be fun.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 24, 2003)

Tarrasque Wrangler said:
			
		

> Amen. I'm in the same boat. Every gamer I meet keeps saying what a classic the books are, and I keep thinking "I'd rather watch paint dry than attempt to read those books again*." I happen to think that a lot of the characters and scenarios in those books are frankly kinda hackneyed. I appreciate that Professor Tolkien wanted to build this mythology, this milieu to populate with peoples constructed from whole cloth. I just don't happen to think it makes particularly compelling reading.



I only made it through the books after I watched FotR the first time. I'd tried twice before, and given up. I reread the books before tTT, and am in the process of doing so before RotK, but if PJ had filmed FotR as written, I don't think I'd've been convinced there was something worth reading in there. JRRT gets a lot of respect for popularizing the genre and establishing many conventions, but there are a lot of people who I'd rather read.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 24, 2003)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> That being said, it is a monumental task to translate the books to a movie.  I liked FotR, but I was prepared to hate Arwen's character.  They introduced her and took out Glorfindel.  He is one of my favorite unsung characters!  We are talking about the guy that led the elves when they routed Angmar in the Battle of Fornost.  This guy rocks!  Oh yeah, that doesn't really come out in the main story.    So, while I can understand why they cut him, I was still not sure if I would like it.  It worked.  Overall, they did a good job with FotR.




While I'm sure it'd have been complained about anyway, I think if they'd left Glorfindel in, and had him be the elf at Helms Deep, it'd have been better. Someone more established as a warrior, from Rivendell, etc.

But, no one will give me a budget to make a movie, so I'll enjoy the one I'm given


----------



## KenM (Nov 24, 2003)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> Personally, I would love to debate these points with Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.  It is clear that they put a lot of love into the movie.  It would be an honor to try to sway them to my line of thinking.  Who knows, maybe I will even have that chance someday.  For that matter, I would like to discuss a lot of the changes that I disagreed with.  There are many.  But, I enjoy the movies and love the books.  I will be seeing Return of the King on December 17th.  I think it will be fun.




  Have you seen Two Towers EE DVD? There is a 20 minute feature: from book to film. PJ, FW and PB explain each change they made from the Two Towers novel to the movie, and the reasons behind them. After seeing that, I can see why they had to make the changes they did. 
  Back on topic, its is too late to do anything to put the Sauraman back into the theactical RoTK, the poremire is next week. It is being copied for distribution at this point. Check this out http://www.msnbc.com/news/996638.asp?0cb=-11e43816


----------



## BSF (Nov 24, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> Have you seen Two Towers EE DVD? There is a 20 minute feature: from book to film. PJ, FW and PB explain each change they made from the Two Towers novel to the movie, and the reasons behind them. After seeing that, I can see why they had to make the changes they did.
> Back on topic, its is too late to do anything to put the Sauraman back into the theactical RoTK, the poremire is next week. It is being copied for distribution at this point. Check this out http://www.msnbc.com/news/996638.asp?0cb=-11e43816





I have seen it.  But, I disagree with many of their reasons.  I think they sold some of the characters drastically short and it would be fun to debate specific references with them.  Perhaps I could present some perspective on the characters that they had not thought of.  Certainly, I think they could provide me perspective I have not thought of.  That is why it would be an honor and why it would be fun.  For that matter, I would happily debate such things with any number of people.  Regardless, I respect the interpretation of the filmakers.  I also respect that they had to make decisions that are difficult.  I wouldn't want to debate any of my dislikes to chastise them in any way, I would want to do it to share the love I have for the story with them.


----------



## jdavis (Nov 24, 2003)

One thing I'd like to point out on the Faramir stuff, in the movie he never tried to take the ring, he never asked to see it or to hold it or to mess with it at all, he was sending the Hbbits to his father because that was the law and he was trying to show his father he was worthy, that's a totally different than the interpretation of him being villianized, he was a roadblock and a hurdle for them but he never was a villian in any way, he was trying to save his people and become worthy in his fathers eyes (which does fit in with the character in the book), he didn't want the ring, he never tried to separate Frodo from the ring at all. His character didn't change all that much from the books, they just added more scenes with him and had him slower to catch on, that's all. Lets face it if he let the Hobbits go after the waterfall then they were done from the movie, that's it there is nothing more for them for the next hour and a half, the reasons for leaving Shelob out of Two Towers should actually strike true for the book purist crowd, In the book Shelob's Lair happens at the same time as the battle in Gondor, they couldn't have Sam and Frodo looking back from the mountains and seeing a big battle that hadden't taken place yet, the timing was all wrong. So what do you do cut Sam and Frodo out of the last half of the movie? Change the storyline to have them get to Shelob earlier and get slowed down somewhere later? Have the Shelob scenes intercut with the Isengard scenes and the Battle of Helm's deep (how hard would all that of been for people to follow)? I hated the portrayal of Faramir in the Theatrical cut not because he didn't match the book 100% but because he never got fleshed out much at all, he was just a obstical, in the extended version they fixed that, he got real screen time and some real insights. I love Faramir and I'm glad he was in the movie more than the 5 minutes he would of been in it if they had stuck to the book. He didn't change all that much, he never tried to claim the ring or take it from the Hobbits, he never made any push to use it himself or to even look at it, he just wanted to send it to his father and took longer to decide to send them on their way, he was never a villian in any way shape or form, he wasn't all that different in the end than he was in the book, they just dove into what drove him as a character a little more in depth than in the book. 

Hey I wish they could of done everything 100% by the book, but that wasn't all that bad a portrayal of him, he was noble and honorable and showed wisdom and strength of character, plus he actually got a little bit of screen time. Man there are so many other fish to fry with changes they made, that one wasn't that bad.


----------



## Berandor (Nov 24, 2003)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> (snip)



You know, BSF (if I may call you that ), you are the kind of purist I really respect and relish.
I can see not agreeing with the changes, but understanding the reasons for them (heck, some of the changes don't appeal to me, as well, and I'm not sure whether PJ & Co. were right about them).
It really shows an open mind, to me, that you are able to distance yourself fro your love of the book enough to at least make an effort at understanding the changes. That you come to a different conclusion is fine, because that makes it possible to discuss it on a basis that doesn't evolve into a flame war.

JRRN, I was surprised to find you in a similar camp. Judging from your first comments, you seemed to be the kind of "PJ-basher" that is so often found these days. Perhaps I came over as "PJ-fanboy", on the other hand?

Even so, it really shows the maturity of these boards that such a heated topic is discussed that civilly (mostly).

Berandor


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 24, 2003)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> While I'm sure it'd have been complained about anyway, I think if they'd left Glorfindel in, and had him be the elf at Helms Deep, it'd have been better. Someone more established as a warrior, from Rivendell, etc.




Sorry about this - but once I started thinking about him as part of the hit singing duo Simon and Glorfindel, I can no longer picture him without a blonde afro. I don't miss Glorfindel one little bit.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 24, 2003)

I follow their logic behind some of the changes (doesn't mean I necissarily agree, but I love the adaptation anyway).  Moving Shelob was a really good idea; I'm glad they're trying to keep the timeline accurate.

Leaving out Saruman seems sloppy -- too many loose ends.  They opened TTT with a FOTR flashback; why not open ROTK with the TTT sequence?  Instead they start with the Smeagol/Deagol scene (which while interesting, I'm not sure is as important as Saruman).  I'm wondering exactly what was cut from the Houses of Healing, as well (as reported by Newsweek).  If it was just a bit of the Faramir/Eowyn love story, I could see that for pacing reasons, but if it's the Aragorn healing scene I'll be disappointed -- I always thought that the "hands of the king are the hands of a healer" line was important exposition for the people of Gondor, and it would provide  a good link for the aethelas lines from the first movie, but I could see them dropping this, because the audience already knows he's the King.

Guess I'll just have to wait .  I trust PJ to put together a good overall production.  He'll make some changes I might not necessarily agree with, but I'm sure I'll like the whole, and we'll at least get an extended DVD to fix the cuts.


----------



## BSF (Nov 24, 2003)

Berandor said:
			
		

> You know, BSF (if I may call you that ), you are the kind of purist I really respect and relish.
> I can see not agreeing with the changes, but understanding the reasons for them (heck, some of the changes don't appeal to me, as well, and I'm not sure whether PJ & Co. were right about them).
> It really shows an open mind, to me, that you are able to distance yourself fro your love of the book enough to at least make an effort at understanding the changes. That you come to a different conclusion is fine, because that makes it possible to discuss it on a basis that doesn't evolve into a flame war.
> 
> ...




Berandor,
Thanks.  I take that as a big compliment.

For the record, BSF is a simple way to abbreviate my screen name and is fine.  Using my real name of David is fine as well.


----------



## kengar (Nov 24, 2003)

I'm one of the few (though not only) Tolkien fans I know that thought including Glorfindel in FOTR was a mistake. I've never heard a conclusive explanation of what he was even _doing_ there. I mean, the guy DIED during the fall of Gondolin for crying out loud. He really served no purpose in the story. Yes, yes. He held back the Nazgul at the river for a few minutes while Frodo rode across the ford, but even that wasn't a necessary element to the story.


----------



## BSF (Nov 25, 2003)

It is debatable where the "mistake" could be.  

Glorfindel did fall in battle against a Balrog when Gondolin was sacked.  

Glorfindel also faced off the Witch-King in the Battle of Fornost.  It was at that time that he prophesied about the Witch-king "Far off yet is his doom and not by the hand of man will he fall."  It's all in appendix A.

Since Tolkien rarely reused Elvish names, the question is:  Is this the same Glorfindel?  Could it be an error of Christopher Tolkien's to include the fall of Glorfindel in the Silmarillion?  Could it be that Glorfindel returned from the West?  This is an unanswered issue.  Were there two Glorfindel's or just one?  Looking at it, I see two reasonably developed Elven characters with the same name.  Or I see one well developed Elven character that died and came back. In the end, it isn't an important debate for resolving why Glorfindel, as a story element, was in FotR.  

He was in it because Tolkien had established a powerful, historical Elf-lord that could strike fear into the Nazgul, and he was a character that had prohesied the fall of the Witch-King in TA 1975, 1044 years before Eowyn and Merry brought about the Witch-King's final rest.  Glorfindel was a powerful enough Elf-Lord that it makes sense that the Nazgul would be struck in dismay by his sudden appearance at the Ford of Bruinen.  This was necessary to remove the Nazgul as a threat for a short time.  Otherwise, some of the Nazgul would have been wiped out by the raging water at the ford, and the rest would have just waited for the Fellowship to leave Rivendell later.  

Tolkien could have written it differently, but he didn't.  Thus, we have something to debate.


----------



## kengar (Nov 25, 2003)

I'd forgotten about the Witch King prophecy.  

Still, as many folks in the DVD appendicies mention, Tolkien was not really edited and -as a resyult- some of his narrative structure suffers. A good editor would probably have told JRRT to lose Glorfindel or develop his role in the story more.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Nov 25, 2003)

kengar said:
			
		

> I'd forgotten about the Witch King prophecy.
> 
> Still, as many folks in the DVD appendicies mention, Tolkien was not really edited and -as a resyult- some of his narrative structure suffers. A good editor would probably have told JRRT to lose Glorfindel or develop his role in the story more.





And a good writer would have told him to stuff it.  Glorfindel was one of my favorite characters.  While I agree, leaving him out of the movie may have been a good idea, leaving him out of the book would not.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Nov 26, 2003)

Berandor said:
			
		

> JRRN, I was surprised to find you in a similar camp. Judging from your first comments, you seemed to be the kind of "PJ-basher" that is so often found these days. Perhaps I came over as "PJ-fanboy", on the other hand?
> 
> Even so, it really shows the maturity of these boards that such a heated topic is discussed that civilly (mostly).
> 
> Berandor





Thanks.  I'm not really a PJ basher, I think he made an excellent movie, but I cringe at some parts every time I watch it.  I could make what seems a long list of problems, but they amount to little in a 3 hour (or six, if you count both films) movie(s)).  Here's a short list:

Theoden going to Helm's Deep to hide instead of it being a sound military decision.

The entire Arragorn over the cliff/warg thing.

Faramir.

Elves at Helm's Deep.

Shield Surfing (Reminds me of Skeet Surfing in "Top Secret.")

The missing Barrow Downs.

The hobbits tricking the ents into attacking Saruman.  Grrrr.

Faramir.

Gimli as nothing more than comic relief.

Did I mention Faramir?

There are others, but in a 3 hour movie, this doesn't account for much.  The thing is, it would have taken very little effort to fix.  Sadly, PJ didn't make an attempt.


----------

