Mistakes in the LOTR movies that make a mockery of the story... ? You think?
Jackson portrays Elrond as disapproving of Arwen and Aragorn's relationship and has the couple appearing alone, keeping out from under the watchful eye of Arwen's father. Just more booyah designed to boost Arwen's role.
Bilbo was at the Council of Elrond and even offering to be the Ring-bearer Jackson does not have Bilbo at the Council.
Boromir does not dismiss or disrespect Aragorn but instead states how his return would be welcomed in Gondor. Jackson has Boromir say something to the effect that Gondor doesn't need a king.
The Ring alters Frodo's perception for the first time when he reaches Amon Hen--the "Ring was upon him". Jackson has the Ring altering Frodo's perception everytime he puts it on. This made me constantly question why Bilbo would have such a nonchalant attitude toward the Ring if wearing it was such a horrifying experience (what with the Eye and all).
Aragorn does not find Frodo at the Seat of Amon Hen for Frodo has already fled to the river. Jackson has Aragorn find Frodo near the Seat of Amon Hen. He also has Frodo offer the Ring to Aragorn- never happens in the book.
Eomer threatens to cut Gimli's head off in response to Gimli's statement in defense of Galadriel and about Eomer having little wit - Jackson has Eomer threaten Gimli in response to his "Give me your name, horsemaster" statement.
The Entmoot is called by Treebeard so he can convince the other Ents to go to war against Saruman. Jackson has Treebeard call the Entmoot so that the Ents can decide whether or not they should worry about the affairs of the world beyond the forest. WTF?
Sam finds Frodo standing lost in thought in the Dead Marshes with slime and filth on his arms. Jackson has Frodo fall into the Dead Marshes and nearly perish if not for rescue at the hands of Gollum.
In the book Faramir takes Frodo back to Henneth Annun not because he is suspicious of Frodo, but because he feels that area is not safe to travel in immediately following the assault of his men upon the Southrons.
Faramir never intended to take the Ring to Minas Tirith - Jackson has Faramir take Frodo as far back toward Minas Tirith as Osgiliath before he finally gives up on the idea of hindering Frodo's quest. And, of course, in the book Faramir never leads the Hobbits to Osgiliath.
Jackson has Gollum tell Faramir that Frodo has the One Ring. (Faramir does not even want to see the Ring.)
In the book Gollum is not beaten, but is questioned honestly and treated rather well. Jackson has Faramir's men beat and kick Gollum cruelly.
My biggest objection, as far as Sam and Frodo goes, has to be in the final movie where Jackson has Gollum tricking Frodo into telling Sam to go home. What!!! Not only did that never happen, Frodo never trusted Gollum, even though he did want to be kinder to him than Sam did.
I have a zillion moreof these - need I go on?
Jackson didnt include many things and changed many things, Fellowship of the ring was done quite wrong in a huge way (they way they set to rivendell from the shire)
also Erestor wasn't at the council of the ring, many decent proposals were put forth by the wise at the council. But no doubt elronds idea went ahead 🙄
Bormir doesnt subject to the denial of the return of the king 😑 he was just quite shocked at the fact he was in the presents of Isildur's heir and that his father would be most un-pleased to hear news.
Aragorn and Frodo's last time together in FOTR was to show that Aragorn WILL protect frodo and is an honorable man. He just wants to put that point across (jackson that is)
The ents wernt planning to go to war, they were questioning in the film that the hobbits wern't orcs. Ents try and keep to their own and dont want to meddle in anyones affaiors (whether what reasons), as we all should know they went to war with Isengard as Saruman used trees for the forest to "fuel" isengard.....(its a tree thing 😉)
The part about Frodo and the marshes I agree with you (who crazy lol), totally un-needed for the film. Why they had spirits dwelling in the marshses is beyond me, perhaps that the dead people in there were fighting to the death due to that ring and that they wanted it 😕
Ah now the part about Faramir and Frodos encounter is totally un-needed......I again AGREE with you man. Faramir even takes them to Osgiliaht 🤨....Sam and Frodo dont go to Osgiliath.....EVER
perhaps they wanted us to pity gollum's character atthat point in the film to decide whether you made up your mind of him still being gollum and deceatfull or infact a silly little fish eating smeagol....
I am beginning to object PJ's adaption to the accuracy nowadays....
Faramir and his men DO infact hold the river at Osgiliath, Faramir doesnt hold a pathetic charge back to Osgiliath on a suicide mission....boy i bet the script writers felt stupid when the feedback of "oh anyone notice how out of the charge Faramir was the ONLY one not dead??"
we should of at least seen the villian army (cant remember there name, starts with a "D"😉 which prevented the Rohirrm going straight to Minas Tirith, they infact had to go through a mountain...
The sword of the king (narsil) was actually forged in the fellowship of the ring, why the hell did they let us think a high lord elf such as Elrond would travel hundreds of miles, on his own might I add, with the worlds most valuable sword 🙄
Discos - please go on, I am in the mood for ranting nowadays!
the one change that i agree and disagree w/ is the Faramir one, i do not agree w/ him taking frodo and sam to osgiliath, i think that was totally unnessasary, but i did believe that the ring needed a better affect on him unlike the book where he automatically rejects the ring, in the film he is more taken in by it, in the book it felt as if Faramir killed the power of the ring by rejecting it asap, i think the harder give up of the ring was needed but the osgiliath trip not nessesary.
as much as i agree with your observations about these differences (and respect you for it) i think they should not be referred to as inaccuracies.
since the onset of the filmmaking process, i believe PJ and his gang had been quick to point out that the trilogy is THEIR own interpretation of the books. anyway, trying to cram EVERYTHING, AS THEY HAPPENED in the three films would have been a very difficult task, and would have no doubt affected the success of the LOTR trilogy as we know of it today.
I'll give an example: had they stuck close to the books, then ARWEN would have been naught but a passing vision, Aragorn would not have been given that further push/motivation to go out and fight (yeah, in the film, Arwen did something about that), Boromir would not have been given more character depth than he had in the books, Eowyn's longing for Aragorn would not have been given more concrete proof...
i guess what i am saying is...they are not INACCURACIES. they are more like differences in Interpretation. And it worked for the films, didn't it? So that's that...
My hats off to PJ and his people. I don't think they 'screwed up.'
Peace. Out.
Re: Wow, He Really Screwed Up With Those Films Didnt He
Originally posted by Súro
re-reading the books i have decided that jacksons lord of the rings films are a disapointment
i am not at all happy with the way he portrayed the characters.Sauron-the all seeing eye was his palantir, it even says in the books there is an unsleeping eye IN the tower, not a huge one that sits outside on top of barud dur, what if it rains, silly thig to do
Boromir- he was not at all like he is in the film,the way they caused all the friction with him and frodo and aragorn, that was needless boromir was the most human and noble of the fellowship and did not demand to take the ring to gondor he asked if it would be a good idea
Saruman- worst portrayed charcter of them all, where was the fear about him? he was supposed to be frightened out of his skin half the time, when the nazgul come he actually went to beg gandalf for his pardon and pity....but gandalf was gone, what do they do in the film, make the bugers breakdance
i was 80% displeased with the charcter portrayals
true but they werent all bad atleast i didnt think so but they were a considerabe anount different fromthe books.There is realy no comparison between the two the books will take the prize every time. 🙂
To refer to some of the changes that PJ made to LOTR as inaccuracies is just the way I see it. You can say that the film and the book are different entities if you like - but the fact is : if you take the movies as your starting point you have - and I cant stress this enough - NO IDEA - what the characters are genuinely supposed to be like.
My point is not that he changed or missed important events - it's that in doing so he changed fundamental character traits and in the worst cases more-or-less ruined the characters entirely. (Aragorn as a man who RENOUNCED his kingship? Faramir as...Oh lord... don't get me started)
You may think you are a fan of Frodo, or Sam or Aragorn or Gimli or any of the others, but it's a delusion - in fact you have no idea what these characters are like because you are basing your fondness of them on something that's no better than Fan-Fiction.
hmmm....thanks, Mr. Zero for your reaction. I appreciate that.
I have read the books quite simultaneously as I watched the first film, and admittedly I preferred the book.
However, that does not stop me from appreciating Peter Jackson's take on it. Given a choice, I would also have preferred it if they stuck close to the book, but PJ has his ideas, and I still enjoyed them.
I do not think it is fair for anyone to say that I have NO IDEA what the characters are supposed to be like. After all, who is to say what the characters are supposed to be like, except Tolkien himself? But seeing as he isn't here anymore, I think PJ took it upon himself to interpret the characters.
And so are we. We are also left to interpret those characters.
Please do not say I have no idea. I love the books many times more than I love the films. But as I have said, that does not do anything to alter my appreciation for both. The books and films are different, but they each in their own way hold a beauty that is separate, bound only by the main story.
Peace. Out.
Originally posted by Mr Zero
Mistakes in the LOTR movies that make a mockery of the story... ? You think?
Jackson portrays Elrond as disapproving of Arwen and Aragorn's relationship and has the couple appearing alone, keeping out from under the watchful eye of Arwen's father. Just more booyah designed to boost Arwen's role.Bilbo was at the Council of Elrond and even offering to be the Ring-bearer Jackson does not have Bilbo at the Council.
Boromir does not dismiss or disrespect Aragorn but instead states how his return would be welcomed in Gondor. Jackson has Boromir say something to the effect that Gondor doesn't need a king.
The Ring alters Frodo's perception for the first time when he reaches Amon Hen--the "Ring was upon him". Jackson has the Ring altering Frodo's perception everytime he puts it on. This made me constantly question why Bilbo would have such a nonchalant attitude toward the Ring if wearing it was such a horrifying experience (what with the Eye and all).
Aragorn does not find Frodo at the Seat of Amon Hen for Frodo has already fled to the river. Jackson has Aragorn find Frodo near the Seat of Amon Hen. He also has Frodo offer the Ring to Aragorn- never happens in the book.
Eomer threatens to cut Gimli's head off in response to Gimli's statement in defense of Galadriel and about Eomer having little wit - Jackson has Eomer threaten Gimli in response to his "Give me your name, horsemaster" statement.
The Entmoot is called by Treebeard so he can convince the other Ents to go to war against Saruman. Jackson has Treebeard call the Entmoot so that the Ents can decide whether or not they should worry about the affairs of the world beyond the forest. WTF?
Sam finds Frodo standing lost in thought in the Dead Marshes with slime and filth on his arms. Jackson has Frodo fall into the Dead Marshes and nearly perish if not for rescue at the hands of Gollum.
In the book Faramir takes Frodo back to Henneth Annun not because he is suspicious of Frodo, but because he feels that area is not safe to travel in immediately following the assault of his men upon the Southrons.
Faramir never intended to take the Ring to Minas Tirith - Jackson has Faramir take Frodo as far back toward Minas Tirith as Osgiliath before he finally gives up on the idea of hindering Frodo's quest. And, of course, in the book Faramir never leads the Hobbits to Osgiliath.
Jackson has Gollum tell Faramir that Frodo has the One Ring. (Faramir does not even want to see the Ring.)
In the book Gollum is not beaten, but is questioned honestly and treated rather well. Jackson has Faramir's men beat and kick Gollum cruelly.
My biggest objection, as far as Sam and Frodo goes, has to be in the final movie where Jackson has Gollum tricking Frodo into telling Sam to go home. What!!! Not only did that never happen, Frodo never trusted Gollum, even though he did want to be kinder to him than Sam did.
I have a zillion moreof these - need I go on?
this is going to embarrass you so much
and to half tell the truth-thats why im doing it 😉
your post-seemed instantly familiar to me...i wondered where from.
when sauron sets his will upon something-he gets it
and Booyah Baby!
Originally posted by Súro
this is going to embarrass you so muchand to half tell the truth-thats why im doing it 😉
your post-seemed instantly familiar to me...i wondered where from.
when sauron sets his will upon something-he gets it
and Booyah Baby!
*theme to Dragnet plays*
The story you're about to see is true, base on actual files at the LAPD homicide division...the names of the character have been changed to protect the innocent...
*Dragnet theme crescendos*
i agree on everything mister zero said! i know it's very hard to make a movie about such a great book ,but if you can't , then don't do it. you also forgot a few important things he left out, like when the hobbits come back in the shire, and it is all taken over by saruman! that was só important. it showed that the hobbits, who had to be rescued the whole movie, could finally look after themselves!!!(and wasn't sam supposed to get frodo's big house when he went to the west!)(and didi anyone see saruman in part 3...... Here is a review i found, and its absolutely right!
From book to movie: Changes made in the translation
By REBEKAH DENN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
Fine, fine, fine, "Return of the King" is a masterpiece. The three-film "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is the best adaptation of Tolkien's books that rabid fans could hope to see.
There even are some sections -- the ghostly armies battling from the Paths of the Dead, the Guggenheim-like streets of the city of Minas Tirith -- that are more powerful when translated from the page to the screen.
We're thrilled. But yes, we still have some issues, because the films continue to diverge from the books in ways that undercut the fundamental nature of the main characters.
We'll forgive director Peter Jackson (because we never imagined that Gollum could be funny, and yet he made it work).
But that doesn't mean we didn't notice.
Here's a brief guide to some of the biggest changes between book and film.
(SPOILER WARNING: We're about to give away "Return of the King" plot twists):
Aragorn
Who he is: Rightful heir to the throne of Gondor and the king part of "Return of the King."
Big changes: In the books, Aragorn spends his life in steadfast preparation to reclaim his heritage. In the film, he's a waffler who isn't sure he wants to be king, taking up his fabled sword Anduril only in "Return of the King" (two books late) when he thinks his elf girlfriend is in danger.
Arwen
Who she is: The half-elven daughter of Elrond who gives up immortality for love of Aragorn.
Big changes: In the books, Arwen's role is small and veiled until the end; in the movies, she's a sword-wielding heroine. Among the most jarring invented scenes, in "Return of the King" Elrond journeys to warn Aragorn that Arwen is dying, and will perish unless Aragorn claims his destiny. Never happened. There's also a grating bit where Arwen decides to abandon Aragorn and sail to the land of immortality, until she has a big daddy-you-lied-to-me moment after seeing a vision of the child she and Aragorn could otherwise have.
Frodo and Sam
Who they are: The hobbit ring-bearer and his sidekick, true-blue (at least in the book) companions.
Big changes: "Return of the King" does a fine job overall showing the love and loyalty between the pair. But it bizarrely invents a scene in which Frodo is gulled into believing Sam has betrayed him, and Frodo then abandons his buddy in the middle of Mordor. And Sam, the one pure character who is never tempted to keep the Ring, is given a greedy "my-precioussssss" moment.
Saruman
Who he is: Corrupted wizard who abandons the side of good to align with the evil lord Sauron.
Big changes: Saruman's role was inflated in "The Two Towers," making it appear as though he's the trilogy's chief foe. But he disappears entirely in "Return of the King," dismissed with the tying-up-loose-ends comment that Saruman is nothing to worry about anymore. The film also deletes the book's "you can't go home again" ending, where the hobbits return to the Shire to find it bespoiled and virtually enslaved under Saruman's rule. In the film's world, the four hobbits clink their glasses together at a hometown pub instead of getting back in the saddle to fight evildoers.
(sorry for the long story, i'm very bored)