If I could change the LotR movies...

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Opticreep, Mar 1, 2004.

  1. Opticreep

    Opticreep Guest

    My rating for each of the LotR movies in the trilogy, on a scale of 0
    to 10:

    1) RETURN OF THE KING (9.8)
    If I had to change one thing...
    I would've had a proper send-off for Saruman. His absence doesn't
    hurt RotK at all; in fact, he was inconsequential to that one movie.
    However, Saruman *was* the most visible villain in FotR & TT. For
    this character to simply disappear without a proper sendoff GREATLY
    hurts the trilogy as a whole.

    2) FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (9.2)
    If I had to change one thing...
    I would've kept the original river-crossing scene where Frodo
    defiantly challenges the Nazgul, "You shall have neither the Ring, nor
    Me!". That was always my favorite scene in the entire LotR series
    because it was the first time (a delirious) Frodo showed some guts.
    In LotR, they diminished Frodo's big scene by having him being a
    simple hobbit in distress being rescued by Arwen. He literally didn't
    do anything except whimper and cry the whole time. Another change I
    would've made is to cut the scene where Aragorn defeats a bunch of
    Nazgul with one hand tied behind his back. That one scene seriously
    castrated the Nazguls. I mean, they were supposed to be some sorta
    scary unstoppable demigods. They weren't supposed to fall down one
    after another like bumbling orcs. As for Tom Bombadil, I don't miss
    him one bit. I've always disliked him, sorry! I'm glad he wasn't in
    FotR.

    3) The Two Towers (8.0)
    If I had to change one thing...
    I would've severely toned down on all the melodramatic fake death
    scenes. That was a little too Hollywoodish. There was the Gandalf
    isn't dead scene, the Merry & Pippin aren't dead scene, and of course,
    the Aragorn didn't die falling down a cliff scene. The Gandalf scene
    was ok, the Merry-Pippin scenes should've had the melodrama toned down
    significantly, and the Aragorn fake death scene shouldn't have
    happened at all. It was just too much of the same thing.

    Overall, I'm more than happy with the LotR trilogy. It's far from
    perfect, but it's still very good. When I first read the books all
    those years ago, I thought the trilogy had a scope that was FAR too
    big to be properly translated into a movie. Peter Jackson has proved
    me wrong, and my hat's off to him.
    Opticreep, Mar 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Opticreep

    G Baker Guest

    The Two Towers had several stupid scenes. You mentioned the fake
    death of Aragorn. This didn't bother me much although it wasn't true
    to the book.

    Other dumb ideas included the horses charging almost straight downhill
    into a bunch of pikemen. You have to assume the director is an idiot,
    at this point (pun intended), about combat.

    An charging out the city with horses onto a bridge.

    Frodo going to the city and almost giving the ring away was likewise
    ridiculous.

    The elves return. Ugh they're suspose to be going to the new world
    (or whatever) but in any event leaving middle earth.

    Oddly enough they did quite well with what I would think was the
    hardest part - Gollum. Parts of this film were painful to watch, but
    overall still a good flick.

    haven't seen Return yet.

    On 1 Mar 2004 03:17:37 -0800, (Opticreep) wrote:

    >My rating for each of the LotR movies in the trilogy, on a scale of 0
    >to 10:
    >
    >1) RETURN OF THE KING (9.8)
    >If I had to change one thing...
    > I would've had a proper send-off for Saruman. His absence doesn't
    >hurt RotK at all; in fact, he was inconsequential to that one movie.
    >However, Saruman *was* the most visible villain in FotR & TT. For
    >this character to simply disappear without a proper sendoff GREATLY
    >hurts the trilogy as a whole.
    >
    >2) FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (9.2)
    >If I had to change one thing...
    > I would've kept the original river-crossing scene where Frodo
    >defiantly challenges the Nazgul, "You shall have neither the Ring, nor
    >Me!". That was always my favorite scene in the entire LotR series
    >because it was the first time (a delirious) Frodo showed some guts.
    >In LotR, they diminished Frodo's big scene by having him being a
    >simple hobbit in distress being rescued by Arwen. He literally didn't
    >do anything except whimper and cry the whole time. Another change I
    >would've made is to cut the scene where Aragorn defeats a bunch of
    >Nazgul with one hand tied behind his back. That one scene seriously
    >castrated the Nazguls. I mean, they were supposed to be some sorta
    >scary unstoppable demigods. They weren't supposed to fall down one
    >after another like bumbling orcs. As for Tom Bombadil, I don't miss
    >him one bit. I've always disliked him, sorry! I'm glad he wasn't in
    >FotR.
    >
    >3) The Two Towers (8.0)
    >If I had to change one thing...
    > I would've severely toned down on all the melodramatic fake death
    >scenes. That was a little too Hollywoodish. There was the Gandalf
    >isn't dead scene, the Merry & Pippin aren't dead scene, and of course,
    >the Aragorn didn't die falling down a cliff scene. The Gandalf scene
    >was ok, the Merry-Pippin scenes should've had the melodrama toned down
    >significantly, and the Aragorn fake death scene shouldn't have
    >happened at all. It was just too much of the same thing.
    >
    >Overall, I'm more than happy with the LotR trilogy. It's far from
    >perfect, but it's still very good. When I first read the books all
    >those years ago, I thought the trilogy had a scope that was FAR too
    >big to be properly translated into a movie. Peter Jackson has proved
    >me wrong, and my hat's off to him.
    G Baker, Mar 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Opticreep

    Dragon Guest

    I give all 10/10

    sorry but they are my most afv trilogy and films of all. I watched return
    of the king and the film was just out of this world.

    Well done Peter Jackson for all three and i dont think there will ever be a
    trilogy of films that would ever beat them


    "Opticreep" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My rating for each of the LotR movies in the trilogy, on a scale of 0
    > to 10:
    >
    > 1) RETURN OF THE KING (9.8)
    > If I had to change one thing...
    > I would've had a proper send-off for Saruman. His absence doesn't
    > hurt RotK at all; in fact, he was inconsequential to that one movie.
    > However, Saruman *was* the most visible villain in FotR & TT. For
    > this character to simply disappear without a proper sendoff GREATLY
    > hurts the trilogy as a whole.
    >
    > 2) FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (9.2)
    > If I had to change one thing...
    > I would've kept the original river-crossing scene where Frodo
    > defiantly challenges the Nazgul, "You shall have neither the Ring, nor
    > Me!". That was always my favorite scene in the entire LotR series
    > because it was the first time (a delirious) Frodo showed some guts.
    > In LotR, they diminished Frodo's big scene by having him being a
    > simple hobbit in distress being rescued by Arwen. He literally didn't
    > do anything except whimper and cry the whole time. Another change I
    > would've made is to cut the scene where Aragorn defeats a bunch of
    > Nazgul with one hand tied behind his back. That one scene seriously
    > castrated the Nazguls. I mean, they were supposed to be some sorta
    > scary unstoppable demigods. They weren't supposed to fall down one
    > after another like bumbling orcs. As for Tom Bombadil, I don't miss
    > him one bit. I've always disliked him, sorry! I'm glad he wasn't in
    > FotR.
    >
    > 3) The Two Towers (8.0)
    > If I had to change one thing...
    > I would've severely toned down on all the melodramatic fake death
    > scenes. That was a little too Hollywoodish. There was the Gandalf
    > isn't dead scene, the Merry & Pippin aren't dead scene, and of course,
    > the Aragorn didn't die falling down a cliff scene. The Gandalf scene
    > was ok, the Merry-Pippin scenes should've had the melodrama toned down
    > significantly, and the Aragorn fake death scene shouldn't have
    > happened at all. It was just too much of the same thing.
    >
    > Overall, I'm more than happy with the LotR trilogy. It's far from
    > perfect, but it's still very good. When I first read the books all
    > those years ago, I thought the trilogy had a scope that was FAR too
    > big to be properly translated into a movie. Peter Jackson has proved
    > me wrong, and my hat's off to him.
    Dragon, Mar 1, 2004
    #3
  4. Opticreep

    Mike Davis Guest

    "Dragon" <> wrote in message
    news:cmH0c.3478$X%...
    > I give all 10/10
    >
    > sorry but they are my most afv trilogy and films of all. I watched return
    > of the king and the film was just out of this world.
    >
    > Well done Peter Jackson for all three and i dont think there will ever be

    a
    > trilogy of films that would ever beat them
    >

    Dragon,
    I think you forgot about that little four hundred pound Gorilla called
    the "Star Wars" franchise <ggg.> I don't keep up on fanboy stats but I
    suspect that the LOTR trilogy may well have quite a ways to go to catch up
    to Lucas' plans on world domination. LOL.
    I'll give chops to Jackson for the effort involved, but you have to
    remember the three films have very limited appeal. My own seventy plus year
    old Mother loves Indiana Jones and would sit through a Star Wars film, but
    didn't last five minutes before turning channels when they first aired LOTR
    on satellite. The fantasy genre is supported by fanboys who see the same
    film multiple times in the theater, generating huge ticket sales. Then they
    watch the same thing over and over and over on DVD, often buying multiple
    editions of the same film with slighty different suppliments and extras.
    Most _normal_ folks simply don't have those types of viewing habits. Those
    same habits are what drive up the film and DVD revenue, not the average joe
    six-pack's viewing habits.
    All the best, Mike
    Mike Davis, Mar 1, 2004
    #4
  5. Opticreep

    Justin Guest

    Mike Davis wrote on [Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:46:34 -0800]:
    >
    > "Dragon" <> wrote in message
    > news:cmH0c.3478$X%...
    >> I give all 10/10
    >>
    >> sorry but they are my most afv trilogy and films of all. I watched return
    >> of the king and the film was just out of this world.
    >>
    >> Well done Peter Jackson for all three and i dont think there will ever be

    > a
    >> trilogy of films that would ever beat them
    >>

    > Dragon,
    > I think you forgot about that little four hundred pound Gorilla called
    > the "Star Wars" franchise <ggg.> I don't keep up on fanboy stats but I
    > suspect that the LOTR trilogy may well have quite a ways to go to catch up
    > to Lucas' plans on world domination. LOL.


    The new Star Wars trilogy has nothing on the LOTR movies. They're even
    harder to watch.

    > I'll give chops to Jackson for the effort involved, but you have to
    > remember the three films have very limited appeal.


    Yeah. Really limited appeal. The last movie has only made a billion or
    so dollars.


    > My own seventy plus year
    > old Mother loves Indiana Jones and would sit through a Star Wars film, but
    > didn't last five minutes before turning channels when they first aired LOTR
    > on satellite.


    Yes. They are a little hard to get into if you have no attention span.

    > The fantasy genre is supported by fanboys who see the same
    > film multiple times in the theater, generating huge ticket sales. Then they
    > watch the same thing over and over and over on DVD, often buying multiple
    > editions of the same film with slighty different suppliments and extras.


    Right. That's exactly it. Nobody who isn't into fantasy, or hasn't even
    read the books, has gone and seen these movies.

    > Most _normal_ folks simply don't have those types of viewing habits. Those
    > same habits are what drive up the film and DVD revenue, not the average joe
    > six-pack's viewing habits.


    So, explain Titanic?
    Justin, Mar 1, 2004
    #5
  6. Opticreep

    Mark W Guest

    "Opticreep" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My rating for each of the LotR movies in the trilogy, on a scale of 0
    > to 10:
    >
    > 1) RETURN OF THE KING (9.8)
    > If I had to change one thing...
    > I would've had a proper send-off for Saruman. His absence doesn't
    > hurt RotK at all; in fact, he was inconsequential to that one movie.
    > However, Saruman *was* the most visible villain in FotR & TT. For
    > this character to simply disappear without a proper sendoff GREATLY
    > hurts the trilogy as a whole.
    >



    You wouldn't have filmed the Scouring, then?
    Mark W, Mar 1, 2004
    #6
  7. On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:46:34 -0800, "Mike Davis"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Dragon" <> wrote in message
    >news:cmH0c.3478$X%...
    >> I give all 10/10
    >>
    >> sorry but they are my most afv trilogy and films of all. I watched return
    >> of the king and the film was just out of this world.
    >>
    >> Well done Peter Jackson for all three and i dont think there will ever be

    >a
    >> trilogy of films that would ever beat them
    >>

    >Dragon,
    > I think you forgot about that little four hundred pound Gorilla called
    >the "Star Wars" franchise <ggg.> I don't keep up on fanboy stats but I
    >suspect that the LOTR trilogy may well have quite a ways to go to catch up
    >to Lucas' plans on world domination. LOL.
    > I'll give chops to Jackson for the effort involved, but you have to
    >remember the three films have very limited appeal. My own seventy plus year
    >old Mother loves Indiana Jones and would sit through a Star Wars film, but
    >didn't last five minutes before turning channels when they first aired LOTR
    >on satellite. The fantasy genre is supported by fanboys who see the same
    >film multiple times in the theater, generating huge ticket sales. Then they
    >watch the same thing over and over and over on DVD, often buying multiple
    >editions of the same film with slighty different suppliments and extras.
    >Most _normal_ folks simply don't have those types of viewing habits. Those
    >same habits are what drive up the film and DVD revenue, not the average joe
    >six-pack's viewing habits.
    > All the best, Mike
    >


    I think fastest movie to " 1 Billion Dollars" (of only 2 to do it)
    says a lot about the popularity of LotR

    As far as niche. LotR has a wider appeal than SW, especially amongst
    those people lacking a Y chromosome.

    GK
    grant kinsley, Mar 1, 2004
    #7
  8. Opticreep

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Overall, I'm more than happy with the LotR trilogy. It's far from
    > perfect, but it's still very good. When I first read the books all
    > those years ago, I thought the trilogy had a scope that was FAR too
    > big to be properly translated into a movie. Peter Jackson has proved
    > me wrong, and my hat's off to him.
    >


    If a director were to take on making a movie from R.H.'s "Stranger In
    A Strange Land" I would HOPE it would be Jackson.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry, Mar 1, 2004
    #8
  9. Opticreep wrote:
    > As for Tom Bombadil, I don't miss
    > him one bit. I've always disliked him, sorry! I'm glad he wasn't in
    > FotR.
    >


    You evil vile demon.

    --
    "Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
    Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
    and tagging wildebeests."
    --Michael J. Nelson

    Grand Inquisitor
    http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
    Grand Inquisitor, Mar 1, 2004
    #9
  10. Mike Davis wrote:
    > Dragon,
    > I think you forgot about that little four hundred pound Gorilla called
    > the "Star Wars" franchise <ggg.> I don't keep up on fanboy stats but I
    > suspect that the LOTR trilogy may well have quite a ways to go to catch up
    > to Lucas' plans on world domination. LOL.


    Jackson's trilogy already made a lot more in less time than the original
    Star Wars trilogy. Besides, they are directly tied into the novels,
    which will forever be the ultimate fanboy franchise.

    > I'll give chops to Jackson for the effort involved, but you have to
    > remember the three films have very limited appeal. My own seventy plus year
    > old Mother loves Indiana Jones and would sit through a Star Wars film, but
    > didn't last five minutes before turning channels when they first aired LOTR
    > on satellite.


    Well, they said rock and roll had limited appeal because older people
    didn't like it. Just wait fifty years and *everybody* will like fantasy.

    The fantasy genre is supported by fanboys who see the same
    > film multiple times in the theater, generating huge ticket sales. Then they
    > watch the same thing over and over and over on DVD, often buying multiple
    > editions of the same film with slighty different suppliments and extras.
    > Most _normal_ folks simply don't have those types of viewing habits. Those
    > same habits are what drive up the film and DVD revenue, not the average joe
    > six-pack's viewing habits.
    > All the best, Mike
    >
    >


    I'm sorry, the fanboys alone cannot account for the 2.7 billion in
    moolah these movies have made. We're not talking about Red Dwarf or
    Hitchhiker's Guide here, this is a serious mainstream hit.

    --
    "Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
    Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
    and tagging wildebeests."
    --Michael J. Nelson

    Grand Inquisitor
    http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
    Grand Inquisitor, Mar 1, 2004
    #10
  11. Opticreep

    Andrew Venor Guest

    Mike Davis wrote:
    > "Dragon" <> wrote in message
    > news:cmH0c.3478$X%...
    >
    >>I give all 10/10
    >>
    >>sorry but they are my most afv trilogy and films of all. I watched return
    >>of the king and the film was just out of this world.
    >>
    >>Well done Peter Jackson for all three and i dont think there will ever be

    >
    > a
    >
    >>trilogy of films that would ever beat them
    >>

    >
    > Dragon,
    > I think you forgot about that little four hundred pound Gorilla called
    > the "Star Wars" franchise <ggg.> I don't keep up on fanboy stats but I
    > suspect that the LOTR trilogy may well have quite a ways to go to catch up
    > to Lucas' plans on world domination. LOL.
    > I'll give chops to Jackson for the effort involved, but you have to
    > remember the three films have very limited appeal. My own seventy plus year
    > old Mother loves Indiana Jones and would sit through a Star Wars film, but
    > didn't last five minutes before turning channels when they first aired LOTR
    > on satellite. The fantasy genre is supported by fanboys who see the same
    > film multiple times in the theater, generating huge ticket sales. Then they
    > watch the same thing over and over and over on DVD, often buying multiple
    > editions of the same film with slighty different suppliments and extras.
    > Most _normal_ folks simply don't have those types of viewing habits. Those
    > same habits are what drive up the film and DVD revenue, not the average joe
    > six-pack's viewing habits.
    > All the best, Mike
    >
    >

    Oh please, their isn't enough "fanboys" on Earth to bring in over $2.7
    billion in box office receipts for The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Face
    facts, this time a fantasy movie series crossed over into the mainstream.

    ALV
    Andrew Venor, Mar 1, 2004
    #11
  12. Opticreep

    Aphelion Guest

    > Well done Peter Jackson for all three and i dont think there will ever be
    a
    > trilogy of films that would ever beat them


    Apparently you've never seen the holy trilogy of Smokey and the Bandit.


    Aphelion
    Aphelion, Mar 2, 2004
    #12
  13. On 1 Mar 2004 03:17:37 -0800, Opticreep wrote:

    :My rating for each of the LotR movies in the trilogy, on a scale of 0
    :to 10:
    :
    :1) RETURN OF THE KING (9.8)
    :If I had to change one thing...
    : I would've had a proper send-off for Saruman. His absence doesn't
    :hurt RotK at all; in fact, he was inconsequential to that one movie.
    :However, Saruman *was* the most visible villain in FotR & TT. For
    :this character to simply disappear without a proper sendoff GREATLY
    :hurts the trilogy as a whole.

    You do know this is going to be restored for the SE DVD.

    [snip]
    Ian Galbraith, Mar 2, 2004
    #13
  14. On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 09:46:34 -0800, Mike Davis wrote:

    [snip]

    :eek:n satellite. The fantasy genre is supported by fanboys who see the same
    :film multiple times in the theater, generating huge ticket sales. Then they

    That doesn't nearly account for the huge ticket sales. The films were
    seen by a huge number of people who aren't fantasy buffs.

    [snip]
    Ian Galbraith, Mar 2, 2004
    #14
  15. Ian Galbraith wrote:

    > On 1 Mar 2004 03:17:37 -0800, Opticreep wrote:
    >
    > :My rating for each of the LotR movies in the trilogy, on a scale of 0
    > :to 10:
    > :
    > :1) RETURN OF THE KING (9.8)
    > :If I had to change one thing...
    > : I would've had a proper send-off for Saruman. His absence doesn't
    > :hurt RotK at all; in fact, he was inconsequential to that one movie.
    > :However, Saruman *was* the most visible villain in FotR & TT. For
    > :this character to simply disappear without a proper sendoff GREATLY
    > :hurts the trilogy as a whole.
    >
    > You do know this is going to be restored for the SE DVD.


    No, he doesn't. How could he? They NEVER do. Even when the
    press-statement from the director is plastered all over every DVD and
    fan-site. It just somehow seems to escape their realm of experience.

    We're going to keep getting these posts till October, and maybe even after.

    Derek Janssen (and the news won't even kill off *this* thread!)
    Derek Janssen, Mar 2, 2004
    #15
  16. Opticreep

    G Baker Guest

    Interesting how we come to different conclusions. I tended to think
    the scene of Aragorn going over the cliff was fairly exciting. I had
    just watched a DVD on professional bullriders and of course they had
    several riders being thrown around still tied to the bull. (How do
    those guys do that? ) I never thought it slowed down the story, but
    on the other hand surely nobody thought he had died. So it was
    pointless to the storyline.





    On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 10:17:35 -0500, JFR <"jeanfr"@$$$.ca> wrote:

    >I do have a problem with the supposed death of Aragorn. Not because it's
    >not in the book, but it does bog the story down. At that point, we need
    >to get to Helm's Deep battle. What the sequence is trying to achieve
    >(reflecting on the connection between Aragorn and Arwyn; and show
    >Eowyn's feelings for Aragorn as she believes he has died) had already
    >been established properly before.
    >
    G Baker, Mar 2, 2004
    #16
  17. Opticreep

    Eric R. Guest

    "Mike Davis" <> wrote in message news:<>...

    > I think you forgot about that little four hundred pound Gorilla called
    > the "Star Wars" franchise <ggg.>


    Yeah, until Lucas screwed it all up with those horrid "Special
    Editions." Not only that, but the incredible LoTR DVD releases blow
    away his upcoming half-assed DVD effort. That alone is enough to tell
    you who the new king of the hill is. And, if you need further
    evidence, you should have tuned into the Oscars the other night.

    > The fantasy genre is supported by fanboys who see the same
    > film multiple times in the theater, generating huge ticket sales.


    Apparently, it's also supported by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts
    and Sciences.

    -Eric
    Eric R., Mar 2, 2004
    #17
  18. Opticreep

    JFR Guest

    I do have a problem with the supposed death of Aragorn. Not because it's
    not in the book, but it does bog the story down. At that point, we need
    to get to Helm's Deep battle. What the sequence is trying to achieve
    (reflecting on the connection between Aragorn and Arwyn; and show
    Eowyn's feelings for Aragorn as she believes he has died) had already
    been established properly before.

    I don't have a problem with the horse charging down the hill. It is a
    lyrical moment. It might not be realistic in terms of combat, but the
    scene makes it clear that the orcs are blinded and confused by the
    rising light and the magical apparition of Gandalf. Likewise, I liked
    having the elves at Helm's Deep. It gave a sense of hope, and elves are
    just too darn cool in combat.

    I do agree with you about Frodo going back to Osgiliath with Faramir.
    Once again, not because it diverts from the book, but it makes the film
    come to a complete stop. It was totally unneeded. Whatever was needed to
    be established about Faramir's character could have been achieved back
    in the cave (where Frodo and Sam were held captive by Faramir's men).

    However, I do love the Osgiliath flashback added on the extended
    version, with Boromir.


    JF



    G Baker wrote:
    >
    > The Two Towers had several stupid scenes. You mentioned the fake
    > death of Aragorn. This didn't bother me much although it wasn't true
    > to the book.
    >
    > Other dumb ideas included the horses charging almost straight downhill
    > into a bunch of pikemen. You have to assume the director is an idiot,
    > at this point (pun intended), about combat.
    >
    > An charging out the city with horses onto a bridge.
    >
    > Frodo going to the city and almost giving the ring away was likewise
    > ridiculous.
    >
    > The elves return. Ugh they're suspose to be going to the new world
    > (or whatever) but in any event leaving middle earth.
    >
    > Oddly enough they did quite well with what I would think was the
    > hardest part - Gollum. Parts of this film were painful to watch, but
    > overall still a good flick.
    >
    > haven't seen Return yet.
    >
    > On 1 Mar 2004 03:17:37 -0800, (Opticreep) wrote:
    >
    > >My rating for each of the LotR movies in the trilogy, on a scale of 0
    > >to 10:
    > >
    > >1) RETURN OF THE KING (9.8)
    > >If I had to change one thing...
    > > I would've had a proper send-off for Saruman. His absence doesn't
    > >hurt RotK at all; in fact, he was inconsequential to that one movie.
    > >However, Saruman *was* the most visible villain in FotR & TT. For
    > >this character to simply disappear without a proper sendoff GREATLY
    > >hurts the trilogy as a whole.
    > >
    > >2) FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (9.2)
    > >If I had to change one thing...
    > > I would've kept the original river-crossing scene where Frodo
    > >defiantly challenges the Nazgul, "You shall have neither the Ring, nor
    > >Me!". That was always my favorite scene in the entire LotR series
    > >because it was the first time (a delirious) Frodo showed some guts.
    > >In LotR, they diminished Frodo's big scene by having him being a
    > >simple hobbit in distress being rescued by Arwen. He literally didn't
    > >do anything except whimper and cry the whole time. Another change I
    > >would've made is to cut the scene where Aragorn defeats a bunch of
    > >Nazgul with one hand tied behind his back. That one scene seriously
    > >castrated the Nazguls. I mean, they were supposed to be some sorta
    > >scary unstoppable demigods. They weren't supposed to fall down one
    > >after another like bumbling orcs. As for Tom Bombadil, I don't miss
    > >him one bit. I've always disliked him, sorry! I'm glad he wasn't in
    > >FotR.
    > >
    > >3) The Two Towers (8.0)
    > >If I had to change one thing...
    > > I would've severely toned down on all the melodramatic fake death
    > >scenes. That was a little too Hollywoodish. There was the Gandalf
    > >isn't dead scene, the Merry & Pippin aren't dead scene, and of course,
    > >the Aragorn didn't die falling down a cliff scene. The Gandalf scene
    > >was ok, the Merry-Pippin scenes should've had the melodrama toned down
    > >significantly, and the Aragorn fake death scene shouldn't have
    > >happened at all. It was just too much of the same thing.
    > >
    > >Overall, I'm more than happy with the LotR trilogy. It's far from
    > >perfect, but it's still very good. When I first read the books all
    > >those years ago, I thought the trilogy had a scope that was FAR too
    > >big to be properly translated into a movie. Peter Jackson has proved
    > >me wrong, and my hat's off to him.
    JFR, Mar 2, 2004
    #18
  19. Opticreep

    Justin Guest

    JFR wrote on [Tue, 02 Mar 2004 10:17:35 -0500]:
    >
    > I do agree with you about Frodo going back to Osgiliath with Faramir.
    > Once again, not because it diverts from the book, but it makes the film
    > come to a complete stop. It was totally unneeded. Whatever was needed to
    > be established about Faramir's character could have been achieved back
    > in the cave (where Frodo and Sam were held captive by Faramir's men).
    >


    Not only does the scene bog the movie down, it changes the character of
    Faramir pretty significantly from the book.
    Justin, Mar 2, 2004
    #19
  20. On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 15:31:19 GMT, Justin <> wrote:

    >JFR wrote on [Tue, 02 Mar 2004 10:17:35 -0500]:
    >>
    >> I do agree with you about Frodo going back to Osgiliath with Faramir.
    >> Once again, not because it diverts from the book, but it makes the film
    >> come to a complete stop. It was totally unneeded. Whatever was needed to
    >> be established about Faramir's character could have been achieved back
    >> in the cave (where Frodo and Sam were held captive by Faramir's men).
    >>

    >
    >Not only does the scene bog the movie down, it changes the character of
    >Faramir pretty significantly from the book.


    Exactly, that bothered me too. That is the part I really didn't like
    about the movie. That and, as mentioned, the Elves appearance at
    Helm's Deep and Haldir's cliché hollywood-esque death.

    Mischa
    Mischa van Dinter, Mar 2, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dutch Treat
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,827
    Boomer
    Jun 21, 2004
  2. Ablang
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    980
    Ablang
    Sep 14, 2005
  3. Steve
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
    Steve
    Apr 25, 2004
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    525
    Walter Mautner
    Jun 25, 2007
  5. Tony Neville
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,527
    steve
    Sep 22, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page