I know they are not really flaws or errors or any-thing but the Lord of the Rings the Fellowship of the Ring was brutally edited if you've read the origonal book and seen the movie.name some of your least favorite take-outs in the movie,mine was the part at the beggining where the two ringwraths follow the hobbits on the road but in the movie only showed one ringwrath in the middle of the woods the first time they see one

I didn't see the movies yet. I just bought the books and I don't want to spoil a good read by watching a movie. I'll have to wait because I really don't have the time to read fictions until the end of the session.

I really enjoyed the description of Bilbo's going away party in the book. It was brutally shortened in the movie.

As for the 2nd movie(sorry if it's a bit off topic) I didn't like the shortening of the Battle for Helm's Deep. Especially the shortening of the competition between Gimli and Legolas. They never showed that Gimli won :D

And of course, they changed the whole plot around that scene immesurably.

I do love the movies though, I just wish they could be longer...say...12 days :mischief:

I'm with you Gonzo- LOTR ought to devote an hour to each chapter of the books and be some kind of maxi-serial or something... at least turn each Book (ie Book I and Book II within Fellowship) into a film.

What I missed from the first film:

A Shortcut through Mushrooms
Tom Bombadil
Fog on the Barrow Downs

Much more Weathertop was in order, as was more time at Lothlorien.

They did a fantastic job in the time they had, but some of the ommissions stung... not half as much as the bizarre trip to Minas Tirith in film 2 though...

ya your like me ,dont want to spoil good reading by some one thelling you what happened or seeing the movie,i saw the movie then i wanted too see what it really was like origionalyin the book from the 30's.I really liked how it discribed the second ring wrath that crawled in the dark strait to frodo when he felt the rings presence

Sultan, they never went to Minas Tirith in The Two Towers movie. Are you saying that they should have, or are you talking about Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to the ruined city of Osgiliath in the movie, which didn't happen in the book?

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
What I missed from the first film:

A Shortcut through Mushrooms
Tom Bombadil
Fog on the Barrow Downs

Much more Weathertop was in order, as was more time at Lothlorien.

I thought the part with Tom Bombadil was stupid and unneccessary. Jackson was right to cut it out of the movie. If you buy the extended version of FOTR, you can see more of Lothlorien.

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
They did a fantastic job in the time they had, but some of the ommissions stung... not half as much as the bizarre trip to Minas Tirith in film 2 though...
I think that this scene takes place at Osgiliath, the fort on the border of Gondor and Mordor. The subplot was important if Faramir is going to be a major character in the next movie.

That was Osgiliath?! I thought it was Minas Tirith. My bad.

i think that the titles of the books and movies give tooo much of the story away.the 3rd movie (the return of the king)was the one Tollken wanted to be called the war of the ring because he thought the same thing

Originally posted by chain n' sickle
i think that the titles of the books and movies give tooo much of the story away.the 3rd movie (the return of the king)was the one Tollken wanted to be called the war of the ring because he thought the same thing
I don't think it gives anything away. Seriously, who out there reading the books thinks they're going to end with Sauron winning?

As for Tom Bombadil, I've always enjoyed the structure of the first book quite a lot. While the second half of it reads like a Dungeons and Dragons romp (and is awesome), that first book reads like a phaerie tale in the tradition of George MacDonald and it is especially so in the Old Forest/Bombadil/Barrow Downs section. Is it pointless for the rest of the saga? Maybe... but I found it beautiful as prose. Yes the Bombadil poems are irritating. But Goldberry... how can you resist that?

Eh, I appreciate the films for what they are. Jackson and the other screenwriters did an excellent job considering they had to make a book into a film. If you watch the interviews with the cast members on the Special Edition DVD of the Fellowship, Christopher Lee even says (and I agree with him) that it would be impossible to take the book word for word and make it into a movie. Lee reads the book every year religiously.

Anyhow, I have no complaints overall for the films.

Uhm... it wasn't long enough?

I enjoyed the movie more than the book. Much, much more.

I'm with you Gonzo-


CALL 911!!!!!!! :D :) :lol:

I actually also think the part about bombadil would've made an interesting section in a movie, as long as it was done properly. It would be about 10 minutes or less long as I see it and could cover a lot of it. Most of that section of the book is descriptive writing anyways.

I think they should've made the Hobbit into a movie..it has one main plot and would convert VERY well into a movie :D

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ
I think they should've made the Hobbit into a movie..it has one main plot and would convert VERY well into a movie :D A reporter asked Jackson if he'd be willing to do a movie on the Hobbit. He said he hasn't ruled it out, and it all depends on if anyone approaches him with the project.

The Hobbit does need doing.

Gonzo- I wasn't aware that we've ever really had any disagreements? Except for the appropriateness of the use of the word farting...

A reporter asked Jackson if he'd be willing to do a movie on the Hobbit. He said he hasn't ruled it out, and it all depends on if anyone approaches him with the project.


Where does he live??? :D

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ
Where does he live??? :D
New Zealand, I guess.

Gonzo- I wasn't aware that we've ever really had any disagreements? Except for the appropriateness of the use of the word farting...


Oooh!! That's such a leftist response :mad:

Nah, just kidding, but I thought our talking in Site Feedback was humorous, and worth possibly bringing up again :)

Thanks, if only I could find that thread... ;)

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
I'm with you Gonzo- LOTR ought to devote an hour to each chapter of the books and be some kind of maxi-serial or something... at least turn each Book (ie Book I and Book II within Fellowship) into a film.



Agree totally; while 6 films (or more if they did one for each chapter :) )might seem a bit much, I think the fan base is easily large enough to see them.

My wife had not read any of the books before seeing FotR; she so enjoyed the movie that she read LotR before the second movie came out. If they were to show all 3 movies in theaters, she would be willing to sit through all 3 in one showing.

For Christmas, I gave her gifts of the other books (Lost Tales and all the History of Middle Earth ones) as well as the Extended Play DVD. She would like to write a book one day and was interested in seeing Tolkien's work as it progressed.

I missed the Barrow Downs part since that is where the Hobbits got the swords, which included the one that Merry used against the Witch King in the Return of the King. The distrust of the Hobbits for Strider was another one. The Council of Elrond was lacking as well.

New Line Cinema's disclaimer:
The film is based on the works of Tolkien.

To make a appealing movie, the had to edit the story a bit.
It is a balance between a great fantasy movie and the ability to make a money-spinning feature.

Sad for book purists (like me) but I am satisfied with the film.

It could have been much worse.
Imagine that maroon that made 'Pearl Harbour' had got his wish and made LOTR...Yank accents and all, baby!

That would be a disaster!

Originally posted by Greadius
Uhm... it wasn't long enough?

I enjoyed the movie more than the book. Much, much more. I agree with this. It took me a little over 6 months to finish Fellowship because I just couldn't get interested. Two Towers was the best one, IMO. Especially the beginning. Anybody else notice that Return of the King was written like the Bible? Using words like "Lo!" WTF??? The change in writing style really turned me off again just when I finished the much enjoyed Two Towers.

More like, I'm gonna sign your piddy on the ruddy sty.

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
More like, I'm gonna sign your piddy on the ruddy sty. :rotfl: No, it's "i'm ganna sign yo piddy on the runnin kine."

Enjoyed the movies, they were a blast.
Though I loved the books a lot more.

It took you guys months?
Egad, I had the three read in 3 weeks!

Depends on whether you have a good tolerance and understanding of the English language.

I am going to read the Silmarillion soon, and it is written in a style that is very like old style text.

A real heavy read...But I am looking forward to it!

@Sween- sa da tay.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Depends on whether you have a good tolerance and understanding of the English language.

I am going to read the Silmarillion soon, and it is written in a style that is very like old style text.

A real heavy read...But I am looking forward to it!

I loved that book, but I struggled dearly to understand it, not being native to english and all. But it really was worth it.

I guess I'm probably the minority here as I like the movies better than the books... IMHO Tolkien has too many names in the books and the pace is a tad slow. The movies are much faster (have to be, can't make a five hour movie) and the changes PJ made were all pretty good... Tolkiens work ain't sacred, change is not blasphemy!

Well I went along to see the picture I had in my head "brought to life" and to mavel at the bloody impressive special effects which, i reckon do full justice to the books. There's too much on the "plus" side of the films to bother nit-picking over any plot flaws or whatever

Originally posted by Rodgers
Well I went along to see the picture I had in my head "brought to life" and to mavel at the bloody impressive special effects which, i reckon do full justice to the books. There's too much on the "plus" side of the films to bother nit-picking over any plot flaws or whatever

I concur!

What do you lot want, 'Dungeons and Dragons?'

Think of the alternatives!

:eek:

I with darkness on this, so far for me the films are better than the books. I tried three times to reaf FoTR but found the start to boring, it is only afetr seeing the film that I read the book through and then read the other two.

Roll on RoTK

ferenginar

I am going to read the Silmarillion soon, and it is written in a style that is very like old style text.

It's got a lot of info. In a couple weeks my complete set of the history of middle earth. 12 or 14 volumes, each around 500 pages w/the excep. of a few. I can't wait :D

"The film is better than the book" many of you say.

I have to disagree. The film is great, don't get me wrong. The book can be challenging (Kaeptnovi, there are translations), but I am one of those who reread it over and over again because it is just so awesome. I am glad had decades of doing that before the films, because although the films did a great job giving reality to visual images, their Frodo is not my Frodo, their Moria is not my Moria, their Arwen is most assuredly not my Arwen, and so forth. I can enjoy the films the same way enjoy different artists' paintings of Middle Earth and retain the (admittedly Rankin/Bass stained) imagery in my mind.

I think the film is really good, but I didn't like that they joked in the middle of combat.

I think the movie is more realistic, i.e. more realistic to our world than the world J.R. Tolkien created. There were many changes that I liked in the movie.

The second movie was much worse (IMO) than the first when it comes to accuracy. They cut off the end, sent Frodo somewhere he didn't go, and added the Elves to the Battle at Helm's Deep. :nono:

Originally posted by el_kalkylus
I think the film is really good, but I didn't like that they joked in the middle of combat.


That's in the book. Gimli and Legolas have a contest to see who can kill the most orcs.

And the dwarf tossing. I didn't much care for that in either film.

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ


It's got a lot of info. In a couple weeks my complete set of the history of middle earth. 12 or 14 volumes, each around 500 pages w/the excep. of a few. I can't wait :D

:cry: :cry:
i want i want

Back to the topic. What I missed is the sense of SIZE. The road to Rivendell is 600 miles, all on foot. In the movie there is just one day, a night on Weathertop, and a dash to the ford. It seems like crossing a county, not two states (or half of Texas). I did like the embellishment of Saruman's part.

I did not mind the elves at Helm's deep. It makes as much sense as having a bunch of Aragorn's cousins show up at Orthanc. Either way Aragorn needsa warparty to lead that's not from Rohan. But that's the third movie.:D

J

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
And the dwarf tossing. I didn't much care for that in either film.

Was that in the book? I can't remember...

Oh, and: 3000! [dance] [dance]

As for mistakes in the movie, I saw something fall off Gimli while they were chasing after the Orcs in the beginning. Haven't seen the movie enough times to see what it was, but it was definately there.

Originally posted by taper
As for mistakes in the movie, I saw something fall off Gimli while they were chasing after the Orcs in the beginning. Haven't seen the movie enough times to see what it was, but it was definately there.

It was probably an accident (think the car in the first one).

Oh, I know it was an accident. Every movie has bloopers, and I like looking for them. www.eeggs.com has a nice collection of them.

The second movie was much worse (IMO) than the first when it comes to accuracy. They cut off the end, sent Frodo somewhere he didn't go, and added the Elves to the Battle at Helm's Deep.


I will be PISSED if they don't show Gandalf retreiving the palantyr from saruman, breaking his staff, and dispelling him from the order.

That's just too good not to show........

As for technical flaws I did notice some in the battle for helm's deep. Towards the end when Theodin, Aragorn, and the others are making there last charge, uruk-hai are coming out of literally no-where onto the bridge to the keep. Also, when they are retreating inside at the beginning of the battle there are archers that are just pulling strings, not firing arrows.

Also, I will be mad if they don't show the part with shelob..and frodo appearing to be nevermind don't wanna spoil it for any who haven't read it. But for those who have, they probably know what I mean ;)

I would have held my piss in the extra half hour to get the Shelob/orc drama ending of the book rather than the "buck up America" ending they tacked on.

Amen to that Sultan! :D

Still, let's hope they find some way to include that in the next..perhaps they didn't want it to end with you know what happening because they didn't want people to think the movies were stupid(which it might seem, if THAT happened at the end)

Again, I'm sure you know what THAT is, but some might not, so no sense in spoiling it :)

Well, I mean, "stupid"?? That is a great ending, one which makes you dash to grab the third book and keep reading (only to find yourself at Saruman's court again- a scene I doubt they will leave out as the struggle between Saruman and Gandalf has featured most promininently in the films).

That ending also makes much more sense as the end of part two rather than as the begining or middle of the last chapter...

My great fear for the third film is that they will leave out the "Scouring of the Shire" which seems incongrous in the book but is, I think, an important mirror to the very first chapter.

Oh, I read somewhere that when they were programming the Helm's Deep battle, they put in some easter eggs. One of them is an orc taking a call on his cell phone. I haven't seen them, but the programmers say it's there.

When they first designed the program for the helm's deep battle, about 1/3 of both sides' forces simply ran away. They had to reprogram them to be more bloodthirsty.

I think the Sultan read the same article I did. They also had a human and an orc facing each other, circling each other, waiting for the other to attack, for about 30 minutes.

LOL, I still do think the visual effects are absolutely stunning though.

That's for the whole movie!

Hell, everyone threw a fuss about the Yoda fight scene in star wars...just 5 minutes with gollum makes that look like puppetry.

I agree w/sultan that they should include the scouring of the shire. Although they did give pippin and mary a little(a lot) too much credit for the isengaard scene...they left out the fact that tree beard already wanted to destroy isengaard...they didn't convince him to do a single thing....

Oh, yeah I forgot... I was VERY dissappointed with Treebeard, way too small from what I had pictured. I bet they cringed trying to figure out how to do him.

Storywise, maybe they should have saved the Ent revolt for the third movie and put Shelob in the second movie.

Another agreement with Gonzo (brace yourself :rolleyes: ;) ) Gollum was the most amazing visual effect (anywhere ever). I really really saw him as organic and he was perfect. More than made up for the dissappointing treebeard...

My great fear for the third film is that they will leave out the "Scouring of the Shire" which seems incongrous in the book but is, I think, an important mirror to the very first chapter.
I must disagree with you here. I think that they should end the movie with Frodo destroying ring, Aragorn becoming king, the end. "The Scouring" might work well on paper, but on film it migth prove to be a bit of an anti-climactic denoument.

I think the film will ultimately end with the Grey Havens, Mr. Napolean Spoiler...

But here is what I'd do; I'd go to credits and after the people who really have to pee have left the theater, cut to the scouring of the shire. Problem solved using classic comedy film device...

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
I think the film will ultimately end with the Grey Havens, Mr. Napolean Spoiler...

But here is what I'd do; I'd go to credits and after the people who really have to pee have left the theater, cut to the scouring of the shire. Problem solved using classic comedy film device...
Learn to spell my name right, please!!! ;)

Has anyone heard if The Scouring, etc will be in ROTK?

Sorry... now I have to ask, isn't the correct Imperial spelling Napolean? Wow if it isn't I'm sorry.

Haven't heard what goes in Return of the King... I've heard rumors of a surprise twist where Frodo brings the ring back to Aragorn and he leads a coalition to disarm Sauron.

I know it's minor but the most annoying thing in TFOTR I found was the fact that Frodo solved the riddle at the gates of Moria rather than Gandalf a la the book. little s***!! :mad: :p

As for bloopers: Surely anyone who has watched the movie noticed the blatant mistake concerning the arrows hitting Boromir...

Edit 1: fixed a typo.

Considering the lengths they took to keep the first two movies as accurate as they could, I doubt they'd change the story as much as Frodo taking the ring to Aragorn. Probably one of those web rumors that people with nothing better to do start.

Although if it is true, I think Peter Jackson is going to be getting a lot of mail come the middle of December.

I must disagree with you here. I think that they should end the movie with Frodo destroying ring, Aragorn becoming king, the end. "The Scouring" might work well on paper, but on film it migth prove to be a bit of an anti-climactic denoument.


I have to disagree. I think that would leave moviegoers rather cut-off. They wouldn't know saruman's ultimate fate and would never get to see the shire again, seems to short for a 3 movie series.

Oh, yeah I forgot... I was VERY dissappointed with Treebeard, way too small from what I had pictured. I bet they cringed trying to figure out how to do him.

I definately agree here. In the book, Ents are described as the strongest living things. Trolls, I believe, were listed as a mere mockery of the power of the ents. In the movie they are struggling to lift up rocks.....also...hardly any of them die, whereas in the books, many of them die when saruman runs into orthanc and reactivates Isengard. I also think his speech was a little to blurred. I had to turn back to the books to figure out most of what he was saying.

Storywise, maybe they should have saved the Ent revolt for the third movie and put Shelob in the second movie.

Agreed again, to an extent. Of course I would prefer if both were in the 2nd movie, I think the part with shelob makes a better ending(although they of course don't want to scare anyone with you know what) However putting the ent revolt in the second without the shelob part makes it seem all to slanted towards the fellowships side.

Strongly disagree with Napoleon. Scene with Tom Bombadil was very good, though I don't know if it can be realized in a movie without making it stupid and ridiculous.

I found a mistake!!!! Unfortunately, I can't make any screenshots, but there was a mistake in the Fellowship - when a black horseman tried to catch hobbits there was a scene near the road - Frodo, Sam, Pin and Marry hid under the roots of some tree and in a couple of seconds the horseman appeared on the screen riding his horse, but (!) he appears as if he came out of the tree - only the left half of the horseman is shown (that is to the left side of the tree) - and the back of the horse... god knows where it is.

Also didn't like the plot of Two towers - too much attention is paid to the siege, while in the book it wasn't the main event.

Btw, always wondered how the treefolk is called in original - Onts?

And one more thing - there were two types of tree people in the book, would be glad to find out how that second type was called originally.

Also didn't like that Galadriel's fit in "fellowship".

There were some moments when I thought that I'm not watching the full version of the movie: firstly - when Bilbo said while leaving that the ring was on the fireplace, but it was in his pocket - this moment is well described in the book, but in the movie it seemed that Bilbo lied to Gendalf.
In the book Gendalf had told Frodo a story about Smeagorl, so Frodo knew Gorlum's name when he met him, but in the movie Gendalf doesn't call the original name of Gorlum, but Frodo knows it from somewhere and says to Gorlum something like "I know, your name is Smeagorl".

The two types of tree folk are the Ents (not Onts, probably a typo in something else you read), and the Hurons. Ents were introduced to Middle Earth in answer to Balrogs(good v evil). Hurons are actually two types of beings: Ents that became tree-like, and trees that became Ent-like. The usually take root and don't move, but when provoked can be even fiercer than the Ents. AFAIK, the Hurons weren't shown at all in the movie, but they probably just would have confused those that hadn't read the books.

Ps, the Illustrated Tolkien Encyclopedia has much more on all the creatures, if your library has it it's definately worth looking at. Or buy it, if you can find it.

Another problem- one of the best visual effects in the book was the way that at the start of the siege of Helm's deep, it is pitch black, and the archers have to wait until lightening flashes to take aim at a target.

I fully expected to see that scene realized. Helm's deep was much brighter lit than it ought to have been and the lightening really didn't play into it.

I fully expected to see that scene realized. Helm's deep was much brighter lit than it ought to have been and the lightening really didn't play into it.

Yeah, too much time was wasted on Helm's Deep, but there were little events (that contradicted the original text, btw) - though the expenses were not so high, as they could be if the scenario was identical to the original LOTR text, that must be the reason.
Fortunately actors did their job perfectly.

These are my favourite flaws:
1 . In the shots of Fangorn Forest you can see ski-slopes cut into the forest along the mountainside.
2. When the men are retreating into the halls of Helms deep, you can see an archer in the bottom right corner repeatingly shooting his bow without an arrow on the string.
3. At the end of the film, when the heroes of the big battle are watching the lightning over Mordor, you can see in the background that the big hole in the wall on Helms Deep is gone.
4. It seems as though the elves at the battle of Helms Deep aren't quite as coordinated and elegant as elves are rumoured to be. During the Helms Deep battle sceen, Aragorn is shouting commands to the elven archers. (Close up shot of Aragorn while it's still raining). If you look to the left of Aragorn, there is an elf who is repeatedly geting hit in the head by the ends of the arrows on the back of the elf next to him/her.

Cimbri ;)

I see there are many people who can help me and answer some of my questions.
One more thing I am confused about is the colour of elvish hair in both of the movies. In the first movie, as you must have noticed, all the elves, except Elrond, had white hair. But! In "Two towers" that was ony Legolas whose hair was white - all the elves that came from Rivendale had black hair.
LOTR - addicts, tell me please, did I missed something; or Rivendale elves really do have black hair unlike forest elves.

I really enjoyed the description of Bilbo's going away party in the book. It was brutally shortened in the movie.

As for the 2nd movie(sorry if it's a bit off topic) I didn't like the shortening of the Battle for Helm's Deep. Especially the shortening of the competition between Gimli and Legolas. They never showed that Gimli won :D

Gimli WON!? I NEED TO READ THE TWO TOWERS!

Gimli WON!? I NEED TO READ THE TWO TOWERS!

...really? You necroed a thread for that?

And a nearly 8 year necro at that. This must be a record!

He must be very powerful in the arts of necromancy

Googleplex to the drillionth power bump. I once raised a thread from the dead, (Either a year or some months dead) and I have never raised one since. And I only raised it because I had a problem related to it. But EIGHT YEARS! I didn't know there were topics that dated back that far!

Googleplex to the drillionth power bump. I once raised a thread from the dead, (Either a year or some months dead) and I have never raised one since. And I only raised it because I had a problem related to it. But EIGHT YEARS! I didn't know there were topics that dated back that far!

Well, these forums are 10 years old, after all.

A reporter asked Jackson if he'd be willing to do a movie on the Hobbit. He said he hasn't ruled it out, and it all depends on if anyone approaches him with the project.

They ARE making the hobbit into a movie. However Jackson is NOT directing it. He had another directing obligation and he decided not to direct it as he knew that if he directed the movie, the fan's expectation would grow to the point that it would be impossible for anyone to make a movie that could live up to their expectation. He is however the movie's (insert some official sounding name that means director's consultant/helper; I forgot what the real title was). You can look it up.
I do however hope that they did a good job on it.

Balrogs don't have wings! :mad:

I think that the theatrical version of the movie was done perfectly. I don't think that they could have done it any better WHILE KEEPING IT AT/UNDER 3 HOURS. I think that the extended edition could have been a bit longer (not kidding) as there were several scenes from the book that would have looked good on the big screen. However I still think that they did an amazing job at the movie.

Balrogs don't have wings! :mad:

actually that is up to debate.

If memory serves, Tolkien wasn't even sure whether they had wings or not as wings are mentioned in some books and not in others.

Yeah, I was kidding :) Man, you should see that discussed on tolkien discussion groups. If you think the Crusades were brutal...

My personal take... As ainur, if they wanted wings they could probably have wings.

With regard to the hobbit i would have loved to have seen the result of a Pixar effort which remained faithful to the book, for some reason i always find that human actors portraying Tolkien's characters always end up rather disappointingly looking, and sounding nothing like i expected, especially so if they are recognisable from other films.

weren't balrogs maia not ainur?

like the Moria Balrog was Gandalf's counterpart on the other side of the long, mostly cold war between Melkor and the good Ainu?

Yeah, I was kidding :) Man, you should see that discussed on tolkien discussion groups. If you think the Crusades were brutal...

My personal take... As ainur, if they wanted wings they could probably have wings.

You should see the dissussions my friends and I have at the end of every Narnia movie! :lol::lol:
PS: I wasn't old enough to see LOTR in theaters so I wasn't witness to that debate but I know that when the hobbit comes out we will certainly pick apart, dissect, and analyze every scene of those movies too! (Hobbit will be a two part movie)

They're making a new Hobbit movie btw.

weren't balrogs maia not ainur?

like the Moria Balrog was Gandalf's counterpart on the other side of the long, mostly cold war between Melkor and the good Ainu?

Valar and maiar are both Ainur, but of greater and lesser stature. Balrogs were maiar who decided to take that form, whereas a maiar like Sauron became Morgoth's lieutenant and took multiple forms.

BTW, awesome epic necro. If it wasn't a LOTR thread it wouldn't be nearly as epic.

Before this thread gets locked (I really hope it doesn't, there's no need because it can still be a fun an informative discussion) I want to show you guys the difference between the Galadriel's Mirror scenes in the Jackson movie and the old animated movie:

uhfTsXSlFjc

(sorry, didn't realize embedding was disabled. It's easy enough to click the link)

vs

8eXIvkdfLYM

(skip to about 8:30)

I greatly prefer the animated movie's interpretation, having read the books. Jackson's version of Galadriel is, quite frankly, creepy, and Galadriel was anything but creepy. The animation's version is almost perfect.

So besides Arwen being at the Ford instead of Glorfindel, the depictions of Galadriel and Lothlorien are my biggest problems with Jackson's FOTR.

Wow... best necro ever. The balrog discussion has me hoping for a Silmarillion film now following the Hobbit. :)

Wow... best necro ever. The balrog discussion has me hoping for a Silmarillion film now following the Hobbit. :)

It would be the most epic and confusing movie ever made.

Ach, who brought this cadaver back to life?

A dreadful resurrection of a pretty dire thread.

I'm going to close this because the OP and bulk of the discussion is so wildly outdated now. Of course people can start a new thread on the films or books if they want.

Thread closed.