| The One Ring http://wwww.one-ring.co.uk/ |
|
| What should have been in the movies http://wwww.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=20603 |
Page 1 of 6 |
| Author: | glaiber [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | What should have been in the movies |
As the name suggest I was just wondering what everyone thought should have been in the movie but wasn't. For instance I think there should have been Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, A major part of the book in my opinion |
|
| Author: | ForgottenLore [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
Tom Bombadil would have been nice, but there was simply no way they could have fit the sequence in. The Extended version of Fellowship already clocks in at, what, 3-3.5 hours and has to be abbreviated as is. Additionally, the Old Forrest stuff presents story telling problems because they would have also had to explain to some extent just what the hell he was and that would have been complicated and hard for moviegoer's to follow. Similarly, the entire scouring of the shire stuff was very important to the books but just doesn't work in the films, they would have needed an entire 4th movie to cover that material. As for your question, I'm really pretty happy with the choices of content PJ made. The Warg attack that drove them to Moria I think would have been nice. A little more development before Frodo left the shire maybe, so that it doesn't come across like he leaves on the quest a couple weeks after Bilbo left. |
|
| Author: | Whiskas [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
The Fiefdoms of Gondor would have been very nice. |
|
| Author: | Dagorlad [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
I think they should have added Rosie and Sam's wedding night, after all the guests had left.  The only thing that was missed out that I wanted to see, was the caves at the back of the Helm's Deep. In the book it was Gimli that fought in there, but concept for the movie had Eowyn defending the women and childred. They filmed some of it but it still didn't get included in the extended versions. |
|
| Author: | Fishlegs [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
If they hadn't killed off Saruman there would have been easy money in making a Scouring of the Shire movie, but the bit I missed the most was the Grey Company. It's such a shame that they are so broken/ boring in SBG as they are one of my favourite factions in the book. |
|
| Author: | Sticky Fingersss [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
I think PJ did a grea job with the films. Theres nothing I hate about it but these are some things (that many other people also agree) that i would have changed: -Remove the army of the dead's invincibility and give them more of the weapon of fear. -No elves at helm's deep. -Less Arwen scenes. -A shorter ending for ROTK. -No Frodo and Sam going to Osgiliath. I don't wish they should have put more things into the movie. It would have just made it too long. and i have the books to confort myself with all the little small details. but i still think they could have made it shorter and changed other things. |
|
| Author: | whafrog [ Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
@Fishlegs: good point, that could have been a movie in its own right. I agree with Sticky...more isn't necessarily better. I don't know why they felt compelled to include certain "lines from the book", but change whole plot points. The most aggravating to me were Faramir's weakness, and Treebeard's wimpitude (until they see the forest cut down...like, they didn't know?!). What I would liked to have seen is some of the bigger plot points expanded on. More maps showing movements, a clearer explanation of who Aragorn was, the relationship between Gondor and Rohan, Gondor's history... The Frodo-Sam-Gollum scenes really carry the film and form a coherent story with lots of character development. For the rest, PJ nailed the visuals and the battles, but the story is almost incomprehensible. |
|
| Author: | Minimal Monkey Saddle [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 11:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
Fishlegs wrote: If they hadn't killed off Saruman there would have been easy money in making a Scouring of the Shire movie, but the bit I missed the most was the Grey Company. It's such a shame that they are so broken/ boring in SBG as they are one of my favourite factions in the book. Halbarad unveiling the black flag is a favourite moment of mine in the book. It makes the arrival of Aragorn and co a lot more dramatic. And I agree with the points made by Sticky Fingers. As much as I love the films I felt that the changes made to helm's deep and pelennor fields diminishes the achievement of the men of the west. |
|
| Author: | General Elessar [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
I agree with all of Sticky Fingersss points except that it should have ended quicker. I also agree with whafrog's points about Treebeard, and especially Faramir. In my opinion, the whole of Faramir's family (Faramir, Boromir, and Denethor) were presented rather negatively. Something that hasn't been raised yet is Anduril. I was really annoyed that Aragorn didn't want it. |
|
| Author: | glaiber [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
I think that everyone can agree that they are excellent movies with very excellent casting and adding much more to it probably would have been to much, but some stuff really ticked me off like how there were no gondor fiefs like Dol Amroth and Lossarnach |
|
| Author: | The Horde Lord [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
They should have made 6 shorter movies and stayed true to the books. My top complaints are: Anduril: let him take it from Rivendell. Army of the Dead: You guys are boring and because of you the battle of pellinor is shortned by way to much. Gondor fiefs: Imrahil would have been so cool. Glorfindel: He should be in the movie because he is like Chuck Norris of the third age. Helm's deep: No elves allowed. I guess I have about 60 others but that would have been too long. |
|
| Author: | General Elessar [ Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
The Horde Lord wrote: They should have made 6 shorter movies and stayed true to the books. Very well said!  I agree with your other points as well.Although I agree with you, one has to accept that unfortunately there is a limit to how "true" the films could have been to the books. Ultimate the films were made to make money, and to do that they have to appeal to a wide audience. If the films had followed the books word for word then they would only have appeal to people who were already fans of the books, as the film in itself wouldn't be very good simply because Tolkien did not write the book for a film. Therefore the what happened in the books had to be altered in order to work in the films. The real question is not whether the films should have followed the books, but to what extent. And that is where many Tolkien fans are disappointed with the films. |
|
| Author: | Gildor Inglorion [ Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
Quote: The most aggravating to me were Faramir's weakness This! In the books he is a character of such moral strength--he passes the test that few, even among the wise, could have (Galadriel herself struggles). "I am not such a man...I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee." Denethor is also presented as merely a bitter, power-hungry old man rather than as the complex figure he is in the books. Quote: Glorfindel: He should be in the movie because he is like Chuck Norris of the third age.  Overall though, I think PJ did a brilliant job bringing Tolkien's masterpiece to life. |
|
| Author: | ForgottenLore [ Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
whafrog wrote: The most aggravating to me were Faramir's weakness, See, this is one area where I think PJ vastly improved on the text. Before the movies I always found Faramir kinda boring and uninteresting. Once the movies came out and everyone started complaining about Faramir I went back and reread his stuff and find the way the books present him as totally unbelievable and lessening the threat of the Ring. Here is this super-powerful, all-corrupting source of all evil that has been explicitly stated as being a source of temptation and corruption to absolutely everyone, from the great and wise down to the meekest hobbit, particularly so to the race of men, and here is this guy who basically shrugs it off as if it were nothing at all. In the films, by making him actually struggle with the issue and be tempted by the ring it makes his ability to reject it significantly more believable and emotionally meaningful. Yes, here is a guy who is as strong willed as Aragorn and Gandalf. It also makes the dichotomy between Faramir and Boromir much more poignant and meaningful if they both have to face a similar struggle and Faramir passes the test that Boromir failed. Of course, all that should have happened in Ithilien. Dragging Frodo to Osgiliath and putting him in front of a Nazgul was just lame. |
|
| Author: | Captain Ingold [ Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
Listing things like this is always hard. There's so much to the books that should have been in the movies; so much not in there that is good in the movies; so much that it's alright that they left out. For me, it's Tom Bombadil, and messed up Rides of the Rohirrim. Should have been Erkenbrand at Helm's Deep, whatever PJ may say. The Marshals were too cool to just skip over - and who's this Gamling fellow? Isn't he just a guard? Poor Hama, too. The second one is even more badly mauled; the Beacons are all in the wrong places, the riders of Snowbourne get left out apart from a one-liner implying they're jerks, and then the poor Woses get completely ignored. Suddenly Rohan loses most of its element of surprise at the Pelennor, and the Gondorian fiefs don't get to defend the White City. Rant over. The Siege of Minas Tirith should have been longer, though it was pretty cool as is. |
|
| Author: | Gildor Inglorion [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
What exactly do you guys think the purpose was of the whole Aragorn-goes-off-a-cliff scene in The Two Towers? More references to Arwen? A way to warn Helm's Deep of the approaching Uruks? |
|
| Author: | Whiskas [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
Captain Ingold wrote: Listing things like this is always hard. There's so much to the books that should have been in the movies; so much not in there that is good in the movies; so much that it's alright that they left out. For me, it's Tom Bombadil, and messed up Rides of the Rohirrim. Should have been Erkenbrand at Helm's Deep, whatever PJ may say. The Marshals were too cool to just skip over - and who's this Gamling fellow? Isn't he just a guard? Poor Hama, too. The second one is even more badly mauled; the Beacons are all in the wrong places, the riders of Snowbourne get left out apart from a one-liner implying they're jerks, and then the poor Woses get completely ignored. Suddenly Rohan loses most of its element of surprise at the Pelennor, and the Gondorian fiefs don't get to defend the White City. Rant over. The Siege of Minas Tirith should have been longer, though it was pretty cool as is. I totally agree with you. They also changed the age of Gamling, for Gamling is Old English for old man, and in the film they portrayed him as middle-aged. |
|
| Author: | Sticky Fingersss [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
Quote: the Beacons are all in the wrong places what do you mean they are all in the wrong places? |
|
| Author: | General Elessar [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
Sticky Fingersss wrote: Quote: the Beacons are all in the wrong places what do you mean they are all in the wrong places? On tops of mountains where the people responsible for lighting it wouldn't have been able to survive. |
|
| Author: | whafrog [ Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What should have been in the movies |
General Elessar wrote: On tops of mountains where the people responsible for lighting it wouldn't have been able to survive. Yeah, I always got a kick out of that. Not a forest around, no tree in sight, but this huge wood pile. Let's hope they don't need one more than once a month, and never in winter... As with the rest of the movies, the view looks great, but has no internal logic or consistency. |
|
| Page 1 of 6 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|