Ghost
Emperor
Originally posted by junior
Eowyn makes a play, but ends up with someone else.
Eowyn ends with Faramir, and they go to Minas Tirith IIRC
Originally posted by junior
Eowyn makes a play, but ends up with someone else.
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Dan from Dan's Wing Commander Movie page must be rolling over in his grave.
Originally posted by junior
There are a number of different varieties of orcs. So far, we've only seen the stronger varieties.
Eh? No, I was agreeing with you! [Oddly enough, I missed the rolleyes, but I still got the gist of your sarcasm.]Originally posted by Dralthi5
Yeah, I didn't care for them either. I hope that little rolleyes guy I put in parentheses made that clear.
Well, no... nitpicking would be if I complained about the movie hobbits not having enough hair on their feet, or about the trolls looking totally different to the trolls shown in those ugly little Tolkien drawings found in some editions of The Hobbit . I think the structure of the film and the unnecessary Saruman scene is very much a valid complaint, and that the two 'visual representation' issues (landscapes and orcs) are both significant enough not to be mere nitpicks. Of course, that's my opinion, and as far as somebody else is concerned, they might seem like totally insignificant nitpicks.Originally posted by Dralthi5
Quarto: I can see where you're coming from, but, really, isn't that just nitpicking?
Originally posted by Penguin
Are you sure about that? The Fellowship went right through them like they weren't even there.
*Shrug* There you are, then: It was a while since I read the books. I'll have to go through them again. Just like I said in my post.Originally posted by KrisV
It was Glorfindel, as Ghost said.
If a non-major character first ran off with him, why bother changing it? Relocating major characters matters. You're saying you wouldn't care if, say, Gimli rode off with Frodo? Boromir? It's an important event => not wise to change.Is it? I dunno. I don't feel it changed anything major. Glorfindel was by no means a major character (the next time he shows up is halfway Return of the King) and neither was Arwen. Everything that mattered about the flight to Rivendell was there. Who cares who took him there?
You're sure? Ugh, I REALLY have to read 'em again...Eh? It's "Aragorn + Arwen"...
Ok, that's just out of line! I expect I made it clear that it was a while since I read the books, ok? Do you really expect me to keep track of something fictitious I read almost a decade ago? And I don't complain about a LACK of camera movement! I LOVED it, for crying out loud! Learn to read before throwing criticism!You complain about things that were changed, yet you alone made more changes to the story. And you complain about the lack of camera movement... Are you sure you've read the books? Because most of it is about hobbits crawling from place to place.
Nothing truly changed? The Nazghûls are immortal/invulnerable! So why do they catch fire? Because nothing's been changed? ... Right. You need to reread that part.So far nothing's been truly changed.
And THAT is why it's flawed. LotR became the big deal it is because of what it was back then, NOT what it was mangled into today! I have a term for that (changing an original masterpiece to appeal to the masses): aesthetic genocide. I can't bring up an example right now, but I'm sure there's something that fits the bill.Certain events have been moved around a bit, probably to make the movie more interesting.
Originally posted by Mystery muppet
If a non-major character first ran off with him, why bother changing it? Relocating major characters matters. You're saying you wouldn't care if, say, Gimli rode off with Frodo? Boromir? It's an important event => not wise to change.
Originally posted by Mystery muppet
And THAT is why it's flawed. LotR became the big deal it is because of what it was back then, NOT what it was mangled into today! I have a term for that: aesthetic genocide. I can't bring up an example right now, but I'm sure there's something that fits the bill.
You need to read the parts again where one cries out in pain when stabbed in the knee, and where one is killed by having his head cut off.Nothing truly changed? The Nazghûls are immortal/invulnerable! So why do they catch fire? Because nothing's been changed? ... Right. You need to reread that part.
Well, perhaps you really should re-read the book, because the wraiths were wearing cloaks. And cloaks generally do catch fire. Why the Nazgul himself was bothered by his cloak burning is another question entirely, but you have to consider that fire is frequently given magical properties in mythology and fantasy. Same with water, which is why the Nazguls generally did not enjoy crossing even perfectly ordinary rivers.Originally posted by Mystery muppet
And ghosts/wraiths aren't known to catch fire. That's essentially my biggest gripe with the movie: The wraith caught fire.
Originally posted by Ghost
Saruman scene was made for the casual viewer not the one familiarized with the books.
That scene explains why Saruman is bad, why he will create the Uruk-hai,etc
There are several instances in the book where they are vulnerable to attack. Which may not mean that they couldn't be brought back, but at least we know they can be hurt.Originally posted by Mystery muppet
And ghosts/wraiths aren't known to catch fire. That's essentially my biggest gripe with the movie: The wraith caught fire.