Am I the only one who was annoyed with the changes at the end of the movie? What am I talking about?

When Faramir found out Frodo had the ring, he instantly wanted to take him back to gondor to use it. Hes SUPPOSED to say he doesnt want it and just help Frodo, thus showing that not all men are susceptible to the rings lure.

What annoyed me MOST though was that god-awful speach Sam made! It was not only unneccesary, it was so BAD I woulda climbed into the screen and whacked him on the schnoz if I could have!

On a more positive note, I DID like smeagol, although I must admit to thinking Butters (s.park) version was even better, not to mention way more amusing :p

I've really enjoyed the LOTR movies so far. It had been 20 years since I last read the books, so the changes weren't so noticeable to me. I reread the trilogy earlier this year, and it made me realize that quite a few details had been altered.

But I feel that Peter Jackson has done a good job overall. I was fearful of a real hatchet job when I saw the first one. I think he as done as good of a job bringing the movies to the big screen as the studio will allow.

well now here is your problem. If Peter Jackson had used every detail from the book the movie(s) would be i think like around 40 hours long. Now also tell me this who would want to sit in a theater for 40 hours with annoying people in back of you, rude people sitting next to you and tall people in front you. Not me. So there. Ha.

I would rather have a 40 hour long version that that maximizes story accuracy than twisted Hollywood gar.
These twists that occur in all Hollywood depictions of printed fiction and true-stories are what irritates me most about the movie industry.
I enjoyed the movie, but let me remind you that it is all about the money. When there is a choice between integrity and profit, integrity is always sacrificed. That’s just another consequence of the warped idea that intellectual property could possibly exist.

I agree that it's all about the money. So can we expect the last of the trilogy to be the worst one? In most trilogies, the second is the best one - full of effects & action. Now that they've hooked us, they don't need to impress us with the final movie.

I won't get into details too much, but I think the third will be decent ;)

Originally posted by dsdsds
I agree that it's all about the money. So can we expect the last of the trilogy to be the worst one? In most trilogies, the second is the best one - full of effects & action. Now that they've hooked us, they don't need to impress us with the final movie.

I think the third will be the grand Pumba of them all. Also after reading a critics early comments on the critics viewing of the Matrix: revolutions i have hope. That critic said that the third one goes all out with the action and that matrix reloaded should have been scrapped down to 20 minutes and added as extra footage to this movie because reloaded seems to be the low point of the trilogy.

Apparently he also mentioned that Revolutions has one of the best fight scenes about midway of the movie and that it takes off right after where reloaded ended.

Another review of Revolutions mentioned that there is no silly rave scene. Yay!

yeah, what was up with that? Last thing humanity needs in time of desperation is a rave party. That seemed ludacris to me.

"Hey ,we're gonna die soon"

"yeah ,machines are coming"

"Darn and i never got to rave"

"Hmmm, this gives me an idea"

Originally posted by cool skill
I would rather have a 40 hour long version that that maximizes story accuracy than twisted Hollywood gar.
These twists that occur in all Hollywood depictions of printed fiction and true-stories are what irritates me most about the movie industry.
I enjoyed the movie, but let me remind you that it is all about the money. When there is a choice between integrity and profit, integrity is always sacrificed. That’s just another consequence of the warped idea that intellectual property could possibly exist.

All about money, can anybody say 'Chris Tolkien'? Who published his dad's notes as books for a buck? Please. It's ALL about money, whether it's written or filmed.

Accuracy. Well, Jackson cut out Tom Bombadil, which was a good cut. Why introduce the audience to a guy that does't help, hinder, shows some interesting powers, and then isn't sighted again? Waste of screen time, and omitted.

I don't think profit would be an issue with a 40 hour long version. I think breaking even would be a dream. It would be have to be cheaper, TV miniseries type budget, and then the grand scenes would suffer. Can't have it all ways.

I'm certainly not upset that they haven't included all of the songs. I really couldn't sit through Hobbits singing.

I never said they shouldn't have cut bits out, shortening the story was perfectly understandable. Its the unnecesary changes that annoyed me, it affects the story. The whole point of Faramir in the book was to show that he was above the lure of the ring, unlike most people, and PJ changed it so he was just another jerk. Plus, as I said, that speech of Sams was wayyyyyyyy lame, and was NOT in the book.

As for the matrix, I agree totally about the rave party, maybe the cast and crew spent to much time boozing it up while filming in Sydney? lol

I have to say that I was upset about the 2nd installment. There were just somethings I couldnt deal with. The scene where it shows the riders of rohan saving the day at the battle of helms deep is one example. It was the huron (sp?) that saved the day, that kinda shows that you cant do everything on your own. Yes, the riders of rohan started to turn the tides of the battle but it was the huron that did it in the end. Also with the whole Faramir and Gondor thing, it detracted from the story more than added to it. So far we see that Gandalf wont take the ring because he is afraid, and Galadriel sees it as a growing experience. But these aren't humans. And just to fend off any one saying that Gandalf is human, i have to say that, no, he is not. Tolkien's wizards are not human, they are more like, guardian angels in a sense, he wrote that in one of his letters. So, so far only Aragorn has shown that he can resist the power of the ring. I think it needed to show that there are more people out there that can resist the ring, and Faramir would be a good example of it. Maybe im just ranting and raving and not being consistant or logical in my thinking, but its my thinking not yours....so, yeah... :p :eek:
Maybe ive just been smokin too much :m:

it all works fantastic on paper but it wouldn't have been so good on the screen unless they made a few changes. there's a whole different dynamic when you have to watch it and not make it up in your head. i don't care that the story is slightly different, as long as they get middle earth* and all the characters right. i give both movies so far a big thumbs up and i can't wait for the last one.

*paraphrased from interview with p.j.

Personally, some of the book is really slow. In Fellowship Bombadil was a necessary cut. Their whole journer out of the Shire, I mean, until they reach The Prancing Pony, is really long. Just for Frodo to decide to leave, and the time it takes Gandalf to return with the information, takes years, I believe. There is no need to display that.

I've enjoyed both movies, because, afterall, if you want the full enjoyment, go read the books. If you're feeling lazy and want it played out for you, you have to make sacrifices. I think Peter Jackson did a great job, and I think they're more virtue in him than some of you are giving him credit for. He was a big time fan, I don't think it's mostly about the money. A true fan would be mostly in it for the product, and for the chance to recreate Tolkien's world.