Slashdot Mirror
Nit-Pickers Guide to Deviations in Jackson's LotR
bcolflesh submits "A lengthy list of deviations to be found when comparing the text of The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien and the translation of those texts to film as undertaken by Peter Jackson, et.al."
...the discrepancy between how many people watched the films vs how many people have made it to the end of his turgid books!
What business does a man, an elf, and a dwarf have in the Riddermark?
Gimli: Tell me your name horsemaster, and I will tell you mine.
Huh? He didn't ask for your name yet Gimli. That Gimli line is clearly from the book, but in the movie simply makes no sense.
There are probably more just like that, where Peter Jackson didn't even bother to make sure that the lines even had the right context.
Right now there is plenty of buzz about these movies, but in a few years I know they will be picked on hard. Once the hype wears down, people are going to laugh (or be disgusted at the extremely low quality) of these movies.
>>"So, is there anybody out there that can name a change or two that they actually considered a major let-down?"
Yes. All the examples you mentioned and more. In fact, after the first movie, I gave up. Haven't seen TTT or ROTK. Not sure I will.
Moxie and Pepsi are total shitheads in the movie. Not so in the book. Elrond was way too stern, and Arwen shouting, "Come get him, motherfuckers!" at the ford was just way overkill. And what's with the whole "Acid Queen from 'Tommy'" shtick for poor Galadriel?
And please, PLEASE tell me why Gimlet had to be the one to suggest the Mines of Moria? That's totally out of character.
All of the changes made served to make the characters involved MORE shallow. The depth and detail of those stories is what separates them from the dozens and millions of D&D plot lines that followed over the years. Seriously; the plot is nothing special. It's the characterization, the mythos, the intricately detailed history of the LOTR and related works that makes them special, not $100M worth of special effects and buffoon-boy Peter Jackson's rewrite.
The Scouring of the Shire is, in fact, a major part of the story. If all you care about is the big battles and Gandalf falling down the well ("What's that, Lassie? A Ballhog!?"), then perhaps you should just stick to John Woo flicks.
This is, of course, *my* opinion.
I realize that the potential audience for the 25-hour miniseries version (which I'd like) would be rather small, and would not serve to make a profit for the filmmakers. However, I can wait until it's possible to render the whole damned thing on my desktop PC, at which point someone will deliver what Jackson's version seemed to promise - Tolkien's work, unmutilated. I would rather NOT watch another classic get Hollywooded, but YMMV.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
Right now there is plenty of buzz about these movies, but in a few years I know they will be picked on hard. Once the hype wears down, people are going to laugh (or be disgusted at the extremely low quality) of these movies.
What a poor poor excuse for a troll. I mean, come on. Don't they teach you yung-uns how to properly troll?
Anyway, you're wrong about your lines...you skipped a few in there. Typical half-ass.
OH, and you forgot to give your name! AC AND an amatuer troll.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.