Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Movies Discussion » Discuss the Movies » Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
12
Author Topic:
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: July 13, 2005 03:53
Entirely and utterly agree about the silly Ringwraith scene in Osgiliath. I would include this under 'restore the real Faramir' the whole sequence is just plain silly. Of course the Ringwraith would be straight off to Sauron with the news! Come to that, why didn't it stab Frodo (again), or grab the Ring, or carry him off to Mordor? And if Ringwraiths are so powerful and terrifying, how come Faramir can frighten off this one with his little toy bow?

Gimme strength!!!

Compare that with the terrific scene in the book TT where the Witch-King in Morgul vale senses Frodo's presence, but can't quite pin him down because 'the mind of his small enemy' is strengthened to resist him. Which is also part of Restore the Hero Frodo.
Campaign to Restore the Hero Frodo
8% (5)
Campaign for a Slim Sam
2% (1)
Bring Back Tom Bombadil
5% (3)
Give Glorfindel his Horse Back
10% (6)
Campaign for the Real Faramir
18% (1)
Cut Arwen Down to Size
5% (3)
Scour the Shire
20% (1)
Amend Denethor's Table Manners
16% (1)
Ban Elves from Helm's Deep
7% (4)
Other
10% (6)
Alie
Council Member
Posts: 7
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: July 13, 2005 04:08
Exactly! I an glad that I am not totally crazy! Good point about the Witch-King too.
MerryandPip
Council Member
Posts: 717
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: July 15, 2005 03:33
Huh, you're right, that is crazy!
Alie
Council Member
Posts: 7
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: July 17, 2005 11:52
What do you mean that it is crazy? Please explain this thinking. I am curious to know how you figure that it is crazy. Do you think it doesnt matter that he was seen or something?
MerryandPip
Council Member
Posts: 717
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: July 18, 2005 03:06
Its sorta crazy that Frodo's just standing there, and the WitchKing just passes right over him! :twitch:
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: July 18, 2005 09:36
Well, it wasn't necessarily the Witch-King. But in fact any of the Nazgul/Ringwraiths ought to have recognised Frodo, because they all saw him at the Ford just before they were swept away by the flood in Rivendell in FoTR (I'm talking movie here, as well as book). So whatever Nazgul it was that met Frodo at Osgiliath ought to have said 'Hey, here's the one that's got the Ring and this time I've got him cold', grabbed him, and off to Mordor. Sauron recovers Ring. End of story.
Nienna-of-the-Valar
Loremaster of the Edain
Posts: 578
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: July 18, 2005 11:44
I could have sworn that we had a topic already, specifically about the scene in the movie where people think that the Ringwraith should have noticed that it was Frodo and nabbed him, but I can't find the darned thing. The conversation may be buried within another thread altogether, and if so, I'll never find it. Bleurgh.

So, anyway, if we all recall (from both the books and the movies), the Nazgûl cannot see well. That is why when they meet Frodo and Company in FotR, they are sniffing for them.

The Nazgûl are drawn to the presence of the Ring once it is upon someone's finger, so as long as Frodo does not put the Ring on in Osgiliath, he likely looks like a fuzzy little person to them (or so I would assume - that it is something like that) who is just standing there, waving his hands around, and being knocked over by another little fuzzy person *pats the fuzzy little Hobbits on the head*. They do not see well, so they rely upon their sense of smell to seek things out. If the Ring is not put on, they cannot zero in on its whereabouts and therefore, cannot capture whomever has it and bring that person to the head baddie.

All of that said, I do still agree that the scene was silly and unnecessary, but there _is_ explanation that makes a good deal of sense .
Alie
Council Member
Posts: 7
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: July 19, 2005 04:23
I still think that teh Wraiths would have noticed the ring if they were that close... but I will take your point into consideration... :cheers:
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: July 21, 2005 03:10
Never mind the other thread. There are so many, you could spend all day looking for it.

OK so the Nazgul can't see very well, and it doesn't know Frodo is in Osgliiath, so what is it doing there? Does it do a sort of daily bombing raid?

And if Nazgul can't see well, how come they can attack people in the RoTK scenes? And how does this one know where the wall is that it's sitting on?
Nienna-of-the-Valar
Loremaster of the Edain
Posts: 578
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: July 21, 2005 03:29
OK so the Nazgul can't see very well, and it doesn't know Frodo is in Osgliiath, so what is it doing there? Does it do a sort of daily bombing raid?

I would assume, that since the base of operations for the Nazgûl is right across the Anduin at Minas Morgul, and because there was an ongoing struggle over who controlled Osgiliath (being either the Gondorians or Sauron's crew), that, yes, the Nazgûl would head out to scout out the ruins of that city fairly often. Plus, there was that attack in the works that we see in RotK, so they could have been scouting for that as well.
And if Nazgul can't see well, how come they can attack people in the RoTK scenes? And how does this one know where the wall is that it's sitting on?

The Nazgûl cannot see well, I never said that the Fell-beasts couldn't see well . The Nazgûl are the Ringwraiths (those guys in the black cloaks), the Fell-beasts are the creatures that the Nazgûl ride upon. The beasts have no purpose other than as modes of transport, or I suppose, eating Kings of Rohan if they can. It is the Ringwraiths who hone in on the Ring and who are bound to it, so it is the Nazgûl who can find the Ring, not the Fell-beasts.
Kadaveri
Council Member
Posts: 18
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: July 21, 2005 05:30
I don't see any reason why the Nazgul couldn't see well. In the movies they attack those beds in the Prancing Pony. They give Arwen a good chasing, it's obvious they see her well. The Witchking doesn't have any problems fighting with Eowyn (yes he lost, but that had nothing to do with poor-sight).

According to Tolkien (maybe not so in the movies) Frodo became more and more wraith-like as he carried the Ring. This would make it even easier for the Nazgul to see him than Eowyn. The Nazgul don't see 'bad', they see things through the wraith world, not the physical world (in the books at least).

And Frodo was holding out the Ring to the Nazgul. If the Nazgul really couldn't see well enough to notice the One Ring right in front of them then why would the cold and calculating Sauron be stupid enough send them to bring it to him? Why would Tolkien say they were Sauron's best at this sort of job (finding the Ring)?

I still hold to the view that whoever wrote the incident at Osgiliath really didn't think it through. It was foolish.

[Edited on 21/7/2005 by Kadaveri]
Nienna-of-the-Valar
Loremaster of the Edain
Posts: 578
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: July 21, 2005 06:19
According to Tolkien (maybe not so in the movies) Frodo became more and more wraith-like as he carried the Ring. This would make it even easier for the Nazgul to see him than Eowyn. The Nazgul don't see 'bad', they see things through the wraith world, not the physical world (in the books at least).

It would be my understanding that Frodo was becoming wraith-like after he was stabbed by the Morgul blade at Weathertop. Then, also, each time he put the Ring on, he also became more wraith-like.

But as he carried the Ring (as in, not wearing it), it simply wore upon him because the Ring was ever trying to convince the bearer to put it on. That way, once it was being worn, the bearer appeared in the Wraith World and then was able to be found by the Ringwraiths.

Also, of course the Ringwraiths don't see 'bad', they see badly, or poorly, if you prefer .

Yes, they exist in the Wraith World, and therefore, do not see clearly in the regular world. We can gather that from Frodo's observations about what he sees while wearing the Ring himself, and from the way it appears he sees in the movies. I did not say that the Nazgûl are _blind_, but that they do not see well.
And Frodo was holding out the Ring to the Nazgul. If the Nazgul really couldn't see well enough to notice the One Ring right in front of them then why would Sauron send them to look for it. Why would Tolkien say they were Sauron's best at this sort of job (finding the Ring

Frodo holding out the Ring _can_ be explained away by the fact that The Ringwraith was pretty high up, on a flying creature that was not holding perfectly still, and with his (its) poor eyesight, maybe it couldn't see the _Ring_. As I said, maybe it could see a little fuzzy creature, which it likely picked out as a Hobbit, so it came in close and the Ring tried to work its powers by attempting to get Frodo to put it on, so that the Wraith could know that _that_ was the Hobbit who had it.

I'm not saying at all that, that is what the movie makers were thinking, as I don't think they put that much thought into it, but it's a plausible explanation if you want to explain it.

I'm also not saying that the whole incident at Osgiliath wasn't completely foolish, but I am saying that it is possible that the scene played out that way, logically.
I don't see any reason why the Nazgul couldn't see well. In the movies they attack those beds in the Prancing Pony. They give Arwen a good chasing, it's obvious they see her well. The Witchking doesn't have any problems fighting with Eowyn (yes he lost, but that had nothing to do with poor-sight)

*sigh* They were right up close to the beds, thus, the beds were more clear. Horses chasing the other horse? I don't know, it's possible. And Éowyn, well, again , close proximity.

My point is that people freaking out, saying, "OMG, how could the Nazgûl not see Frodo, when Frodo was holding the Ring right out to him?" can be explained, a bit, away. I do not think that Frodo was holding the Ring out to the Ringwraith, but rather holding to it to put it on, yes, rather dramatically, but not holding it out, saying, "Here you go Mr. Wraith, have my Ring!" And so, it is possible that the Wraith just didn't get any definitive sign that the particular Hobbit he saw, had his master's prize.
punk_angel
Council Member
Posts: 49
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: July 29, 2005 02:22
I voted for Faramir, but all of them are worthy causes. I absolutely [b]hated[/] how Faramir was turned into a jerk.
nippip_dna_yrrem
CoE Volunteer
Posts: 701
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: August 01, 2005 04:56
I picked Glorfindel's horse. Having Arwen in his place was just bad...

But the other thing that bothers me is the Elves at Helm's Deep. Their apperance there completely removes the symbolism that Gandalf later talks about in ROTK. (or maybe I'm the only one who sees symbolism in it...)
LadyWoodelf
Council Member
Posts: 175
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: August 01, 2005 11:37
I voted other. I can understand why they couldn't include it, but I would have liked to have seen Legolas throw the saddle and bridal off the horse, in TTT, and say I need them not. And, I would have liked to have seen him sing to his horse, in ROTK, to get him to go into the paths of the dead. I missed seeing more of his connection to the earth and nature.
Alie
Council Member
Posts: 7
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: August 01, 2005 03:59
Yeah. I agree with LadyWoodelf, I wish there was more about the elfs connection with nature. it give them more mystery, and power in a way...
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: August 02, 2005 11:45
If we're talking 'Other', what about the poems and songs?

The music for the film was wonderful, and I'm sure the composer could have set many of the songs from the book magnificently. Some of these songs - admittedly not all - are really good poetry, and others are part of the characterisation: the hobbits' homely walking and bath songs, and Gollum's melancholy little fish-riddle, for example. The BBC radio version included a good many of these songs and the effect was very enriching, without being too insistent: for instance, Galadriel's farewell song (the English one, not the Elvish) was put in as background to the conversation between Legolas and Gimli as they steer their boat down the River Anduin (I'm talking book here, of course), and Bilbo's Last Song, which is not actually in the book but is well known, was used as background to the narration of Frodo and Bilbo's departure from the Grey Havens. To my mind, that was just as moving and beautiful as any of the film effects. Especially as it didn't cost millions of dollars or require six months' fiddling about by Weta digital: it was achieved by using good music, good singing, good acting and a bit of imaginative effort from the listener.
RienofLorien
Council Member
Posts: 40
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: January 04, 2006 05:06
There was alot that i would have liked to see in the movies but i really would like Glorfindel to be in it. That would have been so neat to see him "glow" and scare the ringwraiths into the water. I love how he tells frodo that Asfaloth will not let him fall. I wish my horse was like that!!!
Iorethnienna
Council Member
Posts: 18
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: January 05, 2006 06:58
it was a hard pick between the Real Faramir and Denny's table manners, but I picked up Table Manners in the end. I mean, it annoyed me how some characters were altered...(like so many other people here). the book clearly states that Denethor was like the ancient Numenoreans... :nono:

there is,however, one change in the movie that I liked: in the book Theoden died not knowing that Eowyn had saved him and that she was lying beside him on the battlefield. that always a bit annoyed me... :dizzy:
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: January 05, 2006 11:41
You made a neat point about Theoden and Eowyn, except that speaking as a Brit, it so bugs me to hear Theoden using American grammar ('You already did' for 'You already have'). A small thing, but it really grates on me, especially as the actor was English, and because all the actors who were actually American took great pains to suppress their American accents.

In the book, Theoden doesn't know that Eowyn has 'saved' him, and yes you could say that was a pity, but the scene that does take place is important in another way, viz. the dying king acknowledges Eomer as his heir, so that Eomer rides back into battle as king of Rohan, and is king of Rohan when he meets Aragorn at the end of the battle, when Aragorn himself is about to reveal himself as king of Gondor (by healing Eowyn, among other things). This kingship idea got entirely lost in the movie, if I remember rightly, but it was clearly important to JRRT.

Then ITB, while Theoden doesn't realise Eowyn is there, Eomer does, and his fury when he thinks she's dead sends him back into battle with even greater strength. This was entirely lost in the theatrical cut and only briefly suggested in the Ee. Shame!

[Edited on 6/1/2006 by Fattybolger]
Vanya
Council Member
Posts: 329
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: January 07, 2006 08:47
For me, it's a tie between the elves at Helm's Deep and the "Real Faramir". A lot of my friends have become fanatics because of the movies, and it absolutely kills me when they talk about the movies, trying to sound cool, when their "sophisticated" language is peppered by things like "the elves at Helm's Deep absolutely saved Rohan; they couldn't have survived without the help!" and "Faramir was such a jerk, how could Tolkien have written such a character?"
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: January 09, 2006 06:38
Your sophisticated friends may be annoying - I'm sure they are - but if they think movie Faramir is a jerk it shows they have some good judgement. I hope you make sure they all read the book to see what character JRRT actually did create!

As for Elves at HD - perhaps we should add 'Bring back the Huorns'! I think they get into the EE, but those darn' elves are still running about all over the place.

Cirion2
Council Member
Posts: 109
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: April 14, 2006 11:00
Bring back Tom Bombadil! Bring back Tom Bombadil !

Tom Bombadil was one of the most favoured and unique characters in LOTR i was really dissapointed not to see him there. But i can understand why, one he was really strange and mysteriously powerful. He can put on the ring and not go invisible! And people who hadn't read the books would've sat there and said things like who is he and what is he dong? It would of raised many questions.
But if it was up to me i would of made six movies one for each of the real books they might of not made sufficient time but Peter Jackson left out heaps of good parts
Fattybolger
Council Member
Posts: 111
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Which movie distortion/omission would you most like to correct?
on: April 17, 2006 02:39
I've heard folks say that they did plan to put TB in the movie, but he ended up on the cutting-room floor.

Much as I love both TB and Goldberry, there is at least a rationale to excluding them. The whole Old-Forest-TB-Barrow-wight sequence ITB is really a distraction from the main story, and though I love it to pieces, I can live without it for dramatisation purposes. The BBC radio version, which knocks the movie into a cocked hat as far as I'm concerned, also omits that sequence. There's a German radio version that includes it - but then omits the whole Faramir episode from TT, causing me to bash my head against the nearest wall....
12
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email