A running critique of why the movies of
Lord of the Rings should have been given a different title with different character names.
Lets look at the characters, shall we? My first point is found at the site:http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/06/03/the-nazgul-epic-fail/As the proud owner of a labradoodle, I do have to say that they are pretty damn awesome. Further more, as an avid fan of Tolkien's works, and a lover of good movies, I do have to say that the movie Nazgul were pretty terrible. Peter Jackson should really have had his artistic license revoked at the point in time that he decided to make one of the most evil creatures outside of the Cthulhu Mythos into pussy, semi-blind skeletons. The fights between the hobbits (3' tall farmers, no weapons training, nothing) and the Nazgul (ancient corrupted evil, powerful sorcerers) are ridiculous; dramatic pause should be restricted to labradoodles. The Witch-King of Angmar scared the bejeezes out of me as a child, and to see him so fallen....
Faramir: Faramir was the quintessential white knight. He stood for all that was good and true and honest, he was a
GOOD MAN. For some reason, Peter Jackson decided to turn him into a sniveling, whingeing weasel. Yes, Tolkien was using an archetype but dammit, it was a good archetype. The movie version of Faramir was wretched in the extreme.
Eowyn: In
LoTR (the books, the only
real version) Eowyn was a strong, passionate, driven woman. She was determined to save her people. She was magnificent. Obviously, to fit in with Peter Jackson's rather pathetic view of Middle Earth, she had to be diminished in all ways. Remove her driving passion; make her blindly in love with Aragorn. Remove her determination to save her people, insert a sulk because she was spurned by Aragorn. Her hook up with Faramir was equally vexing.
Some Notable Absences: 1. The Sackville-Bagginses are only introduced in the Extended Version of Fellowship, and it is also noteworthy that they do not cause all of the havoc regards Bag End that they do in the book.
2. The Barrow Wights. What can I say? An essential plot device. How else do Merry, Pippin and Sam get enchanted swords? How else are the readers first introduced to the terror that is the rest of middle earth? Come on, People, the hobbits were total noobs. The Wights were a chance for them to cut their teeth on something not totally deadly.
3. Tom Bombadil. OMG, they didn't put Tom in. I could cry.
4. Glorfindel. ARWEN WAS NOT THERE. NO!!!!
5. THE ELVES WERE NOT IN ANYTHING.
Oh, I could really go on forever. Moving on to the next topic now.
Events, real and imaginary.P.J. also played fast and loose with the plot of
LoTR. Here are only a few of his mess-ups. Only the most Irritating, vexing, frustrating and pointless ones.
1. There were no Elves at Helmsdeep. None. Zero. Nada. Zip. NO ELVES. There were no elves at all, especially not freaky pudgy ones with double chins.
2. Aragorn semi-dying and floating down river, to be kissed by a dream Arwen and then wake up and find that it was a horse. WTF??? What is with P.J.? This was possibly the most USELESS piece of the entire film. It had no bearing on anything in the book, and was entirely confusing. It does lead me to my next three points, though.
3. Why is Arwen involved in everything? She is only actually in a few short sections of the book. She DID NOT rescue Frodo. That was Glorfindel. She did not continuously appear around, handing out prophetic visions to Aragorn. If P.J. wanted to give Aragorn wet dreams, then he should have left them for the director's cut, not to clog up the actual movie. Christ.
4. The last ship. The last ship left ONCE. ONCE. If you watch the movies, then you would have to conclude either a) elves are so terrible at organising things that they had to keep coming back and picking up the stuff they'd left behind,or b) that there was an actual
ship called "The Last Ship", hence its ability to leave so many times.
5. Elrond's lecture to Arwen. Riiiigggghhhhtttt. In the books, he never reams her out for loving Aragorn and neither would he have because, as
everybody knows, all of Elrond's children had to choose between a mortal or an elvish life, because they were all part of each. Hence his name: Elrond
Half-Elven.
6. The elves were NOT involved in EVERYTHING.
7. WHERE WAS THE SCOURING OF THE SHIRE?????????? OMFG, it's not like it was an ESSENTIAL part of the books, or anything.
christ......Actually, I had more points, but now I am too depressed. I think I might read the
real LoTR to cheer myself up.
Anyway. They were good movies, if you take them as free standing movies. But they are too painful for words when thought of as dramatisations of the books. This is why I think they should be re-named, with new character names. Please, for the love of any particular God, it is not
Lord of the Rings.
P.S. This is too funny not to share. It is
Lord of The Rings (movie version), as if it were a D+D scenario.
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedta
le/?p=612