Oh for goodness sakes! Arwen was hardly an action-girl. She saved Frodo and rode a horse really well, that's about it. Hardly the makings of those horrible fantasy warrior woman-types.

Well, I for one love girls getting in on the action. My favorite character has always been Eowyn because she wasn't supposed to go to war but she dressed up as a guy and went anyway! I guess I feel very close to her because I'm exactly her! I would have done the same thing! And, the one change I did like in Prince Caspian was when they had Susan fighting. There's this one awesome shot where she's shooting Telmarines left and right and the camera zooms out and she's surrounded by dead Telmarines.

Anyway, yea. Warrior girls rock!!!

Warrior girls don't rock when it clearly contradicts established characteristics. Susan the Gentle?

I watched the three movies over the weekend and spent pretty much the whole of TTT writhing in agony over what they did to Theoden. I know a lot is made of Faramir's character changes, but he never wanted the Ring for himself. That change would have been unforgivable, but what they did do doesn't destroy his character for me. They put Theoden's character in the blender, chewed it up, set fire to the remains, and dumped the ashes down the toilet. He goes from being a good and noble king in the book to a stupid, short-sighted, arrogant, borderline-coward in the TT. RotK did some repair to his character, but it was too late by then for me to like him in the movies.

my favorite character is Samwise Gamgee! always has been, always will be!

I recently "watched" all three movies too. (the theatrical ones so I missed some cringe moments). Basically, I had them on as background while I changed my email address at a bunch of websites, applied for jobs, etc. I ended up tuning out a good deal of TTT and RotK. No great loss especially the former. I think the change to Faramir is what bothers me the most, probably because it stands out more. I agree though that they didn't do Theoden well either. I will never understand the idea behind "let's completely change a character." Tolkien made it crystal clear that Faramir would not take the ring. Theoden was weak to begin with but then he clearly becomes a strong and noble King. With parts of Aragorn's character they did great but the whole "I don't want to be king" thing doesn't fit with that. *sighs* Don't get me started.

I have a theory as to why we don't seem to be getting much information about the Hobbit.

Anything we do get is just a red herring to throw us off the track. I'm sure my evidence will convince everyone I'm right.
1. Swords glow in Middle Earth not Narnia
2. Both movies have had budget problems.
3. Swords are often important for more than being weapons in Middle Earth (ex. Narsil)
4. Lilliandil has an elfish ring to it.
5. Lewis and Tolkien shared ideas so to a filmmaker's mind it makes sense that movies based on their books should too.
6. Both books involve a quest, a dragon, greed, towns with similar politics / politicians. (I don't remember exactly what it was but there was something about Laketown and its leader that reminded me of Gumpus and Narrowhaven), characters that come and go (Gandalf, Aslan), invisible characters, characters that get lost (Eustace, Bilbo), characters that get captured, and enchanted sleep

As for locations in Middle Earth where I would like to live. I think Lothlórien would be nice. I have always liked to climb trees - but then again I'm afraid of heights so I'm not sure how well I would do on those platform things. I would want to live there before the Ring was destroyed when it was in all of its splendor. Rivendell sounds nice too. Ithilien would be nice to live in after the Ring was destroyed but I wouldn't like to be that close to Mordor while Sauron was around. The Shire would be nice too.

The picture, while cool, has nothing to do with Tolkien.

However, the artist's note is Very Interesting.

And there are a number of splendid Tolkien pieces in the gallery.

If I lived in Middle Earth..........I think I would live in the Shire, but would frequently visit Rivendell, Rohan, and Gondor.

Do not get me started on Theoden. The Ride of the Rohirim in RotK is the only scene I like him in. In the book he was a great king and a hero. In the movie he's.............I told you not to get me started! *shuts up before she rants all night* But even with all the changes I still like it as a movie. The same cannot be said for I-think-you-know-what.

*reads through Pal's list* Um, wow. That almost makes sense in an I'm-sure-that-could-and-never-will-happen-oh-wait-maybe-it-could-and-will sort of way.

I like action girls in adaptations, but only if they were actually that way in the original material. Otherwise, if they make them like that in defiance of their established character, its just another case of character derailment. For example, Susan wasn't a fighter. She didn't want to be. So if you make her into a warrior, you aren't really getting her character right. But don't ever get me started on Peter and Caspian in the Prince Caspian movie. They did the same thing with their characters that they did with Theoden's and Faramir's--hacked it up into bits and stuck it back together with a few things they thought were cool, creating a person who is nothing like the original character. (and Caspian and Susan kissing....Argh. That is the worst kind of character derailment. )
Or when already dramatic scenes are pushed too far in movie adaptations. Like Denethor's suicide. That was already dramatic enough. He didn't need to be on fire and jump over a cliff. That really added nothing. And am I the only person who disliked movie Frodo? I just felt he was kind of weepy and wimpy.
On the good side--Sam and Gandalf are the two characters who they got completely right.

Cool drawings, Mel! Thanks for the link.

But one of the things they got right was the settings.

Hearty ditto for this! The sets, locations, props, makeup, costumes were faultless. Truly, so much of New Zealand replicates Middle-earth.

Lady Haleth, I can relate to so much of what you say about the films. Ditto to daughter of the King and Pattertwigs Pal, too. Booky, the change in Théoden has always bothered us. As dotK said, the only scene we really appreciate him in is the charge of the Rohirrim at the Pelennor Fields battle. Finally (and too late) he comes into his own. His death was well-done as well, but we hadn't developed any close connection to him to be overly moved. Also, the exorcism preformed by Gandalf in TTT was quite effective.

Pal, great theory (bravo!), and, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I do so like your sig.

The way they portrayed Denethor's suicide was just ridiculous. A few of us have come to call that scene "Flaming Denethor", and think a dessert should be named in his honour.

Frodo did seem a bit off at times. Wood's expressions got to me, especially the lip-trembling/eyes-rolling-in-the-head moments, which usually represented when the Ring was getting to him. I found that he could really seem Frodo; conversely, at other moments, he really could not. And he would never have sent Samwise away. GRRRRR!!!

I liked Gandalf in the FotR—Gandalf the Grey—but I didn't care for Gandalf the White that much. He didn't come across as the confident and and wise wizard Tolkien had (sub-)created. One who had "passed through fire and death" is not so 'meh' afterwards! And ... there is no way he would have cowered before the Lord of the Nazgúl! Ugh, I always fast forward that scene. In the book, Gandalf is the only one that stays by the Gate when the Witch King rides in!

Boromir was a favourite of mine. Sean Bean portrayed him to a "T", I felt. And Ian Holm as Bilbo? Right on! How did y'all think Urban did as Éomer? I really appreciated Otto as Éowyn, although I found her a bit too whiny at times. I'm not a Liv Tyler fan, so could take or leave Arwen.

One scene I can't abide is when Aragorn looks in the Palantir ... and Sauron wins! UGH!!! That did not happen in the book, and it should never have occurred in the film. Just another lowering of the character. *sniffs*

Yet, for all my complaints, I do enjoy the films and watch them as often as I can, having the remote handy for those fast-forward scenes. And when you think of it, the adaptation could have been a ton worse. So, I'm counting my blessings! Also, the fact that we're so nit-picky shows how much the beloved book means to us. ♥

Say, has anyone seen this?

Wow. You guys make me feel bad for liking the Lord of the Rings movies. I found several things I didn't like about them but that were more to do with Aragorn falling over the cliff (stupid) and Frodo telling Sam to leave in the last legs of their journey. The rest of the differences I just put down to movie and books being different mediums. You do make some good points but I think you're all being rather picky. I think the LotR movies were handled far better than the Narnia books (so far).

Definitely Aragorn falling off the cliff is just one weird decision. Mind you, there is one redeeming feature: his journey on Brego back to Helm's Deep after the lips of both Arwen and his horse revived him. ( ) The cinematography and music score there are phenomenal and goose-bump-inducing, to be sure.

Yes, I am being rather picky. And I strongly agree that The LotR films are far superior to the Narnia films (especially Prince Caspian—LWW I was more favourable towards). At least PJ kept the spirit of Tolkien, overall, whereas in PC Adamson seemed to disregard much of the essence of Lewis' original tale.

Yes, I say that aside from a few added scenes, LWW was pretty faithful to the original. PC, however...I agree with johobbit, they missed the whole spirit of the thing.
However, I would say that the LOTR movies are, with LWW, among the best book-to-movie adaptations. Believe it or not, there are worse adaptations than PC. (Ella Enchanted comes to mind. The movie was a completely different story. Its like they took Ella, her curse, and some other characters and dropped them in a totally different story!)
The one thing I'm worried about in TH is that it will be too serious and too much like LOTR, when its NOT.

If W4J feels bad, I feel worse . I have read the Tolkien books regularly for 35 years, and I couldn't be happier with the film adaptations. Sure some stuff was changed around, but by and large I feel the characterizations are fairly true to the story, but given arcs instead of just presenting the characters as "finished" from the beginning.

Flaming Denethor was brilliant (and the name has since been adopted by various flaming cocktail recipes ). And in death, not entirely useless; I expect he took out a couple of Uruks when he reached the bottom.

But seriously, I don't think we could have hoped for better adaptations. Many book adaptations have less than 50% congruency with the original source material. I think Jackson achieved 75-80%, and his versions certainly captured the way I've always imagined and visualized the story and characters.

I always did think of Denethor as jerk, Merry and Pippin as comical, the banter and kill-counting contest between Legolas and Gimli as comical (and true to the book) etc.

GB

Agreed Gandalf's Beard.
As for PC. I thought it had the spirit of the book, in terms of doubt and faith but that the characters (namely Peter and Caspian) were changed quite a bit.

I liked the movies very much and the only part I didn't like was when Frodo sent Sam away. Perhaps part of it is the fact that I have only read LotR about six times and I've found that LotR is unlike CoN in that you can't read it once and understand it entirely. You have to read it multiple times. So perhaps I don't understand all the aspects of everyone's characters yet. I thought they got Denethor exactly right and I didn't mind the "Flaming Denethor" part at all. Anyway, just my two cents.