Astronomer

I think the reason why they had Arwen appear in the movies is because otherwise you would have no idea who she was and what her role was. In the books even though she wasn't 'there' per se, she still had a presence and we got to know her and her role. We knew something between her and Aragorn was going on (like Aragorn lamenting over something in Lothlorien, sitting next to her in Rivendell, already knowing Galadriel... etc.) So in the books she has a presence that builds up. She also gives Aragorn that banner and in a way convinces him to take reign as king. Think about it... if Arwen was included in the movies exactly as she was in the books we would have no idea who the hell she was or what her role was. Including her in several scenes in the movies was a necessity for her character.

So in the movies they needed to make her presence known somehow, and the only way was to include her in scenes. She was also in a fighting scene at the end, but they removed it because apparently Liv Tyler was a really girly fighter and it looked rubbish!

Anyway, arguably Arwen has a bigger role in the books because she is ultimately what I think convinces Aragorn to step up as king.

EDIT: Anyway, they do get paired off in the literary series - they get married. So imagine if in the film Aragorn got married to some Elf we'd never even seen before... it would be weird. They needed to introduce and build up her character somehow.

__________________

boo boo

I didn't mind the Aragorn/Arwen scenes. Who wouldn't want to bang a Liv Tyler elf? Seriously.

I don't think Arwen was even in the Bakshi LOTR, which btw deserves more credit than it gets, Jackson even considers it an influence. And I think Bakshi actually did some things better than Jackson did.


Bakshi had to remove a LOT from the book, yet he managed to make a pretty adequete, well paced movie nonetheless. One thing I love about the Bakshi LOTR is the atmosphere, it had scenes that weren't really there to get the plot going but just to let you soak in everything around you, it had more subtely too and I liked how Sauron never makes an actual appearance, but you feel his presence just from how people talk about him. Bakshi used the power of suggestion instead of showing you everything, sometimes it produces a more powerful effect that way.

Sauron looked pretty ridiculous in Fellowship of the Ring with all his armor and stuff, they tried too hard to make him menacing looking. You keep waiting for him to say "SAURON SMASH!!!" or "SAURON GO BOOM!!!"

Bakshi's Aragorn was cooler too, and his Frodo was a bit more emotionally distant, but at the same time more courageous, cool and calculated. His Gandolf and Golum were great and not too different from the Jackson movies. He turned Samwise into a total clown though, sad to say.

Anyway. I would have liked for Jackson's trilogy to have more leisurely paced moments like the Bakshi film. Sometimes characters seem to talk really fast as if they just want to get some scenes over with.

Jackson's trilogy is still superior but sometimes the Bakshi cartoon did more with less.

I thought the first two were really good, they're the only ones I've seen.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Dr.Seussicide

Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix were three of the best IMO. You're missing out there boo boo

__________________

storymilo

The first two are the only ones I can kind of respect, haha. The second one I actually thought was good.

I think the reason I think they're bad is because being the geek I am I notice every single little detail they missed. Kind of lame but true.

Also, what the hell was up with Ginny in the latest movie? Seriously, in the books Hermione is supposed to be pretty ugly, and Ginny hot, but then in the movies where Ginny had never appeared they suddenly realized "woah, like, we have to give Ginny a character" so they just picked some ugly chick with red hair. And Emma Watson is hot.


Just really annoyed me for some reason.....

boo boo

What do you mean by details?

Continuity errors? Factual inaccuracies (which matter not in a fantasy film) or changes from the book?

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

storymilo

I meant changes from the book. This is ridiculous of course, because I can't expect them to fit everything in, but I can't get over it


I don't mean to say I hate the movies with a passion or anything. I've enjoyed watching them with friends and stuff, I just would never watch them in any serious way.

boo boo

Blah. To me, if a movie doesn't make SOME changes from the book, it's doing something terribly wrong.

I mean, what do people who read the book want? For all the same events to play out? What's the point of even doing an adaptation then?

Literature and movies are completely different forms of media and should be treated as such, changes should be made.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

FaSho

Harry Potter is the best series of books ever written.

But on the movies...

The second and fourth were great, the third and sixth were terrible, and the 1st and 5th were just okay. The seventh one's trailer looks very promising though.
The LOTR movies are pretty epic, but I rarely feeling like sitting through them.

__________________

storymilo

I understand what you're saying; in fact, I love movies like High Fidelity etc. that made significant changes on the book (I think the Shining did too? I haven't read the book though).

There's just something about Harry Potter... some kind of disease. My comfort is of course that there are fans much more fanatical than me.

FaSho

<-----

I don't understand why a movie should make changes. Yes, they could easily make a book like HP more theatrical, but my whole reasoning for seeing a movie based on a book, especially one I like as much as HP is to see my favorite events play out.

__________________