Thread: LotRO vs. The Books and movies

I'm an unashamed Middle-earth nerd. I love it. I have a growing collection of Tolkien's works, and I devour them. I love to scrutinize every little thing in the books, and then marvel at how precise Turbine was in recreating the world. I don't think any game based in the LoTR lore will ever compare to LotRO, it is just that good.

I realize that Turbine has no affiliation with New Line or Peter Jackson, and therefore can't say that they based anything in the movies, but I find the similarities eerie when compared to other media. For example, in the animated Hobbit movie from 1977, Rankin/Bass totally botched the trolls and goblins, and they look totally different from LotRO, whose orcs and trolls look very similar to those in the 2001-2003 movies. I will be interested to see how Jackson portrays the trolls in the his rendition of The Hobbit later this year, since Bilbo's trolls seem to be of a different race or something than the trolls we see in LoTR. Bilbo's troll could speak, and Bilbo understood what they said, they had traditional English names, and so forth.

In direct comparison to the movies, there is absolutely no way that LotRO couldn't have stolen a little bit from the movies. I mean, look at how similar Gandalf looks. Frodo's physical looks are never really described, yet in both the movies and LotRO Frodo has dark, curly hair. The architecture style in Bree is almost exactly the same between LotRO and the movies, which I find interesting, since it is never really described.

I also find it interesting that every rendition of Bag-end looks exactly the same. I realize that Tolkien is very descriptive in is writing, and if whoever is making the movie/game is faithful to copy exactly how he describes, everything is going to look similar, but it's unbelievably similar, like the same people were working on it.

All in all, I just love any rendition of LotR or Middle-earth that is faithful to the original works, and I know that if J.R.R. were still alive today, he would be proud of LotRO, the New Line movies, and all of it.

Originally Posted by Aerulen

In direct comparison to the movies, there is absolutely no way that LotRO couldn't have stolen a little bit from the movies. I mean, look at how similar Gandalf looks. Frodo's physical looks are never really described, yet in both the movies and LotRO Frodo has dark, curly hair. The architecture style in Bree is almost exactly the same between LotRO and the movies, which I find interesting, since it is never really described.

Originally Posted by Tolkien; Concerning Hobbits

... their feet had tough leathery soles and were clad in a thick curling hair, much like the hair of their heads, which was commonly brown.

In the absence of a specific description of Frodo, it seems to me reasonable that both LotRO and Jackson should have chosen to go with the generic description of hobbits. Sam is specifically called out for curly hair.

Originally Posted by Tolkien; Chpt 9

The village of Bree had some hundred stone houses of the Big Folk, mostly above the Road, nestling on the hillside with windows looking west. On that side, running in more than half a circle from the hill and back to it, there was a deep dike with a thick hedge on the inner side. Over this the Road crossed by a causeway; but where it pierced the hedge it was barred by a great gate. There was another gate in the southern comer where the Road ran out of the village. The gates were closed at nightfall; but just inside them were small lodges for the gatekeepers.

Down on the Road, where it swept to the right to go round the foot of the hill, there was a large inn.
...
The hobbits rode on up a gentle slope, passing a few detached houses, and drew up outside the inn.
...
Even from the outside the inn looked a pleasant house to familiar eyes. It had a front on the Road, and two wings running back on land partly cut out of the lower slopes of the hill, so that at the rear the second-floor windows were level with the ground. There was a wide arch leading to a courtyard between the two wings, and on the left under the arch there was a large doorway reached by a few broad steps. The door was open and light streamed out of it. Above the arch there was a lamp, and beneath it swung a large signboard: a fat white pony reared up on its hind legs. Over the door was painted in white letters: THE PRANCING PONY by BARLIMAN BUTTERBUR. Many of the lower windows showed lights behind thick curtains.

To me this seems more specific than the movie, and matches LotRO very well. I'm not seeing a rip-off.

I'll give them a pass on the hot elven chick Arwen looking similar in the two media, since she gave me a secret smile in the epilogue.

Wait, what? The Brees seem completely different to me. The movie version was run down, ramshackle, more of a village than anything else. In contrast to LOTRO where it's a full fledged town, with paved paths, sturdy buildings and even its own Mayor!

As for any similarities, well they were/are both drawing from the same source, having things in common is to be expected. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they did draw inspiration from the films, consciously or not.

I noticed another reference about the hair: the Gaffer said of Frodo "Very much like Mr. Bilbo, and in more than looks." This implies (to me) that Frodo looks rather like Bilbo. In The Hobbit he took an aside from the description of Bilbo to note that hobbits have thick warm brown curly hair. Granted there are a couple of steps in this, but it reinforces the thesis that the default for hobbits is brown and curly.

one has to consider that WB games is helping on LOTRO thus the Movies produced by WB would infact have some things Implemented from movie to game as for the parts that was skiped by the movies they decided to refrence from the books in meshing the 2 books and movies they give us a wide expanding territory to explore and see how wonderful middle earth really is

Originally Posted by Banekane9

one has to consider that WB games is helping on LOTRO thus the Movies produced by WB would infact have some things Implemented from movie to game as for the parts that was skiped by the movies they decided to refrence from the books in meshing the 2 books and movies they give us a wide expanding territory to explore and see how wonderful middle earth really is

Great. Yet another of these threads where people post their perceptions and imaginations as established fact, and assume all sorts of connections between books/movies/game, while completely ignoring (or completely oblivious to) any legal/contractual issues involved.


Rip

I wouldn't even call the Bree from the Films a town. Looks more like a drury outpost then the town it is supposed to be. I love the version that is in LOTRO though. They did a fairly good job.

nice post!


I am a firm believer that any media should be looked at independent of its source material.


sure, its fun/interesting to see the similarities and differences, but in the end, a piece of media needs to be looked at on its own.


the example that taught me this new paradigm was A Clockwork Orange. after reading the book i watched the movie. "compared to the book," (an expression i HATE...) the movie was a big steaming pile of... i couldnt believe the costume changes, the characters' ages, or the simple fact that Kubrik ignored the LAST CHAPTER of the book! i wanted to pull my hair out!

years later, after forgetting MUCH of the book, i went back and watched the movie, independently. without comparing it to the book. the movie RULES! it is so awesome! the costumes were/are great! so what if there is no butterfly on his cod piece! some of the changes make more sense... i really DO NOT want to see a 14 yr old #### a 10 yr old. no thanks.


another example is Dune. i saw the moive first, in this example. i LOVE the movie! always have. after reading the book, i love the changes that Lynch made! I LOVE what he did with the Harkonnens and how the Baron was growing diseases on his face! or the Wierding Mudules! i actually really like needing a "device" for the voice.


so, in the end, i say: look at all media independent of its source!

To use Tolkien's own terminology: Middle-earth is sub-creation based on Tolkien's own imagniation sprinkled with ideas from various mythologies and things that Tolkien himself loved and knew from personal experience. (I don't think you have Ents without Tolkien's abiding love of trees in real life.) Since he work from a somewhat common basis of cultural material, I'm not surprised that there would be visual consistency. (Also remember he drew illustrations, sometimes crude, of what things should look like.)

I would argue that, likewise, any filmmaker that creates an adaptation of a book also adds THEIR own thoughts, knowledge, feelings, and experiences to what they adapt. In this case, we have Peter Jackson's version of Middle-earth. It's a sub-creation of a sub-creation.

I do think Jackson tried to be "faithful" to Tolkien's Middle-earth and the imagination behind it. But Peter Jackson or any of the crew (designers, costume creators, etc.) could never BE Tolkien, so they have to fill in alot of detail where Tolkien is silent.

That said, things tend to look similar because the rest of us in Western culture are working from a similar set of cultural images from movies, television and the like. Truly unique imaginations (see Pan's Labyrinth, and believe it or not, Hell Boy I & II, which I find visually startling) are somehwhat more rare. Jackson allowed himself to borrow heavily form existing "worlds" and to try to be faithful, which I think explains some of the "saminess."

I am not so sure Tolkien would be "proud" of Jackson's movies. I am speculating here, but I think Tolkien wanted Middle-earth to be consumed in book form and would have been a proponent of letting readers fill in the imaginative details themselves. At the least, Tolkien would have required some convincing, I think, to see filmmaking as a form of sub-creation at least as valuable as book-writing. I don't know his thoughts on movies making off-hand, though he lived long enough to appreciate their cultural signficance.

Originally Posted by SapienChavez

nice post!


I am a firm believer that any media should be looked at independent of its source material.


sure, its fun/interesting to see the similarities and differences, but in the end, a piece of media needs to be looked at on its own.


the example that taught me this new paradigm was A Clockwork Orange. after reading the book i watched the movie. "compared to the book," (an expression i HATE...) the movie was a big steaming pile of... i couldnt believe the costume changes, the characters' ages, or the simple fact that Kubrik ignored the LAST CHAPTER of the book! i wanted to pull my hair out!

years later, after forgetting MUCH of the book, i went back and watched the movie, independently. without comparing it to the book. the movie RULES! it is so awesome! the costumes were/are great! so what if there is no butterfly on his cod piece! some of the changes make more sense... i really DO NOT want to see a 14 yr old #### a 10 yr old. no thanks.


another example is Dune. i saw the moive first, in this example. i LOVE the movie! always have. after reading the book, i love the changes that Lynch made! I LOVE what he did with the Harkonnens and how the Baron was growing diseases on his face! or the Wierding Mudules! i actually really like needing a "device" for the voice.


so, in the end, i say: look at all media independent of its source!

This problem is endemic to book-to-film translation. Yes, film is a different medium and changes have to be made, however, changes don't have to be made to the fundamental character of the characters.

Aragorn, for instance, *knows* he is destined to be king...and the anti-hero anguish Jackson inserted is just Jackson's own
ideas, not Tolkien's. In the film version of _Starship Troppers_, the director imposed his own view of Heinlein's world onto the film, totally changing the political system from what Heinlein described to the the directors distopian view of it. That he also discarded salient points of Heinlein's descriptions of the MI is another conceptual flaw. Heinlein's MI would have sent the ones in the film back to basic training to actually *learn* something this time.

The other effect you are seeing is that, in many cases, people's perceptions and preferences are governed by which version they encountered first. In the case of _Dune_, I first read it as a pair of serials in "Analog", one of two parts and the other of three, so I tend to view the film as a travesty of what Herbert actually wrote.

I disagree that one should view the media independently. When a film is "made from a book", then one should look to the book to see if the film reflects it, or if the title has been jacked up and a completely different story has been inserted underneath it. One can judge the artistic merits of each independently, but when one is s a derivative of the other some artistic integrity should apply to the conversion.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

look at all media independent of its source!

I can't do that when Peter Jackson is busy ruining something I love with stupid changes to characters, omission of characters and addition of characters that weren't supposed to be where they were. Faramir and Aragorn were handled very poorly in the films, Tom Bombadil was left out completely and elves at Helm's Deep(other than Legolas). These things are unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Banekane9

one has to consider that WB games is helping on LOTRO thus the Movies produced by WB would infact have some things Implemented from movie to game as for the parts that was skiped by the movies they decided to refrence from the books in meshing the 2 books and movies they give us a wide expanding territory to explore and see how wonderful middle earth really is

UMMMM WHAT?

WB purchased Turbine in 2010.......

New Line Cinema which released the movies became a subsidiary of WB in 2008...........

The movies Released in 2001-2003..........

The game released in 2007..........

How exactly did content from New Line in 2001-2003 cross to a independant Game company Turbine in 2007
When the WB Turbine relationship began in 2010?

Originally Posted by NickStern

UMMMM WHAT?

WB purchased Turbine in 2010.......

New Line Cinema which released the movies became a subsidiary of WB in 2008...........

The movies Released in 2001-2003..........

The game released in 2007..........

How exactly did content from New Line in 2001-2003 cross to a independant Game company Turbine in 2007
When the WB Turbine relationship began in 2010?

It's a process called "future osmosis." See, what happens is that time is like a river - and sometimes rivers converge. In this case, the the timeline converged at a point (2010) in the then-future of LOTRO in which the movies (2001-2003) and the game (2007) became Warner holdings and the resulting increased volume of chroniton particles back-fed into the then-past, allowing ideas and images from the movies to cross between the "membrane" of the time flow between the 2 company-events (Newline and Turbine) resulting in similarities between the two media.

Either that or both the movies and the game are based on descriptions in the book, but, you know, I don't think that's as likely as my previous theory.

Originally Posted by Banekane9

one has to consider that WB games is helping on LOTRO thus the Movies produced by WB would infact have some things Implemented from movie to game as for the parts that was skiped by the movies they decided to refrence from the books in meshing the 2 books and movies they give us a wide expanding territory to explore and see how wonderful middle earth really is

That may be true with some of the newer content like Dunland and Great River.

Frodo and Bree were created before live launch in 2007. Prior to WB buying Turbine in 2010, the LOTRO staff had no possibility of having access to LOTR movie IP rights. Since the movies went to the theaters before LOTRO live launched,Turbine had make sure they were going strictly by the books so that Time Warner did not sue Turbine for IP violations. As small independent game company, a law suit from a company size of Time Warner - Warner Brothers would have likely bankrupted them.

It's important to remember that there was quite a bit of art and illustration, by various artists, before Rankin-Bass, Ralph Bakshi, Peter Jackson, or Turbine/WB ever drew a thing. Lotro does an excellent job of being faithful to the original works, as well as referencing much of the art that followed. It's why I got hooked from day one.

Originally Posted by Aerulen

In direct comparison to the movies, there is absolutely no way that LotRO couldn't have stolen a little bit from the movies. I mean, look at how similar Gandalf looks.

He's an old man with a long, white beard. Put Santa Claus on a diet and he looks like Gandalf.

Originally Posted by Arbalister

It's a process called "future osmosis." See, what happens is that time is like a river - and sometimes rives converge. In this case, the the timeline converged at a point (2010) in the then-future of LOTRO in which the movies (2001-2003) and the game (2007) and the resulting increased volume of chroniton particles back-fed into the then-past, allowing ideas and images from the movies to cross between the "membrane" of the time flow between the 2 company-events (Newline and Turbine) resulting in similarities between the two media.

Either that or both the movies and the game are based on descriptions in the book, but, you know, I don't think that's as likely as my previous theory.

OMG LOL Pricless and + rep for making me laugh.

Originally Posted by Arbalister

It's a process called "future osmosis." See, what happens is that time is like a river - and sometimes rives converge. In this case, the the timeline converged at a point (2010) in the then-future of LOTRO in which the movies (2001-2003) and the game (2007) and the resulting increased volume of chroniton particles back-fed into the then-past, allowing ideas and images from the movies to cross between the "membrane" of the time flow between the 2 company-events (Newline and Turbine) resulting in similarities between the two media.

Either that or both the movies and the game are based on descriptions in the book, but, you know, I don't think that's as likely as my previous theory.

Dr. Emmett Brown! Now all we need is a DeLorean...

As much as I love the former theory, I think I'll have to echo the latter.

Keep in mind several key points:

1. Tolkien was extremely descriptive.
2. The books have Ben out for decades, with numerous editions and illustrations done primarily by Alan Lee, John Howe, and Ted Nasmith. Not only did they illustrate many Tolkien-related works, but at least two of them consulted on the movies for art design. So it's not surprising that there is some overlap. I'm sure that the art direction folks for lotto may have had some inspiration from these three.

Originally Posted by Aerulen

I will be interested to see how Jackson portrays the trolls in the his rendition of The Hobbit later this year, since Bilbo's trolls seem to be of a different race or something than the trolls we see in LoTR. Bilbo's troll could speak, and Bilbo understood what they said, they had traditional English names, and so forth.

I believe the trolls in Trollshaws that only come out at night and threaten before they attack are Bilbo's trolls(stone trolls), the trolls in say, Isengard or skirm LT trolls are more like Jackson's trolls(cave trolls?). That doesn't really explain the talking named troll conflict, but the Trollshaws trolls kind of make me think of Bilbo's trolls. That and the fact that the 3 trolls that turned to stone in Bilbo's story are in Trollshaws. On a side note, both troll types can be found in the Ettenmoors. No, I'm not trolling.

Originally Posted by Arbalister

It's a process called "future osmosis." See, what happens is that time is like a river - and sometimes rives converge. In this case, the the timeline converged at a point (2010) in the then-future of LOTRO in which the movies (2001-2003) and the game (2007) and the resulting increased volume of chroniton particles back-fed into the then-past, allowing ideas and images from the movies to cross between the "membrane" of the time flow between the 2 company-events (Newline and Turbine) resulting in similarities between the two media.

Either that or both the movies and the game are based on descriptions in the book, but, you know, I don't think that's as likely as my previous theory.

When they make a film about that it will look nothing like what you wrote.

And yes, maybe the game has been inspired by the films, or both have been inspired by illustrators. There are many ways to draw what Tolkien described, but the coolest are the most common.
Sometimes Elrond reminds me of Agent Smith, but it's impossible to think about anything you've seen in the films without being somehow influenced. Thenk about Orthanc, how did you picture it in your mind while reading the books and compare it to:
Orthanc drawn by Tolkien http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/File:..._Orthanc_I.jpg
Or drawn by Ted Nasmith http://www.tednasmith.com/silmarilli...Second_Age.jpg

Originally Posted by Kya_Cloud

It's important to remember that there was quite a bit of art and illustration, by various artists, before Rankin-Bass, Ralph Bakshi, Peter Jackson, or Turbine/WB ever drew a thing. Lotro does an excellent job of being faithful to the original works, as well as referencing much of the art that followed. It's why I got hooked from day one.

I agree with this, I think a lot of things can be tracked back to Tolkien's rough drawings, as well as some concept art done by his sons, and other people who were close to Tolkien. Also, I think it was recorded somewhere that Bree and other western Man civilizations had traditional Old English architecture, which explains the similarities.

Originally Posted by Arbalister

I don't think that's as likely as my previous theory.

Your previous theory proves to be correct, but not until next decade. Crazy, I know, but I only found out last week.

Originally Posted by Kya_Cloud

It's important to remember that there was quite a bit of art and illustration, by various artists, before Rankin-Bass, Ralph Bakshi, Peter Jackson, or Turbine/WB ever drew a thing. Lotro does an excellent job of being faithful to the original works, as well as referencing much of the art that followed. It's why I got hooked from day one.

Thank you for mentioning this. One thing that always slightly irks me is comparisons to "Peter Jackson's Middle Earth." I very much enjoyed what PJ brought to the screen, but I think it is too often lost on people (or forgotten) that PJ's own vision was heavily inspired (& directly guided, even) by Alan Lee. You can see the connection in LoTRO, as well, to Alan Lee's art.

Originally Posted by JobimCerce

I think Tolkien ... would have been a proponent of letting readers fill in the imaginative details themselves.

Definitely. Can anyone recall his words on doing this? Might be in his letters or something. Along the lines of: I would prefer a reader to catch a glimpse of a shining city on the horizon, and wonder at it, than to see its stones described in detail.

Only vaguely close to what he actually wrote, I have a horrible feeling :P

Originally Posted by Aerulen

I also find it interesting that every rendition of Bag-end looks exactly the same. I realize that Tolkien is very descriptive in is writing, and if whoever is making the movie/game is faithful to copy exactly how he describes, everything is going to look similar, but it's unbelievably similar, like the same people were working on it.

Well, PJ did a good job with getting Alan Lee and John Howe on board as concept artists - those two guys have very much coined the visuals Tolkien fans have been seeing for years. If you have read an illustrated TOlkien book, you most probably have seen drawings and paintings by one of them.

And I'm certain that the visual artists working for Turbine have Howe/Lee ingrained in their minds as well, so that similarities are to be expected. Actually, I don't think they can't really bring anything that is not close to that, because we, the Tolkien fans, are just used to the Howe/Lee visuals. Artistic freedom can be found in the Foundations of Stone. ;-)

One other thing to remember (which I've often mentioned in threads like this) is that, even setting legal barriers aside, it makes no sense for Turbine to spend all that money buying the rights to the books, and then proceed to try to make the game look like the movies. I can just imagine Jeffrey Steefel walking around Turbine's studios telling game designers, "Okay guys and gals, we blew a big chunk of money on the book rights for this game. Now let's get busy modeling it based on the movies!"

Wouldn't a plan to make the game look like the movies make more sense if...oh I dunno...they would buy the movie rights to begin with?!


Rip

Originally Posted by Aerulen

All in all, I just love any rendition of LotR or Middle-earth that is faithful to the original works, and I know that if J.R.R. were still alive today, he would be proud of LotRO, the New Line movies, and all of it.

How you can say that with a straight-face in view of the travesty Turbine perpetrated with Moria is beyond me. Jackson got it far, far, FAR more right, his vision is what I 'see' when I read the book, at least, as far as Jackson naturally only built a small part, at least he didn't fillthe place with glowing mushrooms, light-channeling crystals, a 21st Hall will with banks, mailboxes, etc.

Some parts of LoTRO are good, The Shire I've always thought felt right .. if you ignore the obvious lack of fidelity when it comes to the geography .. Lorien I thought was very well done and faithful to the book, and Evendim, Forochel and Angmar also 'work' for me since Tolkien gave few narrative clues as to their nature, but Moria in this game is utterly unrelated to Tolkien's work.

Originally Posted by Kraggy_Eldar

How you can say that with a straight-face in view of the travesty Turbine perpetrated with Moria is beyond me. Jackson got it far, far, FAR more right, his vision is what I 'see' when I read the book, at least, as far as Jackson naturally only built a small part, at least he didn't fillthe place with glowing mushrooms, light-channeling crystals, a 21st Hall will with banks, mailboxes, etc.

Please explain how Moria should have been done? Endless black tunnels of nothing at all (with pitfalls in the darkest spots), Mobs only roaming around the Last Bridge, nearest bank and AH in Rivendell, Quest givers sitting in Thorin's Hall? Sure would have been fun levelingfrom 50 to 60 in that kind of setting...

I would really like to hear how you would have made Moria true to the books AND a playable experience.

Originally Posted by raltar2

I can't do that when Peter Jackson is busy ruining something I love with stupid changes to characters, omission of characters and addition of characters that weren't supposed to be where they were. Faramir and Aragorn were handled very poorly in the films, Tom Bombadil was left out completely and elves at Helm's Deep(other than Legolas). These things are unacceptable.

I thought Aragorn was handled fairly well, and leaving Bombadil out was a good choice (the movies are already 3+ hours long). The elves in Helm's Deep were unnecessary, but I can live with it. (Aragorn berating Theoden to ask Gondor for help was just silly - they orcs were hours away, and Gondor is days away).

But I totally agree about Faramir - PJ ruined his character; basically making him the opposite of what he was in the books. And it wasn't really necessary for the story.

Originally Posted by Beleg

I thought Aragorn was handled fairly well, and leaving Bombadil out was a good choice (the movies are already 3+ hours long). The elves in Helm's Deep were unnecessary, but I can live with it. (Aragorn berating Theoden to ask Gondor for help was just silly - they orcs were hours away, and Gondor is days away).

But I totally agree about Faramir - PJ ruined his character; basically making him the opposite of what he was in the books. And it wasn't really necessary for the story.

The scene where the Witch-king beats up Gandalf the White (!) and breaks his new staff is totally gratuitous also, and should have been left out of the extended edition (or not even committed to immortal celluloid!!) as it was left out of the theatrical version. Tolkien knew what he was doing when he explicitly avoided the direct conflict at the gates. And yes, the treatment of Faramir was appalling.

One change I did like: replacing Glorfindel with Arwen before the dash to the Ford of Bruinen. IMHO women got too short shrift in LotR. However, I still object to the scene because she ended up taking Frodo to the Ford like baggage, when it really made more sense in context for him to take the horse alone and defy the Nazgul, as Tolkien had it.

I don't see what the problem is. You don't have to have original concepts or visuals just for the sake of original concepts or visuals. I for one enjoyed all the visuals of the movies and the art of Nasmith, Lee, etc. In fact, I think the best thing ever for LOTRO is to have the visuals of the aforementioned but have more lore accuracy for characters like Faramir, events at Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, etc.

Beyond things not seen in those visuals, I think that's where free artistic license can reign, like the Foundations of Stone, Rhun, Harad, Enedwaith, etc.

It's very hard to say Jackson or Turbine got something wrong, when it's one of those things left up to the readers imagination. It may seem wrong to your imagination, but perfect to another person's. Of course some things are spelled out very specifically, but a lot of Tolkiens writing left the details up to your inner eye.

Originally Posted by Kraggy_Eldar

How you can say that with a straight-face in view of the travesty Turbine perpetrated with Moria is beyond me. Jackson got it far, far, FAR more right, his vision is what I 'see' when I read the book, at least, as far as Jackson naturally only built a small part, at least he didn't fillthe place with glowing mushrooms, light-channeling crystals, a 21st Hall will with banks, mailboxes, etc.

Some parts of LoTRO are good, The Shire I've always thought felt right .. if you ignore the obvious lack of fidelity when it comes to the geography .. Lorien I thought was very well done and faithful to the book, and Evendim, Forochel and Angmar also 'work' for me since Tolkien gave few narrative clues as to their nature, but Moria in this game is utterly unrelated to Tolkien's work.

You have to remember that LotRO is taking place after the Fellowship went through. I find it very believable, because Moria was once the beating heart of Dwarven civilization, but was abandoned because the Balrog was awakened. Now that Balrog is gone, the Dwarves have no reason to NOT try to re-civilize Moria. It makes total sense.

One change I did like: replacing Glorfindel with Arwen before the dash to the Ford of Bruinen.

Aside from leaving Tom out, this is quite possibly the worst change of them all.

Originally Posted by Aerulen

You have to remember that LotRO is taking place after the Fellowship went through. I find it very believable, because Moria was once the beating heart of Dwarven civilization, but was abandoned because the Balrog was awakened. Now that Balrog is gone, the Dwarves have no reason to NOT try to re-civilize Moria. It makes total sense.

No, it really doesn't make sense. At least, not in the middle of the War of the Ring. It just makes the Dwarves seem petty and selfish that they've decided to use so much man power to take over their lost kingdom while the entire world is at stake. (Not to mention recruiting all of the heros of Middle-earth to help them with their stupid little problems.) The Dwarves DID retake Moria, but it wasn't until the Fourth Age, when all the that pesky Sauron stuff had calmed down.

Originally Posted by Aerulen

In direct comparison to the movies, there is absolutely no way that LotRO couldn't have stolen a little bit from the movies.

I wonder if you are familiar with the logical fallacy called "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" which translates to "after this, therefore because of this". Basically, the idea is that it is fallacious to assume that "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." In this case, you are assuming that because the LOTR movies showed Frodo with brown hair, Turbine showed Frodo with brown hair. This is, simply, illogical.

Now, of course, I suspect that every artist is influenced subconsciously by every image he or she has ever seen. Therefore for any of the Turbine artists who had seen the movies I'm sure the look of the movies was floating around the in swamp of their subconscious along with everything else and could be considered part of their general influences. But Turbine obviously has gone out of their way to make their Middle-earth visually faithful to the books in every way possible and so I think it would be silly to assume that the movies were anything like a direct influence.

Originally Posted by Aerulen

I also find it interesting that every rendition of Bag-end looks exactly the same. I realize that Tolkien is very descriptive in is writing, and if whoever is making the movie/game is faithful to copy exactly how he describes, everything is going to look similar, but it's unbelievably similar, like the same people were working on it.

Bag End in the movies:





Bag End in LOTRO:



I don't know about you, but other than the elements that Tolkien specifically mentioned (round green door and such), those two versions really don't look that similar to me.

Originally Posted by Aerulen

All in all, I just love any rendition of LotR or Middle-earth that is faithful to the original works, and I know that if J.R.R. were still alive today, he would be proud of LotRO, the New Line movies, and all of it.

This attitude boggles my mind. Why on earth would you jump to the conclusion that the creator of Middle-earth would love every media version of it just because you did?

In fact, if you bothered to know anything at all about Tolkien the man (which is easy enough if you read the Letters) you would realize that he was NOT friendly to the idea of changes to his material. He did not sell the rights to LOTR and The Hobbit by choice, but by financial necessity. (Yes, folks, even when you have a successful book it doesn't make you rich. Not when there's a million middle men taking their cut.) Having read Tolkien's letters (particularly one in which he rips apart a proposed script for LOTR because he hated the massive changes) and works, I am fairly certain that he would despise the movies and the games. And the music that I've played outside the Prancing Pony would make him roll over in his grave.

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

No, it really doesn't make sense. At least, not in the middle of the War of the Ring. It just makes the Dwarves seem petty and selfish that they've decided to use so much man power to take over their lost kingdom while the entire world is at stake. (Not to mention recruiting all of the heros of Middle-earth to help them with their stupid little problems.) The Dwarves DID retake Moria, but it wasn't until the Fourth Age, when all the that pesky Sauron stuff had calmed down.

More to the point, if they'd tried to retake Moria at such a time (leaving aside the vexing question of why they should chosen to do it then, of all times) then by diverting much of their already scant resources to that they might well have lost Erebor soon after the Battle of Dale. Not a good trade. And then the Easterlings would have kept on rolling, joined up with the forces from Dol Guldur, and wiped Thranduil and his people off the map. Meanwhile, the hapless Dwarves in Moria would sooner or late have found themselves swamped by a tide of Orcs and overwhelmed, again. There weren't enough of them to hold the place for long against a determined attack.

Now things would still have turned out okay for most people, the Ring would still have been destroyed and Sauron toppled but half the North would have ended up in ashes and it would have been a far grimmer victory for our heroes.

Aerulen: and that's why it doesn't make sense... by implication, it'd break the plot. Besides, the Dwarves would have had to be completely mad to do such a thing, as Dain knew that Sauron was going to send an army against him well before the Council of Elrond. It had already started to gather on Dale's borders. He talks about it, says how he was worried Dale would yield rather than fight and hence leave the Dwarves to face the Enemy alone. Not the time for expeditions anywhere, Moria least of all.

This doesn't quite match the topic of the OP, but:

I found that playing LOTRO adds to the enjoyment of the books, mainly because of the experience traveling around ME with toons made it much easier for me to follow some of the descriptions in the books that are heavy on geography -- knowing where one point of interest is in relation to another without having to flip over to the maps made my most recent reading much more fluid for me.

The movies, on the other hand, are a mixed bag. It's great to see the depictions on the big screen -- many beautiful scenes. And that makes watching worth it. But all the changes that were made in order to fit the stories into movie length are hard to stomach -- not only the plot changes, but also a lot of dialog is used as short-cut to get the viewer up to speed on what is developed at length in the books. It gives the movies a rushed cliff-note feel which is the opposite of the extremely thorough, leisurely, history-laden Tolkien style. I realize this is necessary in order to get reasonable length action-packed movies out of the books, but that doesn't make it any easier for me to stomach.

I also thought the acting, with a few exceptions, was lame and that made many of the characters seem cheesy.

Lore-wise, there are some things in the game that set my teeth on edge. Trees in Nanduhirion? Are you kidding me? After the great burning of the Dwarves after the battle there, that valley was tree-less.

And the Pillar of the White Hand, with red fingers. Grrrr! Tolkien makes it plain that the Ents painted the fingers red after they destroyed Isengard.

Just a couple of things in-game that really irritate me.