Thread: LotRO vs. The Books and movies

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.

Well, first off, honestly, the Dwarves were pretty petty and selfish. How many of them turned up at the Battle of Pellenor fields, for instance? Or any of the battles mentioned in the books? Other then the Battle of Dale and the siege of the Lonely Mountain, the answer is exactly 1. Gimli.

As to their decision to use so much manpower at that time... what are there, a couple hundred Dwarves in Moria? There were 30,000 in the Lonely Mountain. And the decision wasn't just made - they'd been trying to take back Moria since they reclaimed Erebor, if not longer. It's not inconceivable that the game created Dwarf expedition to Moria hadn't been arranged and launched long before the Fellowship got there... they could easily have been en route, or at least have completed the logistical steps necessary to launch an expedition. After all, Balin died in the Mines in 2994, the Fellowship passed through it in 3018. Twenty-Four years between the last possible contact with Balin's expedition, and the in-game Expeditionary force... isn't particularly "sudden."

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

The Dwarves DID retake Moria, but it wasn't until the Fourth Age, when all the that pesky Sauron stuff had calmed down.

I think that years ago, when Moria launched, there was a Dev (Berephon?) who commented re: the conundrum of having dwarfs trying to reclaim Moria 'now' versus what's in the book and he said that the LotRO storyline does indeed indicate that this group of dwarfs was ultimately unsuccessful. Now, it's been a while since I've done those, and I don't recall if there's an in-game indication of that or not.

Originally Posted by Rasdun

It gives the movies a rushed cliff-note feel which is the opposite of the extremely thorough, leisurely, history-laden Tolkien style.

I feel the same way. I didn't feel that way when the movies were new, but after playing LotRO they feel like a race to the end, without much time to digest everything.

Originally Posted by Arbalister

Well, first off, honestly, the Dwarves were pretty petty and selfish. How many of them turned up at the Battle of Pellenor fields, for instance? Or any of the battles mentioned in the books? Other then the Battle of Dale and the siege of the Lonely Mountain, the answer is exactly 1. Gimli.

'Other than the Battle of Dale' - where they fought heroically and their king died trying to protect the fallen body of the king of Dale. I think that going through that defeat and then still managing to withstand the siege that followed was quite enough to expect from anybody.

As to their decision to use so much manpower at that time... what are there, a couple hundred Dwarves in Moria? There were 30,000 in the Lonely Mountain.

Source?

And the decision wasn't just made - they'd been trying to take back Moria since they reclaimed Erebor, if not longer. It's not inconceivable that the game created Dwarf expedition to Moria hadn't been arranged and launched long before the Fellowship got there... they could easily have been en route, or at least have completed the logistical steps necessary to launch an expedition. After all, Balin died in the Mines in 2994, the Fellowship passed through it in 3018. Twenty-Four years between the last possible contact with Balin's expedition, and the in-game Expeditionary force... isn't particularly "sudden."

That doesn't work: Dain had known for some considerable time that trouble was brewing, from the night that Sauron's foul messenger appeared at the gates of Erebor and made him one of those offers you can't refuse, an extravagant offer in return for help recovering a certain ring, 'the least of rings', from the person who'd supposedly stolen it. Dain was too wise to trust Sauron to keep his promises, and brave enough not to help him out of fear. Anyone who spurned the Dark Lord like that could expect consequences, and those were starting to materialise well before the Council of Elrond. So even if the Dwarves had decided to do something about Moria, any expedition should have been called off as soon as it became evident that war was coming.

Originally Posted by auximenes

I think that years ago, when Moria launched, there was a Dev (Berephon?) who commented re: the conundrum of having dwarfs trying to reclaim Moria 'now' versus what's in the book and he said that the LotRO storyline does indeed indicate that this group of dwarfs was ultimately unsuccessful. Now, it's been a while since I've done those, and I don't recall if there's an in-game indication of that or not.

Yes, it was Berephon in a Dev Diary:

Originally Posted by Berephon;[url

http://www.lotro.com/gameinfo/devdiaries/1079-update-2-the-battle-for-moria-255-developer-diary][/url]
The Battle of the Twenty-first Hall

After much deliberation, we decided this one needed to maintain the idea of retreating before the enemy, since we want to make it clear that this expedition is not the one that eventually succeeds in ousting the Orcs from Moria (which happens, if I recall correctly, two years after The Lord of the Rings.) The Iron Garrison is, in fact, doomed to fail in the end.

Whether or not we agree that LotRO's Moria should even be here, I think we should pause a moment to applaud the design devs for the amazing architecture and huge spaces and varied topography. It's a very impressive piece of work.

Thanks Tuco.

Nice job by the Devs as well, making Moria a fully-operational game area without directly violating the lore.

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.

PJ ruined Aragorn as well, in the books Aragorn's whole life was dedicated to re-claiming the throne of Gondor; that was the only way he would be allowed to marry Arwen. PJ portrayed him as someone avoiding his heritage. I hated what PJ did to Aragorn and Faramir both.

Turning Aragorn into a Reluctant Hero in the movie made him more human, less of a superman, a better character, introduced more conflict and doubts, and therefore made the movies better.

Originally Posted by auximenes

Thanks Tuco.

Nice job by the Devs as well, making Moria a fully-operational game area without directly violating the lore.

Not so good on the common sense front though

- sci-fi aliens in the 'basement'

- fantasy lava and also those glowing crystals everywhere, right out of the 'every dungeon ever' playbook

- stuff like waterwheels still there after a thousand years with nobody to look after them

- goats (because mountains goats just love pitch-black, narrow, confined spaces, yes sirree!)

- the Dwarves queued up outside, apparently waiting for the very second the plot of the book moved on ('DELTA BRAVO IS DOWN, REPEAT, DELTA BRAVO IS DOWN! GO GO GO!' )

Originally Posted by Dworin

PJ portrayed him as someone avoiding his heritage.

It makes it more accessible to modern audiences I think. We really don't identify with aristocratic types as much as back in the 50s. Similarly the whole idea in the book of bloodlines being diminished by interbreeding with lesser stock and that only purer blood is worthy of ruling is an alien one to modern readers.

Of course the idea in the books that you couldn't just ride down to Gondor at age twenty and say "here I am, give me the keys" never made much sense to me. Why didn't Aragorn's great great great grandfather reclaim the throne. "It wasn't the right time" isn't much of an answer.

In the books Aragorn is torn with indecision, he is not so intently focused on getting to Gondor and taking over.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Not so good on the common sense front though

- sci-fi aliens in the 'basement'

Oh, you mean things like Gandalf describes?

Originally Posted by Tolkien

Far, far below the deepest delving of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he.

- stuff like waterwheels still there after a thousand years with nobody to look after them

And not all are working. There's a dwarf there who doesn't have any idea how he's going to fix one of them. Dwarves built to last! There are some other bits that the Iron Garrison is trying to get working also.

- goats (because mountains goats just love pitch-black, narrow, confined spaces, yes sirree!)

Yeah, that's a fair cop. I figure that's a lore cookie spent for playability.

- the Dwarves queued up outside, apparently waiting for the very second the plot of the book moved on ('DELTA BRAVO IS DOWN, REPEAT, DELTA BRAVO IS DOWN! GO GO GO!' )

They are busy little guys, aren't they? It is indeed pretty impressive to see how much of a foothold they've achieved in the short time they've had.

Originally Posted by Nakiami

Turning Aragorn into a Reluctant Hero in the movie made him more human, less of a superman, a better character, introduced more conflict and doubts, and therefore made the movies better.

It made him a DIFFERENT character than the one Tolkien portrayed in the books. "Better" is a judgement call, and one I disagree with. Jackson took much more from comparatively recent films in the way he portrayed Aragorn than he did from LoTR. Some of us wanted the books to be filmed, not something concocted by a film maker who used the book titles for his own vehicle.

Now, I'll grant you that other film makers have done worse violence to the books their films were "based" on (Starship Troopers, Nightfall, and the absolutely worst travesty I have ever encountered--the anime film abstracted from the Lensmen books), but that doesn't excuse what Jackson did. It only reinforces the lesson to all authors: Do not let a film maker get his hands on the rights to your works without an ironclad contract that guarantees artistic control, and even then think twice before signing it.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by Tuco

Oh, you mean things like Gandalf describes?

No, I mean Turbine's dodgy version of what Gandalf described. Stuff that looks like it should be Space Marines dealing with it, rather than our characters

And not all are working. There's a dwarf there who doesn't have any idea how he's going to fix one of them. Dwarves built to last! There are some other bits that the Iron Garrison is trying to get working also.

Never mind not working, they should have fallen to bits long since. A thousand years is a long time...

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

'Other than the Battle of Dale' - where they fought heroically and their king died trying to protect the fallen body of the king of Dale. I think that going through that defeat and then still managing to withstand the siege that followed was quite enough to expect from anybody.

I don't disagree, but that alone doesn't disprove my statement that they were being selfish. Were the dwarves on the march? Were they defending Thanduil's kingdom, Lothlorien. or marching to the south to participate at Pellenor Fields? Nope. They were defending *themselves* and, by extension, their supply line through Dale.

Did it actually help, to split Sauron's forces, yes. But if they hadn't been attacked?

If you doubt the Dwarves pettiness, I should refer you to their behaviour on reclaiming Erebor, and specifically, their willingness to GO TO WAR with the lake men (whom they so valiantly defended during the War of the Ring) over an over-sized gemstone. Of course, throughout the ages of Middle Earth, another race had it's own unhealthy obsession with three similar (or should I say, SILMILAR ) racial heirlooms... Or Man's (and everyone elses) lust for the One Ring... See a pattern forming? Nobody's hands are clean in Middle Earth, sorry.

Originally Posted by Lohi

It makes it more accessible to modern audiences I think.

A couple of thoughts...

1. You say that like it's a good thing. Surely, making a movie accessible to the widest possible audience is what will rake in the big bucks (which is obviously why PJ did it) but doing so is like changing the menu of a 5 star restaurant to McDonald's fare. Who cares about all those people who went to the 5 star restaurant hoping for a filet mignon? A quarter pounder is much more accessible to the average diner.

LOTR wasn't meant to appeal to the masses. It was meant to be for those who love all things high and true and beautiful. PJ took it and rolled around in the gutter with it, mutilating it until every ounce of honor, nobility and loyalty was stripped away. What he did may have been legal, but it was a crime nonetheless. A crime against art. His movies are a hack job in a gilded frame.

2. Bull. If Tolkien's works are so inaccessible to modern audiences they why is LOTR unfailingly found at the very top of every list of the greatest fantasy works ever? Why is it considered the greatest novel of the 20th century? Why is it still so well loved? Why are so many people so devoted to it? Why is it one of the best selling books of all time?

I'm not saying it appeals to everyone. But I wish people who insist on sitting on the dirty floor would stop trying to destroy all the chairs which some of us are happily sitting on. Just because you can't recognize the good in something doesn't mean you need to pull it down to your level.

Fionnuala and Dworin are gonna let me have it in kin chat for saying this but.....

I liked the movies.

/ducks

(Saying that, they both know I haven't really read the books so my ignorance is slightly excused *laughs*)

I dunno. I like the movies, books and this game.

Are the movies perfect? No, they certainly have flaws and I don't like several of Jackson's changes (Far-from-the-Book-Amir, Frodo's betrayal of Sam etc.). But on the balance, the movies are well put together and the story is, overall, faithful to the books and Middle-Earth is presented well.

Some things are going to change in the adaptation between film and book - they're both very different media after all. Things that work in the novel aren't necessarily going to work in a film version. The director is inevitably going to put his interpretation and spin on the material. That's not necessarily a bad thing - I enjoy reading or watching different takes and interpretations of the same material. Ultimately, however, your mileage is going to vary on whether or not the interpretation is good or not.

Whh talked about artistic control to make sure your vision is pure. As an aspiring fantasy author myself that sounds like an awful lot of work: micromanagement of just about everything - sets, costumes, script, acting, directing etc. In the first place, I don't know anything about filmmaking and would rather leave it to people who *do* know what they're doing and in the second, I'd rather be writing. I would like a say in picking the producer and/or director of a project, if in the extremely extremely unlikely event a book of mine should ever get greenlit for a film. Maybe write/revise the script as well.

In any case, that wouldn't have worked for Lord of the Rings. What with Tolkien being dead and, from what I've heard, Christopher Tolkien isn't exactly cooperative.

Originally Posted by Armaius

In any case, that wouldn't have worked for Lord of the Rings. What with Tolkien being dead and, from what I've heard, Christopher Tolkien isn't exactly cooperative.

Well, yeah. What with some of the changes mentioned above, plus the financial shenanigans they tried to pull on him, who can blame him for being "not exactly cooperative." These also make good examples of why he won't agree to allowing films to be made of anything else his father wrote, other than the works for which those rights were already sold.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by Arbalister

I don't disagree, but that alone doesn't disprove my statement that they were being selfish. Were the dwarves on the march? Were they defending Thanduil's kingdom, Lothlorien. or marching to the south to participate at Pellenor Fields? Nope. They were defending *themselves* and, by extension, their supply line through Dale.

Did it actually help, to split Sauron's forces, yes. But if they hadn't been attacked?

They couldn't march because they already knew they were going to be attacked. It was all Sauron's plan, divide and conquer. Defending your home while standing by your closest ally is hardly selfish.

Originally Posted by Okokdir

Fionnuala and Dworin are gonna let me have it in kin chat for saying this but.....

I liked the movies.

/ducks

(Saying that, they both know I haven't really read the books so my ignorance is slightly excused *laughs*)

I forgive you, and, in fact, sorta liked the movies myself in and of themselves. but going to see them with the expectation of seeing the books, the movies were a HUGE disappointment.

There were Elves, and Men and Dwarves and Hobbits. Map-wise, the movies followed the books (Except for that ghastly mistake "The Uruks are turning NorthEast. They're taking the Hobbits to Isengard!") There was a Ring, and Sauron, and Saruman, the characters had the right names. Those are about the only connection to the books that were recognizable.

Boromir, for instance, was close yet even he was off in his early contempt for Aragorn as heir to the throne of Gondor, when it was made clear in the books that Boromir would have held Aragorn in great esteem if his claim to the throne were true.

The movies were fun, and exciting, but they were not Tolkien. Not even close.

Lately I've tried to avoid the repetitive threads about Peter Jackson, but I'd like to put something out there just to see how this group addresses it. I've made this point once or twice in other threads about the books vs. movies, and I don't recall anyone responding to it:

I submit that if there had never been any books, and if Jackson had made the movies with the exact same changes that are there now, the vast majority of you who condemn him would be praising him for his genius in crafting such an incredible movie. I further submit (though I don't claim to know) that much of the anger directed toward Jackson is not because his changes necessarily damaged or ruined the story as a whole, but because his changes simply made the story somewhat different than what Tolkien wrote, and that is what Tolkien fans dislike most about the movies -- that someone would have the nerve to change something that they perceive to be virtually sacred. Am I totally off base here? Or am I close to the truth?

I get this impression every time I see people complain things like elves being at Helm's Deep, Arwen saving Frodo at the Ford, Aragorn being something less than ultra-confident and unswerving, Faramir showing weakness and temptation like other men, the elimination of Tom Bombadil, the missing Scouring of the Shire, and so on, as if these changes make the movies somehow unwatchable.

Now don't get me wrong, I certainly understand that the more changes are made in a movie, the less it resembles the book it claims to be presenting. In fact I think that's really the only argument against Jackson's changes that I think works. This same argument is why we (myself included) argue that LotRO should adhere so closely to the books: because it claims to be based on them and to present them accurately (although even LotRO strays at times in order to achieve its intended goal). This is a legitimate argument I think, but it's really not the type of argument that is very often used to criticize the movie changes.

So just for a moment, imagine that there are no books; are you still as angry and offended by Jackson's changes as you have been? Are you still as eager to complain about "elves at Helm's Deep" as before? Does something like that still ruin the movie for you?

Please try to answer sincerely. I'm just throwing this out there to take a different angle for once, and provoke some thought.


Rip

Originally Posted by Rippentuck

So just for a moment, imagine that there are no books; are you still as angry and offended by Jackson's changes as you have been? Are you still as eager to complain about "elves at Helm's Deep" as before? Does something like that still ruin the movie for you?

Please try to answer sincerely. I'm just throwing this out there to take a different angle for once, and provoke some thought.


Rip

I wouldn't, no. But since the movies claim to be based on the Lord of the Rings, I am offended at the changes because it makes it not the Lord of the Rings anymore while still claiming it is.

I will say that visually, the movies pretty much got things spot on and the casting was great for many characters(Gandalf and Saruman to give examples)

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.

The movies totally own lotro, the orcs have their own personality, they all look different. The characters, the locations, all the different armour of the gondorians, noldor, galadrim, uruk hai, the different orc factions... it coulden't have been done better by any other director. And the music... im sorry to say it, but the soundtrack in lotro is lame the animations are awful and the characters and the different factions all look the same. :/

Originally Posted by Rippentuck

So just for a moment, imagine that there are no books; are you still as angry and offended by Jackson's changes as you have been? Are you still as eager to complain about "elves at Helm's Deep" as before? Does something like that still ruin the movie for you?

Please try to answer sincerely. I'm just throwing this out there to take a different angle for once, and provoke some thought.


Rip

Yes, but at least it would be a bad attempt to create a novel epic movie and not trying to make the book something it is not.
I find the movie to be pretty awful and still can't understand why do people like it.

Originally Posted by Erlendibus

The movies totally own lotro, the orcs have their own personality, they all look different. The characters, the locations, all the different armour of the gondorians, noldor, galadrim, uruk hai, the different orc factions... it coulden't have been done better by any other director. And the music... im sorry to say it, but the soundtrack in lotro is lame the animations are awful and the characters and the different factions all look the same. :/

so much un-truth in this post^^
Of course orcs which was played by actors are all different but all others that was created by computer were same and very primitive.

The characters, the locations, all the different armour of the gondorians, noldor, galadrim, uruk hai, the different orc factions...

So what? Do you want to say that " he characters, the locations, all the different armour of the gondorians, noldor, galadrim, uruk hai, the different orc factions" are all the same??

the different factions all look the same. :/

Is it seriosly or your max level is 20?

Originally Posted by Rippentuck

I submit that if there had never been any books, and if Jackson had made the movies with the exact same changes that are there now, the vast majority of you who condemn him would be praising him for his genius in crafting such an incredible movie.

Would you order a steak from a great chef, just smother it in ketchup? Would you have a famous artist paint a picture of you, just so you could draw over it with crayons? Would you have a great architect build the house of your dreams, just so you could burn it to the ground?

The reason we love Tolkien is not because he wrote a story about hobbits, but because he was a great author. Jackson, on the other hand, is not a great author, yet he tried to improve upon the work in ways that only detracted from Tolkien's story. He completely contradicted the point of several scenes, and he re-wrote some characters to the point that their only resemblance to their original counterparts is their name and a handful of lines.

But to answer your question, I would be praising Jackson for the movies if the books had not existed. Nowhere near to the same extent as I praise Tolkien, of course. But I so feel that Jackson did do a good job when he made the movies, the aforementioned changes notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by Rippentuck

I submit that if there had never been any books, and if Jackson had made the movies with the exact same changes that are there now, the vast majority of you who condemn him would be praising him for his genius in crafting such an incredible movie. I further submit (though I don't claim to know) that much of the anger directed toward Jackson is not because his changes necessarily damaged or ruined the story as a whole, but because his changes simply made the story somewhat different than what Tolkien wrote, and that is what Tolkien fans dislike most about the movies -- that someone would have the nerve to change something that they perceive to be virtually sacred. Am I totally off base here? Or am I close to the truth?

You know, this is a question that I recently had a change of viewpoint about. But the way my viewpoint changed may surprise you.

First of all, for the most part, this hypothetical is something that CAN'T be answered accurately by many of us. If you have read and loved the books before the movies came out I don't believe it is really physically possible to separate them in your head. You may think you do, but I don't think you really can. And I, for one, never did separate them and never wanted to or tried. Why should I? Why should I consider Jackson's movies separately? If he wants movies considered separately from source material he should make up his own story instead of thinking he can take someone else's life work and do it better than them.

Though as a habit I have until now rather accepted the premise that the movies, as movies, were good. Everyone seemed to say so. I was never a proper judge so I just assumed their were right. Though I also assumed the premise was moot and irrelevant.

However, recently my 9 year-old daughter decided she wanted to watch the movies. Now, we have all 3 theatrical editions and all 3 extended editions (because we're big enough Tolkien fans that we HAVE to own them even if we hate them) but they rarely come out of the cabinet. In fact, it has been years since I've watched any of them. So for the most part I had forgotten what they were like (aside from the big travesties that can never be forgotten.) I didn't sit down to watch FoTR with her, but I was nearby sort of watching it indirectly.

It should be noted that FoTR was always the least egregious of the movies and thus the one that bothered me the least. Yet as I caught glimpses of the visual and snatches of dialogue I was able to consider the movie apart from the book for the first time.

I think I am being honest when I say that to me the movies are mediocre at best. Oh sure, they look very pretty. And it seems a lot of people get so caught up in how very pretty they are that they never notice the lack of substance.

But to me movies are a storytelling medium. A visual storytelling medium, but a storytelling medium nonetheless. And thus in my opinion the story ALWAYS comes first. I do not care for special effects, pretty scenery, nice costumes, a good score, mostly good acting, any of it, if the story is lacking. And in my opinion what Jackson and his cohorts did was take one of the greatest stories ever written and dumb it down for the lowest common denominator. They almost made it a completely different story. It only superficially bears any resemblance to Tolkien's great work.

In short, the story in the LOTR movies is average, mediocre, common.

So yes, Jackson is a genius. I'm not sure if anyone else could have managed to destroy such a great work of story and art as easily and thoroughly as he did.

Love the books. Love the movies. Love the game. My only quibble with the movies was Aragorn being carried off by the warg and having to make his way back to Helm's Deep alone. Other than that, the rest of the differences, to me, can be forgiven in the name of squeezing the story into only 3 movies. As for the game, the lore changes that allow for playability or to make things interesting are likewise forgiven. Biggest quibble is Angmar being as powerful as it is.

My own perspective of the movies is that they are an interpretation of the books. A retelling of a myth, if you will, and as myths get passed down, details get lost, or changed in the telling.

Of course disliking the changes in themselves is perfectly acceptable and understandable. However, I get the feeling that many of the people who dislike, hate, or despise the changes don't make an effort to understand why they were done. The general feeling I get is that some of them seriously think PJ was just sitting at his desk, devil horns on for show, plotting how best to ruin things for the 'true fans'. Obviously that is balderdash.

There is no doubt in my mind that every change, every omitted line, character, whatever, was done for a purpose. Be it to make the scene flow better on film, to avoid using one dimensional characters(this is why I think omitting Bombadil and Glorfindel was a good move. They added nothing substantial to the main story, would only be on screen for a few minutes and then disappear for the rest of the Trilogy) or other technical film-maker-y stuff that I cannot possibly understand.

Now that's not to say that every change was a good change. While for example swapping Glorfindel with Arwen made the film(obligatory IMO) better overall, both to due Glorfy being a rather dull and 1D character and women in LOTR being incredibly scarce, I was not very fond of Sam being sent away during ROTK. To me at least it was rather unncessary and seemed a bit forced considering the FireForgedFriendship they had up until that point.

This is independent of the films quality or lack thereof as films. Not even the most devoted Tolkien fundie can deny that they were both successful and popular, but even so they were not devoid of problems. The biggest that comes to mind is the climax to Pelennor Fields. A common complaint is that the AoTD spoilt the epicness of that battle due to being essentially an unkillable force, thereby rendering the sacrifices we see by both the Rohirrim and Gondorians as irrelevant or at the very least less significant. Considering that this battle takes up a huge chunk of the story and film time as a whole, it's rather unfortunate.

I'm sure people here can think of others, I haven't watched them in ages so my memory's a bit fuzzy(I'll definitely be rewatching them in preps for The Hobbit though! ). At any rate, to call the films perfect would be a great stretch of the imagination. To call them a failure would be an equal stretch in the opposite direction.

...that's my ramblings done. You guys can tear apart mah stuffs now if you want.

Originally Posted by Rippentuck

I submit that if there had never been any books, and if Jackson had made the movies with the exact same changes that are there now, the vast majority of you who condemn him would be praising him for his genius in crafting such an incredible movie. ...

I get this impression every time I see people complain things like elves being at Helm's Deep, Arwen saving Frodo at the Ford, Aragorn being something less than ultra-confident and unswerving, Faramir showing weakness and temptation like other men, the elimination of Tom Bombadil, the missing Scouring of the Shire, and so on, as if these changes make the movies somehow unwatchable.

OK, now I've thought about it. I'll preface it by saying I like the movies a lot, and have the extended editions, which I watch at high volume whenever my wife is out. (Love the score.) I think Jackson got the look of the Shire spot-on, and I wouldn't mind a few more hours of that. I applaud the movie-making, and I'm *so* glad that he waited until the special effects technology was good enough to do justice to the story.

As I've also said in some of the other threads about this, I'm fine with some of the changes, even with pretty thorough book knowledge - LotR is one of my two favourite books, along with Pride and Prejudice. The order varies depending on which I'm reading at the time. In particular, I'm OK with the elimination of Bombadil and replacing Glorfindel with Arwen before the Ford of Bruinen.

Looking at it with non-book eyes, I wouldn't mind the elves at Helm's Deep. However, the rest of your examples I think make for a worse movie than one more directly based on LotR would have been, and in some cases a much worse movie. In particular, having Arwen save Frodo at the Ford is far worse than Glorfindel lending Frodo his horse so he could save himself. Jackson turned hobbits into children who needed to be protected every step of the way, rather than small adults who were as heroic and as brave as the Big Folk around them, and who possessed a toughness and resistance to evil unmatched by Men and Dwarves. The movies make them nearly irrelevant until the end, which in my view makes a worse movie than if they had been more equal partners. Flashing back to the book, Gandalf regarded Frodo as the best and bravest hobbit in the Shire. Jackson isn't impressed with that.

Replacing Faramir, the mirror image of Boromir, the lighter version of the fallen Boromir, with a lesser copy of Boromir seems to me like poor movie-making, independent of the fact that he butchered the book version of Faramir. What's the point of having two Boromirs? Doesn't it make sense to show what Boromir could have been if he'd been morally stronger? To show that there's a place even in degenerate Gondor for honour?

The Scouring of the Shire seems to me central to what I think is important growth in the hobbits: they've gone out in the world, they've been through hell and come back, and they know how to lead and what they're capable of. In the movie they simply come home and fit back into their society - since they were baggage through the whole movie, there's no need to show their growth, because they didn't grow. I miss that chapter.

I think I would have objected to "Witch King pwns Gandalf" even if I hadn't read the book, but I can't really know that. Since I did, I'm still disgusted by that scene in the extended edition.

Originally Posted by Nyrion

Of course disliking the changes in themselves is perfectly acceptable and understandable. However, I get the feeling that many of the people who dislike, hate, or despise the changes don't make an effort to understand why they were done. The general feeling I get is that some of them seriously think PJ was just sitting at his desk, devil horns on for show, plotting how best to ruin things for the 'true fans'. Obviously that is balderdash.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. To take two examples, cutting the whole Tom Bombadil sequence makes sense for a movie, partly because it really is a side plot that doesn't really go anywhere, and secondly because of the time contraints of movies. The substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel can be supported because it's the ONLY time you see Glorfindel in the books and because, as has been noted, women are largely absent from the books. The change from confronting the nazgul to carrying Frodo like a sack of potatoes is driven by the backstory regarding Glorfindel...Arwen simply wouldn't have the chops to do that...and from that perspective the character switch was a poor choice.

Having said those things, I still think that what Jackson did was to degrade a classic work to a so-so movie. Pretty? Sure. Good effects? Sure. The story contained in LoTR? Not really.

The underlying problem is that Hollywood (in the generic sense) almost *always* dumbs down or otherwise trivializes good stories. Hollywood has a few standard tropes that directors and producers try to force *any* work to follow, even if the written work doesn't contain the tropes the director wants to use. Sometimes, a director will completely recast a major plot idea or structure in a misreading of the primary work, or just because he thinks he knows what's going on better than author did (see _Starship Troopers_). On occasion, the tendency use a written work solely as a source of names and MacGuffins without regard to actual content produces a truly bizarre and--sometimes--outrageous result. See the anime Lensman work for this. (For those that know the books but haven't seen it, it starts with a young Kimball Kinnison accompanied by his comic relief sidekick, Peter van Buskirk, being given a Lens by a dying Lensman. If that doesn't make you toss your cookies, you've never read the books.)

Then there are the cases where Hollywood will buy a couple of books with similar "themes" and combine them into one movie. There was a case, Towering Inferno, where they bought one book to film the plot (such as it was) and a second book so they could use part of the title. The books being "The Tower" and "The Flowering Inferno". The books were both about fires in high rise buildings, but the plot derives from only one of them.

While I'm on the subject of film titles, there is always "Krakatoa, East of Java". Hate to tell you guys, but Krakatoa (usually transliterated Krakatau these days) is actually *west* of Java.

tl;dr... I have no respect for films derived from books because filmmakers have no respect for the books they use to make films.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by raltar2

I wouldn't, no. But since the movies claim to be based on the Lord of the Rings, I am offended at the changes because it makes it not the Lord of the Rings anymore while still claiming it is.

I will say that visually, the movies pretty much got things spot on and the casting was great for many characters(Gandalf and Saruman to give examples)

Thanks for the honest answer. Though I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that the movies aren't even Lord of the Rings anymore because of the changes, you seem to agree that your objection is based in your perception that the changes make the story different (in your view) -- not that they make it bad.


Rip

Originally Posted by StarofLs

Yes, but at least it would be a bad attempt to create a novel epic movie and not trying to make the book something it is not.
I find the movie to be pretty awful and still can't understand why do people like it.

Not sure if yours is a serious answer, but do you own the movies? Would you go see them if they were re-released in theaters a la Star Wars?


Rip

Originally Posted by StavroMuellerBeta

Would you order a steak from a great chef, just smother it in ketchup? Would you have a famous artist paint a picture of you, just so you could draw over it with crayons? Would you have a great architect build the house of your dreams, just so you could burn it to the ground?

The reason we love Tolkien is not because he wrote a story about hobbits, but because he was a great author. Jackson, on the other hand, is not a great author, yet he tried to improve upon the work in ways that only detracted from Tolkien's story. He completely contradicted the point of several scenes, and he re-wrote some characters to the point that their only resemblance to their original counterparts is their name and a handful of lines.

But to answer your question, I would be praising Jackson for the movies if the books had not existed. Nowhere near to the same extent as I praise Tolkien, of course. But I so feel that Jackson did do a good job when he made the movies, the aforementioned changes notwithstanding.

Elaborate analogies aside, you do seem to more or less agree with my point that the changes simply make the story different, not bad.

Once that is established, I think there is a discussion to be had, of course, about why he made the changes he made.

Despite the changes that we all know (or should know, by now) are often standard procedure for film adaptations, and despite what Jackson, Boyens & Co. (Phillippa Boyens, the main writer, being a life long Tolkien fan) explain in their movie commentaries about why they did what they did, there is still that group who tenaciously cling to the idea that every scene in the books should have been acted out in its entirety, every character included no matter how obscure or unimportant they were and no matter how much time it used up, and that despite what he actually said about them, Jackson made his changes because he simply thought he was a better story teller than Tolkien.

To that group nothing can be said that will change their minds in the slightest, of course, but again I think the point is made that the anger is because the movie changes simply make the story different, not because they make it bad. That's what I wanted to bring out.


Rip

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

You know, this is a question that I recently had a change of viewpoint about. But the way my viewpoint changed may surprise you.

First of all, for the most part, this hypothetical is something that CAN'T be answered accurately by many of us. If you have read and loved the books before the movies came out I don't believe it is really physically possible to separate them in your head. You may think you do, but I don't think you really can. And I, for one, never did separate them and never wanted to or tried. Why should I? Why should I consider Jackson's movies separately? If he wants movies considered separately from source material he should make up his own story instead of thinking he can take someone else's life work and do it better than them.

Though as a habit I have until now rather accepted the premise that the movies, as movies, were good. Everyone seemed to say so. I was never a proper judge so I just assumed their were right. Though I also assumed the premise was moot and irrelevant.

However, recently my 9 year-old daughter decided she wanted to watch the movies. Now, we have all 3 theatrical editions and all 3 extended editions (because we're big enough Tolkien fans that we HAVE to own them even if we hate them) but they rarely come out of the cabinet. In fact, it has been years since I've watched any of them. So for the most part I had forgotten what they were like (aside from the big travesties that can never be forgotten.) I didn't sit down to watch FoTR with her, but I was nearby sort of watching it indirectly.

It should be noted that FoTR was always the least egregious of the movies and thus the one that bothered me the least. Yet as I caught glimpses of the visual and snatches of dialogue I was able to consider the movie apart from the book for the first time.

I think I am being honest when I say that to me the movies are mediocre at best. Oh sure, they look very pretty. And it seems a lot of people get so caught up in how very pretty they are that they never notice the lack of substance.

But to me movies are a storytelling medium. A visual storytelling medium, but a storytelling medium nonetheless. And thus in my opinion the story ALWAYS comes first. I do not care for special effects, pretty scenery, nice costumes, a good score, mostly good acting, any of it, if the story is lacking. And in my opinion what Jackson and his cohorts did was take one of the greatest stories ever written and dumb it down for the lowest common denominator. They almost made it a completely different story. It only superficially bears any resemblance to Tolkien's great work.

In short, the story in the LOTR movies is average, mediocre, common.

So yes, Jackson is a genius. I'm not sure if anyone else could have managed to destroy such a great work of story and art as easily and thoroughly as he did.

Fair enough. I think it's perfectly legitimate to say that the movies just aren't very good, but you don't often hear that. In fact you rarely hear it, if at all, especially among those who haven't read the books. But keep in mind that despite the changes he made, Jackson was still to some degree limited by the source material.

I think there are certainly things Jackson could have done to improve on hs movies. For example I wish he had made the Council of Elrond a much more substantive scene than he did, because I'd like to hear the various arguments acted out about what to do with the Ring. I also think it got a bit silly the way Gimli was nauseatingly presented as being little more than slapstick comic relief (and btw I'd have these same comments if there were no books). But I'm not outraged and offended that elves appeared at Helm's Deep, or that I didn't get to see Tom Bombadil singing and dancing around.

Again, what people don't like is simply that any changes were made at all. Which would seem to indicate that no matter what Jackson had done, the same people wouldn't like it. That's fine, I guess, but that's how the objections ought to be explained, and not as if the changes ruined the movies.


Rip

Originally Posted by Rippentuck

Again, what people don't like is simply that any changes were made at all. Which would seem to indicate that no matter what Jackson had done, the same people wouldn't like it. That's fine, I guess, but that's how the objections ought to be explained, and not as if the changes ruined the movies.


Rip

I'm not sure why you think that, since I've seen any number of people who hate the changes to the movies say that they do accept that certain changes were necessary. I've never seen anyone claim, for instance, that he really should have kept Tom Bombadil in. I've seen people lament his absense, but they always recognize that it was a necessary and acceptable change.

In general, I don't mind very much when thing are just left out. The books are much longer than the movies. I think everyone accepts that. It's when one thing is transformed into a different, lesser thing (for instance, Faramir the Noble turned into Faramir the "I'll do anything to make my daddy love me") or when things are added in that don't fit the spirit of the story that I protest.

In general, I think that Jackson made most of the egregious changes for terrible reasons. And yes, I DO understand the reasons. I subjected myself to the commentary out of morbid curiosity. But just because someone has come up with a reason for a change doesn't make the change good.

Originally Posted by Rippentuck

Jackson made his changes because he simply thought he was a better story teller than Tolkien.

It is a pity that Jackson made such an error in self-assessment. Had he been willing to set his own ego aside and admit that Tolkien was the better (vastly better!) story teller, he might have made movies that preserved the characters in the way Tolkien wrote them.

After what Jackson did to LoTR, I am unwilling to even sit through what he--and his ego--will be doing to The Hobbit.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Originally Posted by whheydt

It is a pity that Jackson made such an error in self-assessment. Had he been willing to set his own ego aside and admit that Tolkien was the better (vastly better!) story teller, he might have made movies that preserved the characters in the way Tolkien wrote them.

After what Jackson did to LoTR, I am unwilling to even sit through what he--and his ego--will be doing to The Hobbit.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

This! Well said and +rep.

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.

Originally Posted by whheydt

It is a pity that Jackson made such an error in self-assessment. Had he been willing to set his own ego aside and admit that Tolkien was the better (vastly better!) story teller, he might have made movies that preserved the characters in the way Tolkien wrote them.

After what Jackson did to LoTR, I am unwilling to even sit through what he--and his ego--will be doing to The Hobbit.

Precisely the way I see it. I understand the need for changes -- to fit the story into the timeframe of the medium. I don't agree with changes that completely alter the story and characters.

There was an animated version of LOTR back in 1978 that covered the story up to Helm's Deep. They made similar cuts to the story that Jackson did (e.g. no Tom Bombadil, Legolas met Aragorn and the hobbits instead of Glorfindel). They kept the characters closer to what Tolkien described. I like Jackson's graphics better. I like the 1978 story better since it followed the books more closely. Heck, Galadriel looked like a noble elven queen there rather than Jackson's spooky witch version.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

They couldn't march because they already knew they were going to be attacked. It was all Sauron's plan, divide and conquer. Defending your home while standing by your closest ally is hardly selfish.

Alternatively, if they'd joined their forces, and Dale's to Gondor's, there wouldn't have been an army marching to attack Erebor.