Thread: The films versus the books

Well, I'll put it out there right now that I was mightily disappointed with the films compared with the books.
However, my biggest... annoyance is the whole Aragorn and Arwen saga (pffft!) Ther whole: No! I'm not the heir of Isildur!
No father, I WILL NOT sail to the West.
Forget the fact that Elrond is all for the marriage in the book why don't you Jackson
And then you have the fact that in the film Aragorn is not portrayed at his full strength. In the return of the King, Aragorn looks into the Palantir and has strength enough to thwart Sauron (well, get the Orthanc stone out of his grasp) Yet in the film, he merely touches the stone and suddenly.... "oh dear, I'm fainting!" ./faint
I could go on and on, but I really think the films did not do Aragorn justice

Well of course opinions will be what they are, but for me personally I much preferred film Aragorn to his book counterpart, for several reasons.

Firstly, the film version actually had a personality of more than one dimension. Sure, in the books he occasionally expressed some emotion, but those moments were few and far between and in this regard I feel he was more interesting and quite frankly likeable a character in the films.

Second, while reading the books I sometimes got an uncomfortable feeling that Aragorn was somewhat arrogant at times. I use the scene at Meduseld as an example. I mean really, killing someone 'cos they touched your sword, no matter what value it holds, is completely over the top. Plus not wanting to put aside your weapon when you're entering another king's court rubbed me the wrong way.

On another note, it's only a matter of time before someone brings up the 'emo-Aragorn' phrase, which is absolute balderdash. Self-doubt does not an emo make.

Make better movies then. Everyone knows you can't film it the way it is written.The movies and Peter Jackson never claimed to be perfect and even said it's their interpretation of LotR.It can't be done in any other way.
Otherwise there wouldn't be much of Arwen in the movies.Because the Story of Arwen and Aragorn is not part of the books.It's only in the Appendix.
And for Aragorn...guess you really would enjoy a movie of an almighty Aragorn?
Just accept that some changes were made to make the movie more enjoyable.See the books and the movies as two different views on a story.Things that work in a book often just won't work in a movie.

Just another opinion here. But I truly believe someone could only possibly like the film better if they watched it before they ever read the books. The film botched so many things about the story. The one that really get me is Faramir. The made him so week and foolish. In fact he was made in the movies to basically be just like Boromir. A person could go on and on. Except for the ring they were not even the same story.

There is no film versus the books. Even though it's the same story, they are two entirely different forms of media. You can't make a movie directly into a book and you can't make a book directly into a movie. The customer demographics are totally different.

Of the three movies, Fellowship of the Ring was the best and closest to what I expected in a film adaptation of a book.

The Two Towers and Return of the King both left something to be desired, even in the expanded, non-theatrical release versions.

I realize Peter Jackson was trying to add more depth to some of the characters only given brief appearances in the books and to add drama to some of the events. Wish he hadn't had to change their views/outlooks on events.

Unfortuantely, many of the changes made for the last 2 movies were a significant divergance from the books. Some examples:

- Warg Rider attacks on the way to Helm's Deep? With Aragorn falling off a cliff?
- The Beacons of Gondor were lit BEFORE Pippin and Gandalf get to Minas Tirith and no mention of the Red Arrow being sent to Theoden of Rohan by Dethenor, Steward of Gondor or it being intercepted so Dethenor didn't know Theoden/Rohan was comming.
- The whole portrayal of Dethenor (he didn't go loopy until AFTER Faramir was wounded AND he looked one last time into the Palantir of Minas Anor/Minas Tirith)
- Aragorn's Palantir experience (as previously mentioned).
- The whole "skull experience" in the Paths of the Dead
- Aragorn's Ride to the Stone of Erech and then to Pelargir/The Corsairs of Umbar in Pelargir
- Legolas bouncing around on Mumakil during the Battle of the Pellenor Fields

Oh well...as long as I didn't try to actively remember the books while watching the movies, I'm OK. But the only one I regularly watch is Fellowship of the Ring because it has the least amount of "new" material.

having seen the movies first and only now reading the books, I have a very different view. I am currently about half way through the 2nd book, and while it has been getting better, the first bok was downright terrible. Poorly written, dry and unexciting. I feel much of the time I am reading a history book rather then a fantasy fiction. Books to me are supposed to engage the reader in such a way that you barely notice whats going on around you. Tolkein's writing does anything but. I pretty much need to be in isolation with absolutely no distractions around or I just can't pay attention because its not drawing me in.

Originally Posted by Nymphonic

There is no film versus the books. Even though it's the same story, they are two entirely different forms of media. You can't make a movie directly into a book and you can't make a book directly into a movie. The customer demographics are totally different.

Unfortunately you can. As I noted previously, the adaptation of The Fellowship of the Rings was done well and about as good as I would expect in the film adaptation of a book. The Two Towers and Return of the King do have good film adapation parts, but overall, Peter Jackson opted to replace one type of dramatic event with another in many places, even to the point of changing events and motivations (Example: the lighting of the Beacon Fires of Gondor)

I would never expect the book to be the same as the movie or the other way around. But I do expect a certain amount of faithfulness to the storyline and characters of the book.

Originally Posted by Nymphonic

There is no film versus the books. Even though it's the same story, they are two entirely different forms of media. You can't make a movie directly into a book and you can't make a book directly into a movie. The customer demographics are totally different.

This. People also forget that when FotR started pre-production, Peter Jackson was an up-and-coming filmmaker with some interesting small films under his belt, but not THE Peter Jackson that people think of today. The studio would justifiably be concerned about an expensive fantasy movie being made by a little known director and would have wanted changes to maximize the target audience and make some aspects of books written mid-century more modern.

Hence the changes to Arwen. You need a strong female role in movies today, at least according to the studios. Aragorn of the books works well in the books- in a movie, he could be perceived as arrogant and distant. The changes to Faramir, to me, do a nice job of contrasting Faramir's ability to resist the temptation of the ring to that of Boromir- his initial weakness made the impact of him letting Frodo go more significant.

Would I have liked the movies to more closely follow the books? Absolutely. But I also realize the option was the movies as we got them, or no movies at all. I'd rather have the movies, and enjoy them for what they are. I always have the books to read if I want LotR to the letter.

One of the good things the movie did for me was it put faces on the characters. So now when I read the books I have faces to go with the names.

The mention of Faramir reminds me of my other bug gripe... Frodo going to Osgiliath and showing a Nazgul the ring? really? This bit really got me, because the Nazgul would surely sense the ring, tell Sauron and then it would be bye bye middle-earth...
And apart from that, Sauron did not assault Osgiliath again until he unleashed his armies following Aragorns challenge.
I think what I'm getting at us that Jackson added so much of his own content into the films that the real storyline almost disappears

EDIT: I realise Frodo did not run up and go, look at my shiny ring! but it's the same principal.
Also remembering the Gollum destroying the lembas saga.... *sigh* In fact, I dont think the Sam and Frodo relationship was done justice at all

Originally Posted by Ace_Rimmer

One of the good things the movie did for me was it put faces on the characters. So now when I read the books I have faces to go with the names.

Not all faces are accurate though. Faramir and Boromir, for example. The brothers are describes to have "raven" hair, rather than blonde.

I personally felt the movies did an excellent job of remaining true to the theme and ideas of the books, considering how particularly unsuited to movie-making LotR is. Think of how little description many scenes that would be important in a movie had in the book. For example, during the fight in Balin's Tomb all that's said of Aragorn and Boromir is that they "slew many". Also, there is so much reference to the Silmarillion and other background that would be totally foreign to many who watch the movie, but they managed to preserve most of it without confusing those who know nothing of Middle-Earth save what is in the movies. Some things had to be altered, true, but I thought that the LotR movies were a worthy adaption of a great book. Many such movies aren't.

I really didn't want to say this before because the insults start flying on this subject but I love both the movies and the books equally. I think they were both very well done.

You can't have both be the same. As much as I love the books, having them made directly into a movie would be as boring as Master Piece Theater.

If I want steak, I go to a steak restaurant. I want Japanese, I go to a Japanese restaurant. I want my beautiful literature, I read Tolkien. I want to sit back and enjoy Legolas kick some major butt, I watch the movies.

People bash the movies, but as much as I love the books, and I've read them once a year since 1983, there are some parts that I cannot read from boredom, like Tom Bombadil. I skip through that part every time. The movies? I fast forward through the part where Aragorn falls off a cliff and appears at Helm's Deep because I can't stand it.

Originally Posted by Nymphonic

I really didn't want to say this before because the insults start flying on this subject but I love both the movies and the books equally. I think they were both very well done.

You can't have both be the same. As much as I love the books, having them made directly into a movie would be as boring as Master Piece Theater.

If I want steak, I go to a steak restaurant. I want Japanese, I go to a Japanese restaurant. I want my beautiful literature, I read Tolkien. I want to sit back and enjoy Legolas kick some major butt, I watch the movies.

People bash the movies, but as much as I love the books, and I've read them once a year since 1983, there are some parts that I cannot read from boredom, like Tom Bombadil. I skip through that part every time. The movies? I fast forward through the part where Aragorn falls off a cliff and appears at Helm's Deep because I can't stand it.

*approves*

Honestly I am a complete Tokien nerd just like the rest of you. I notice weird things in the movies and I have all of the extra books. But really? You can't expect Peter Jackson to have added another 2 hours to each movie just so that every detail of the books was satisfied. They are separate media forms for different types of audiences and I thought that both were fantastic.

I thought the movie was a bit boring and I always felt annoyed that a lot of things that didn't need changing did change. But I accepted that. The most dissapointing part for me was how Jackson portrayed Pippin and Merry. In the movie they were just two clowns, a comic relief.

In general, I'm not a big fan of movies. In movies, you can only say that much in a few hours. In books or even video games, you can go on and on about history and say every little detail. While in movies, you have to compress it all to about 3 hours. My favourite part of Tolkien's work was the background story of Middle-Earth in general. And that is almost impossible to transfer to movies. Unless someone made a documentary mimic or something, but I don't see that happening

the movies would have been significantly more epic if Glorfindel was at the ford.

Oh look the shards on Narsil.....

I quite enjoyed the first movie, historically most new readers of LOTR seem to fall at the hurdle of the first book, maybe because there’s less action than the following two, I took the dwarf throwing additions in the vein they were intended, that is to and brevity to some dry material, and was looking forward to the next two films. I don’t know whether the 2nd film was” in the can” when the first was released but it seems the first films success allowed them to throw out the book and things got silly from there, (but I did like the battle of the peaks, not all the additional material was poor). This is the great tragedy of the movie trilogy, Jackson cleared the technical hurdles in realising three massive books into three massive films, where previous attempts always ran out of money or interest halfway through and its really the clunky additional material that annoys me which should have been omitted like tom Bombadil could have made the films.

I do not like the post modern treatment of many of the characters, giving them flaws and doubts, when you consider other literary heroes of this era, be they Conan, Tarzan or Superman, I don’t want to know about their flaws or motivations as we trust them implicitly, this is why we want Aragorn to be a king and regain his throne, if we want to make a flawed human being our leader we elect them to two terms of government, and hand the powers of life and death over to the courts and parliament. Aragorn’s “one dimensionality” is what sets him aside from other men and I just couldn’t invest very much in the reedy voiced movie Aragorn, plus I’m in the clean shaven edain camp. I still receive the Tolkien calendar for Christmas every year and when John Howe and Alan Lee were illustrating occasionally the text extract from the book did not match the illustration I got the feeling that the movies had been pieced together from people who read the Tolkien calendar rather than who were familiar with the book and just invented the content that was missing between the 12 illustrations that went with the calendar.

It seems pointless to me to once again discuss the minutia of Peter Jackson's theatrical adaptation of The Lord of the Rings as it has been done countless numbers of times on this and other Tolkien-related messageboards. Invariably, the overall opinions range from "loved it" to "hated it" and everywhere in-between. My opinion is that, if nothing else, Jackson's films introduced Tolkien's mythology to a whole generation of readers who otherwise may not have discovered it.

After all these years I finally made my peace with the movies, though I still find a few things I just won't like.

Elves at Helm's Deep, cool dude Legolas ws. stupid clichéd dorf (probably also due to likable but hammy John Rhys-Davies), warg attack in Rohan, ghosts at Minas Tirith.

But my biggest laugh always goes to the ultra-dramatic lighting of the beacons scene. Big fires all over the mountains all for nothing if Aragorn hadn't gone outside, back behind Meduseld to light his pipe...
All those poor soldiers of Gondor, hanging out on those mountauins in ice and snow, huddled beside their piles of wood, waiting for theier one moment of glory all gone poof at the end. It didn't seem there were official watchers at the Rohan end of the chain.

Originally Posted by Dooraa

After all these years I finally made my peace with the movies, though I still find a few things I just won't like.

Elves at Helm's Deep, cool dude Legolas ws. stupid clichéd dorf (probably also due to likable but hammy John Rhys-Davies), warg attack in Rohan, ghosts at Minas Tirith.

But my biggest laugh always goes to the ultra-dramatic lighting of the beacons scene. Big fires all over the mountains all for nothing if Aragorn hadn't gone outside, back behind Meduseld to light his pipe...
All those poor soldiers of Gondor, hanging out on those mountauins in ice and snow, huddled beside their piles of wood, waiting for theier one moment of glory all gone poof at the end. It didn't seem there were official watchers at the Rohan end of the chain.

not forgetting of course the amazing rock-climbing skills that Pippin seemed to acquire in order to light the beacon that Denethor wouldn't light because of them enmity/rivalry between Gondor and Rohan 0.o Very... lore-abiding. Surely there was no need for Jackson to add this bit in?

The books will always be better than the films or any other adaptation in the general film media. But how much better than the books is always good to measure.

The books (and most of Tolkien's works) have always irked me with their weak characters. And by weak, I mean wooden. The best characters are the Hobbits by far, followed by Gandalf and a few others. But a lot of the main characters are just so alike.

I can understand this in the Silmarillion. Being more a history book than any other, but the Children fo Hurin did a good job with Turin and his sister. Still, the LOTR books are quite weak in that area. Especially when compared to other authors.

The films though did this much better. And I applaud them for that. They did things that may have seem absurd, but others that enriched the story-telling and worked really well for the medium.

Aragorn in the novels has little to no development. He knows what he is and follows that path through the book. In the films he's a very conflicted character. But the best thing PJ did was not to drown us in that confliction (*cough* FF protagonists.)

Denethor's madness doesn't really show until later on in ROTK. And his image is like everybody else in the book. Seriously, how many times does someone have to be 'tall and mighty.' I think PJ did a fantastic job with Denethor. Potraying his madness much better than the novels did.

But of course, there are a lot of things Tolkien did that should be admired and worshipped xD I'm just pointing out a main flaw because characters are a big thing in story-telling :-)

Originally Posted by oldbadgerbrock

It seems pointless to me to once again discuss the minutia of Peter Jackson's theatrical adaptation of The Lord of the Rings as it has been done countless numbers of times on this and other Tolkien-related messageboards. Invariably, the overall opinions range from "loved it" to "hated it" and everywhere in-between. My opinion is that, if nothing else, Jackson's films introduced Tolkien's mythology to a whole generation of readers who otherwise may not have discovered it.

I think that if Jacksons' scriptwriters had had the same respect, knowledge and guidelines for dealing with the source material as Turbine we would be having this conversation less often too.

Originally Posted by Floin

Aragorn in the novels has little to no development. He knows what he is and follows that path through the book. In the films he's a very conflicted character. But the best thing PJ did was not to drown us in that confliction

Not so damn far off, don't forget that nonsense about Arwen going all weak and feeble because her fate was somehow linked to that of the Ring all of a sudden. You'd have thought that the fact that Sauron would stomp them all flat unless stopped would be quite sufficient motivation for Aragorn to do what was needed, but no, his love interest had to go all pale and languid too. PJ went too far the other way with his version of Aragorn.

Denethor's madness doesn't really show until later on in ROTK. And his image is like everybody else in the book. Seriously, how many times does someone have to be 'tall and mighty.' I think PJ did a fantastic job with Denethor. Potraying his madness much better than the novels did.

Same again, way overdone. Having him actively trying to get Faramir killed, for example, rather than it being Faramir's apparently mortal wounding at the hands of the Ring-wraiths that finally pushed Denethor over the edge into suicidal despair. It got to the point where PJ even had Gandalf acting out of character, by having him wallop Denethor and lay him out. That sort of mishandling of characters is anything but praise-worthy.

But of course, there are a lot of things Tolkien did that should be admired and worshipped xD I'm just pointing out a main flaw because characters are a big thing in story-telling :-)

While I'd agree that characterisation wasn't Tolkien's strong suit, PJ didn't always do such a good job either. That bloke is sadly lacking in subtlety, prone to wild excess.

I don't understand why it has to be an either/or kind of thing. I liked both. I understand that it's impossible for a film to be the same as a book, and changes have to be made accordingly. Maybe some were handled better or worse than others, but that's the truth of the matter. If we included everything there was to be in the books accurately in the films, they would be hours and hours long and require different parts, which I don't think even the most ardent (well, maybe) LOTR fan could sit on his butt watching. The studios wouldn't like it either, and we may not have had them at all.

At the very least, I very much enjoyed the visuals of the movies. I would do [i]unspeakable[i/] things to get some of the movie armor in-game, and I thought locations like Minas Tirith and Barad-Dur were outstanding. (Christopher Lee was also a great Saruman. I can't read the chapters about Isengard and Saruman without hearing his incredible voice!)

And readers of the books should appreciate that the movies at least introduced a great series of fantasy to people who may never have read them (like a previous poster said). In fact, it's exactly that for me. I saw the movies, I thought they were great. I read the books, I thought those were even better.

Originally Posted by Morthaur

I think that if Jacksons' scriptwriters had had the same respect, knowledge and guidelines for dealing with the source material as Turbine we would be having this conversation less often too.

Hate to post again after the last one, but I'd like to address this by saying Turbine had to warp some things in LOTRO too. There never was a 'risen' Angmar, there were definitely NOT goblins and brigands in the shire, at least until the Scouring. Dwarves didn't go back into Moria until after the War of the Ring. I highly doubt there would be so many oathbreakers and wights everywhere. Hobbits hardly left the shire on epic adventures except the protagonists we know and love. Turbine does a good job of being faithful to lore, but it can't be perfect because it's an MMO that they have to adapt books to.

On the one hand, I like to movies for (some) of the visual representations that they give, the musical score they have, and for nailing some of the actors perfectly (Ian McKellan and Christopher Lee, among others) as well as some of the scenes (Eowyn vs. The Witch King, Boromir fighting the Uruk Hai). Also, I can appreciate that they did turn some people on to the books when they came out (myself numbered among them); although I feel not enough people read it still :P

On the other hand, I despise how he changed things for no real reason. I can understand leaving stuff out for time constraints (while it was disappointing not seeing Bombadil, I don't begrudge PJ for leaving him out) but changing things to create drama for drama's sake (which makes plotholes and just weakens the movie) or just arbitrarily (why blonde hair for Legolas? You got the others right!) is a terrible way to make an adaptation. The last couple of Harry Potter movies, while not perfect, did a wonderful job of adapting the books to the screen and strayed very little, so it's not impossible to do it right and still have a good movie.

Originally Posted by Nymphonic

I really didn't want to say this before because the insults start flying on this subject but I love both the movies and the books equally. I think they were both very well done.

You can't have both be the same. As much as I love the books, having them made directly into a movie would be as boring as Master Piece Theater.

If I want steak, I go to a steak restaurant. I want Japanese, I go to a Japanese restaurant. I want my beautiful literature, I read Tolkien. I want to sit back and enjoy Legolas kick some major butt, I watch the movies.

People bash the movies, but as much as I love the books, and I've read them once a year since 1983, there are some parts that I cannot read from boredom, like Tom Bombadil. I skip through that part every time. The movies? I fast forward through the part where Aragorn falls off a cliff and appears at Helm's Deep because I can't stand it.

This Comment. Yes. Exactly. I read the books in High School, and never stopped loving them. I loved the movies for a chance to see on the screen what had always played in my head. That Peter Jackson did the best job he could have done, I have no doubts. Do I have issues with the films? Of course I do. (asjkdhasld Denethor!) But it doesn't detract from me loving them. Perhaps I love the films a little bit MORE because I can show them to my friends who don't read, and they can enjoy them too.

I liked most of the changes, but the whole Arwen thing bugged me. I suspect that was mostly a nod to Liv Tyler's ego as much as anything else. In an interview, when asked about Eowin as a second female role model, Liv played down the character and disparaged the actress playing her (Miranda Otto) as a nobody.

Miranda on the other hand was much more generous towards Liv.

I suppose there isn't really a significant female role before Lorien and later Rohan, but Eowyn is such a strong heroic role in the books... it is a pity she didn't get more attention in the movies.

Jackson also changed Helm's Deep from a strategic fortress covering a key pass that they dare not lose, to a fall back position that they retreat to. In that case, at least, it meant he didn't have to spend extra time convincing people why the fortress was important.

Some scenes, such as the bickering at Rivendell, showing how the Ring was already affecting those around it, were just brilliant.

Overall, despite the differences, I think the movies really do justice to the books. I seriously doubt anyone could have done better.

It's a moot point to argue if the films were "wrong" or not, seeing as its a totally different media and totally different time (almost 50 years after the publication of FoTR) - of course things are going to be different. As has been said in the thread and in many other such discussions, you can't rightfully translate book-material to a movie; that's why you have books and movies as separate media-entities. And for me, that's why books will always be superior, even in this day and age of high-tech gadgets and what not, nothing beats what a person can create with his imagination and the written word.

At any rate though, the movies definitely did popularise Tolkien. I watched the first one back when I was 10 or so, at the behest of my dad (who had read the books naturally) and, oh surprise, some time after I got my hands on The Hobbit and that's how I discovered a completely new world of possibilities. What I'm trying to say is, the movies didn't just bring attention to Tolkien himself, they gave a new life to the entire fantasy genre. The books inspired many others back in the day, but how many did the movies themselves leave in awe? Video-games, books, movies, etc...they brought fantasy into the spotlight.

And, seriously, to this day I've yet to see battle-scenes that manage to top what the movies have. No matter what's been omitted or changed from the Professor's original writings, I still get goose-bumps when I watch the Ride of the Rohirrim scene for one; or when I hear Pippin's song (it's not just fighting and swords, you see). The movie has its own epic and truly uplifting moments, even if they are handled differently from the book.

So, I think it comes as no surprise, when I say that comparing the two is a classical case of apples and oranges. They each do their thing in their own way, struggling with the limitations of each media (naturally, books have it much easier in that regard). I enjoy both and will continue to do so, I anticipate I will enjoy The Hobbit adaptation as well...even if it looks stranger than the LOTR films.

*puts flamesuit on* Now what about a Silmarillion movie? That would be epic.

As mentioned in other posts I also felt that FotR was the best of the three. Arguably it's also the easiest to film as the story is straightforward - go from one place to another with a full group.

When I watched at the opening gala I was extremely enthusiastic - the beginning 10 minutes had me hooked. Jacksons way of adding a realistic feel to the battle with Sauron and showing how Isildur managed to cut the ring off Saurons hand was awesome. From there on I was happy as a clam. Yes there were changes from the book - I expected no less but all in all, it was handled well and didn't leave anything out that would prevent understanding the story.

I only had one gripe really with FotR - the "Nobody tosses a dwarf" remark from Gimli in Mordor during the chase. Yes it was fun in a way but there I am, totally in middle earth, engrossed in the story and action and all of a sudden, I was yanked out of the third age and into the 21st century by this reference. It only lasted half a second and I was back again, so I let it go.

Unfortunately the filmmakers noticed that it got a laugh.

A year later, equally exited, I entered to watch tTT - an equally impressive start and then.....after 5 minutes I was shifting in my seat and once the movie was over I went away with a felling of something being very wrong. I surmised that it had to be me - I must just have had an off day. So went again a couple of days later and ended up with the same feeling. I gave it one last try, same result.

Next year I went and saw RotK - I was not exited at all and I did not enjoy the experience. I found it uninteresting.

I applaud the effort - a massive amount of work went into this but I feel the creators ran out of steam too quickly and the final 2 films suffered for it. They lost faith in the story Tolkien wrote and thought they had to change things to make it interesting but the opposite effect was the result. For those of you who can stand to read such things, here are my main gripes.

FotR - Dwarf tossing. Only thing so a+.

tTT
Gimli - made into comic relief with completely unfunny jokes.
1: The Trio chasing orcs - Gimli huffing and puffing "I'm more of a sprinter" type jokes. Here is how it should have been done:
Scene: Plains of Rohan. Legolas comes running into the frame, stops and put his hand over his eyes to start scouting - give the ladies 5-7 seconds to enjoy his looks. Aragorn comes in next - they look at each other, Legolas resumes scouting and Aragorn checks out the tracks and puts his head to the ground. Camera pans around the two and in the background there is a little whisp of smoke. It seems to be moving towards them.
Aragorn and Legolas start discussing the tracks and the signs - they are taking the hobbits to Isengard. While they talk, suddenly Gimli comes running towards them, shouting "Why are we stopping? Had enough? What way are we going - can't stop now!" Legolas points as he an Aragorn exchanges a smiler and Gimli runs off in that general direction.

Dwarfes tunnel through mountains - they are as tough as they come. Can't run as fast as the long legged folk of course, but they can keep going forever.

That would have been fun and relevant. What we got was a cheesy, predictable "Huff, puff - I am exhausted" line from a Dwarf who are never exhausted.

2: Aragorn physically laying a hand on king Theodred on the steps of his throne hall while tons of guards look on, doing nothing. Aragorn physically assaults the king in front of his own throne hall - he would have been dead, pierced by thousands of arrows even before he got into reach. Then he follows it up with "Let there be no more killing!" What are you talking about? You are heading into war and there will be thousands of casualties. Just made no sense at all.

3: Why change the part of the story leading up to Helms deep at all. After watching the movie I went back and reread the book and I could see no reason at all why the warg rider scene and the cliff topple of Aragorn was put in place of the story in the book. Again, no sense at all in why this was done.

4: More dwarf tossing at helms deep - didnt matter too much then, I was already lost and uninterested.

5: Legolas: "He was twitching" Gimli: "Of course - he has my axe embedded in his central nervous system"
Wow - 21st century medial terms used in the third age. Didn't know Gimli had a degree in human anatomy.

And why cut back and forth all the time between Frodo/Sam and the trio? This completely disconnected you from building up any form of tension - huge mistake and lapse of judgement in my opinion.

Frodo/Sam - not much wrong there other than the Sam actor not being particularly good. Frodo was spot on. I also initially thought that Faramir was presented inadequately but a few friends who had not read the books gave me their impression of him and it was pretty much spot on - and if they got the right impression, it was done OK.

I did try to watch the extended edition but I won't even begin to list my gripes with that one.

RofK

Too many things did not work so I won't list it all here. Just one missed opportunity. The Mumakill mastodonts. The description in the books is a lot closer to a huge african elefant and I thought that was very neat. Here we are in a fantasy setting with Orcs and trolls and Wargs and Wizard and Ents and all of a sudden this huge grey beast comes trampling in, scaring the living daylights out of our main characters, while we, the spectators are amused as this is just a normal, if huge, elefant.

And finally - the scouring of the Shire omission. Would it have made the movie too long? Not if one the filmmakers had decided not to repeat 45m of battle scenes we have already seen in tTT and the initial Sauron battle in FotR.
The return to the Shire is the point of the entire trilogy - bringing the ring to mount Doom was easy. No decisions to make, nothing to agonise over - it's go there, get it done or it's the end of the world. No room for doubt or indecision.

When the hobbits return to the Shire and find that their beautiful little corner of the world has been turned into a fascist dictatorship, ruled by fear - they have to decide on how to set things right. No ring to destroy - no simple fix here. It's buckle up and decide to fight for what is right. Even Gandalf tells them so before they return. On the way back Frodo has a feeling that not everything is right in the Shire and asks Gandalf if he could come along. Gandalf replies (Parahrasing here) "No, I have other and better things to do. You need to learn to take care of yourself and your own problems - why do you think I brought you on this little trip?"

When I saw FotR I was really happy as it looked like the filmmakers understood the books and what they were trying to do. Omitting the scouring of the Shire showed that they - as so many others, never had a clue as to why the books are so popular and so good. The books are not particularly well written, they are not particularly well structured, they are not particularly exciting and break most all the so called conventions of how to put together a good story. What the books do is tell a story about real good and evil - what these things are and what they mean and what it requires of you to be either. It is not something one can explain in a few sentences but read the books and contemplate the behaviour of the fellowship - how they behave towards each other. Watch Gollum slowly realise this as well as he observes Sam and Frodo.

The purpose of the books - the reason for telling this story - was almost lost in the films. Luckily the best bit of merchandising for the film is the book and one can only hope that the movies resulted a lot of new readers that can slowly learn to enjoy and appreciate what good and evil really is and choose between them of their own free will.

Oops - forgot to add a couple of huge positives Both from FotR.

1: The Gandalf - Saruman fight in Orthanc. Amazing stuff.
2: The escape from Orthanc. Gandalf catches a moth with his hand. He opens his hand and then asks the moth to bring help. He doesn't keep the hand closed while he asks. He opens his hand allowing the moth to fly if it wants to and then asks for help - that was an extremely good touch.

No surprise that a Hollywood adaptation is loaded with Hollywood schmaltz. Par for the course. Overall I think Jackson's movies were good enough for what they were, although I will always find the books infinitely superior in every conceivable way. Truth be told, even when it comes to films I prefer Bakshi's version. It's just a shame he never got to make part two.

Bakshi's version - completely forgot about that one. Went to the cinema when I was a teen to see that one. There was an animated film that took over but not done by Bakshi - can't find anything on IMDB though.....

Originally Posted by Jmannseelo

No surprise that a Hollywood adaptation is loaded with Hollywood schmaltz. Par for the course. Overall I think Jackson's movies were good enough for what they were, although I will always find the books infinitely superior in every conceivable way. Truth be told, even when it comes to films I prefer Bakshi's version. It's just a shame he never got to make part two.

Though in the case of Lotr, it was almost entirely made in New Zealand, not Hollywood. Hobbit is being made almost entirely in NZ as well, though with Warner Brothers being in charge, I'm not sure how much Hollywood influences we will see this time. But I've heard spoiler rumours that point in that direction.

Originally Posted by Torweld

I suppose there isn't really a significant female role before Lorien and later Rohan, but Eowyn is such a strong heroic role in the books... it is a pity she didn't get more attention in the movies.

I think the amount of screen-time she gets pretty much reflects how much she features in the book.

Originally Posted by Lindaelle

Though in the case of Lotr, it was almost entirely made in New Zealand, not Hollywood.

Well yes, but it's still very much in the "Hollywood Blockbuster" tradition. Huge, sweeping popcorn movie trilogy, focus on action and romance over sophisticated plotting, complete with an extra helping of cheese...I don't think anybody would mistake it for a small foreign film. Which if you went in expecting a popcorn flick it pulled it off well. If you wanted something truer to the books it was bound to disappoint.

Originally Posted by IbPalle

Bakshi's version - completely forgot about that one. Went to the cinema when I was a teen to see that one. There was an animated film that took over but not done by Bakshi - can't find anything on IMDB though.....

Bakshi's film's biggest shortcoming (aside from ending unfinished) is that it is seriously abbreviated, way more than Jackson's version. There was only ever intended to be a two-movie cycle, so a lot fell by the wayside. Despite that, I think it holds MUCH truer to the spirit of the books.

I'll be honest, I haven't seen the 1980 Rankin Bass version of The Return of the King for a long time. I remember it being a lot cutsier than the Bakshi film.....pretty much like the animated Hobbit movie. If I'm not mistaken, that was a Rankin Bass production too.

Originally Posted by Jmannseelo

I'll be honest, I haven't seen the 1980 Rankin Bass version of The Return of the King for a long time. I remember it being a lot cutsier than the Bakshi film.....pretty much like the animated Hobbit movie. If I'm not mistaken, that was a Rankin Bass production too.

It was an abomination. The only good thing that came out of it was the orcish marching song "Where There's a Whip, There's a Way"

http://www.tolkien-music.com/songs/rankin17.html

Originally Posted by Torweld

It was an abomination. The only good thing that came out of it was the orcish marching song "Where There's a Whip, There's a Way"

http://www.tolkien-music.com/songs/rankin17.html

Yeah. I'm sure there's a good reason why I haven't seen it in ages.