The Lord of the Rings Movies

[Killersquid]

I'm probably the only guy on these forums to have NOT seen these, but I've been worried that although the movies got good ratings, they wouldn't be true to the stories (which they aren't I heard). However, for besides Eowyn not dressing as a guy and Legolas doing stupid stunts, are the movies worth watching, or has Adaptation Decay grasped it?

[Revanmal]

There's a good bit that's changed, cut out, or added, but they are indeed good movies. If you're going in expecting a faithful adaptation of the books, you'll be disappointed. But if you just want some good fantasy, they're high up there.

[VanBuren]

The Books are not made to be adapted to screen, to put it simply. Mr. Jackson did a wonderful job with what he had, given that.

[Prophaniti]

Erm... Eowyn does do the dress up as a guy routine, though I think they made it unrealistically obvious, so no one in the audience would miss it.

All in all, they're fun to watch, though to fully enjoy them, it's probably best to pretend they have nothing to do with the books, and any similarities are coincidental.

[Mr. Scaly]

The actors do their jobs brilliantly. It's not one of those films where they just don't care, you really 'feel' that Ian McKellan is Gandalf, and that Viggo is Aragorn.

[Manga Shoggoth]

I don't think citing Adaptation Decay is really fair. As movies in their own right, the LOTR films are excellent. Unless you are a real hardline fan of the books who won't counternance any changes/adaptations to the story you should enjoy them.

As has been said, the books were not intended to be filmed. This means that a number of changes have had to be made. Mosty these come down to:


The start of the story in the Shire is heavily truncated
The end of the story (The Scouring of the Shire) is almost completely cut (see comments about character changes below)
All the poetry is removed (not a bad thing)
The Old Man Willow/Tom Bombadil/Barrow Wright section has been removed (mostly not a bad thing, but see below)


The worst thing about the adaptation is that the characters are weakened. This only really marrs the story in two or three places:


Frodo in particular is weakened: The Barrow Wright scene (arguably where he first shows what he is made of) is cut; In the scene at the Ford of Rivendell it is Awren who turns and faces the Riders (in the book Frodo is on his own); Frodo abandons/fires Sam in the Mountains of Mordor.
There is no distinction between Boromir (the failed hero who redeems himself at the last) and Faramir (who is wise enough to leave the ring well alone). In the film Faramir is a bigger thug than Boromir.
The Ents are shown as insular and uninterested, and have to see the devastation caused by Sauramon before they go to war. In the book they decide to go to war at the entmoot.
Denethor is portrayed as a grumpy, selfish old man. In the book he is very different (and clearly has Gandalf's respect).


On the other hand, there are a number of things that the film does very well:


The characterisation of Gollum is - and I hate to use the word - awesome. In fact the first scene in the film where he does the Slinker and Stinker conversation threw me until I realised exactly what was going on. Then it sent shivers down my spine.
The scene lighting the beacons (which didn't appear in the book, they are only mentioned in passing, and not lit by subterfuge). Not so much for the "soaring eye" camerawork as for the fact that it clearly shows how a beacon chain works to a generation of people who probably have never heard of them.
Although a lot of people make comments about the various battle scenes, I rather enjoyed them. The rivalry between Gimli and Legolas comes across in a different way to the books.


From a personal point of view, I mostly enjoyed the films. I do think the character changes were unnecessary (the story is really about how the Hobbits develop, to the extent that they can come back and throw Saruman out of the Shire at the end of the book), but even with my gripes I can acknowledge that Jackson pulled of a hugely difficult adaptation, and the actors took the parts and ran with them.

The LOTR films could have so easily become another Dune. They didn't.

[nagora]

I'm probably the only guy on these forums to have NOT seen these, but I've been worried that although the movies got good ratings, they wouldn't be true to the stories (which they aren't I heard). However, for besides Eowyn not dressing as a guy and Legolas doing stupid stunts, are the movies worth watching, or has Adaptation Decay grasped it?
Not worth paying money to see. I never bothered with the third one because the first two were so bad.

As adaptions they're poor and were clearly written by someone who did not understand or care about the story (I don't think Jackson had actualy read the book when he started), but as stand-alone movies they are simply dire; Peter Jackson simply can't direct. It's just painfully embarrassing at times.

Fantastic set and costume design, however. Basically everyone in the project did a great job except the two most important ones: the writer(s) and director.

[Storm Bringer]

well, as the above posts shows, ask a question on the internet and you will get every viewpoint on subject.

personally, I thoughly enjoyed them. As mentioned above, Eowyn does dress as a man, but it's made clear to the viewer that it is Eowyn (only the characters are fooled). Legolas stunts......In the first flim, they weren't that bad. they required inhuman dexterity and skill, but then legolas HAS inhuman dexterity and skill. It's only in the sexcond and third flims they cross the line between 'cool' and 'Immersion-breaking' (Seriously, i as in tears with laughter when he did that trick with the shield at helms deep).

yes, the plot is played around with a fair bit, but most of the changes i can aggree with the reasoning (and particually when i hear some of the ideas they nearly went with. They almost had sauron himself turn up to fight at the Battle of the Black Gate.). I'll admit that I don't like all the changes (the ents being so dumb, the elves @ helms deep, and how they handled the army of the dead.), but that's life.

If you can get access to a copy of the Fellowship without having to cough up (ie. borrow it off a mate or something), then I'd suggest doing so and finding out wehter you like it or not. The Fellowship is arugeably the closest to the books (In the scenes you see, at any rate. Almost all the trip to Bree is left out), and is also the lowest key of them, in that the action scenes are much more....how can i put this? less fantastic. The major fight scene is in Moria, agianst maybe 30 or so goblins. It feels like a low level DND encounter, with little in the way of flashy magic or inhuman tricks (legolas vs troll excluded).

I think Prophaniti hit the nail on the head: Treat it as a generic fanatsy flim and you'll be sorted. If you watch it expecting a line for line copy of the book, then don't bother, because it isn't

[Dallas-Dakota]

Peter Jackson should be killed for leaving out Tom Bombadil and various scenes.

The actors were all great. They alone make it worth it.
It's a great work with what they got, but the book was not written so that it could be properly made into a movie. It was ment as a book.

I'd reccomend watching it.
*plans to go to australia and new zealand*
*visit Ink and kill Peter Jackson after that*

[Austran]

Watch the extended version. Although the three movies together have about a twelve hours duration, it's much better. The Faramir part get much better, he no more look like a thug or something, but is very similar to the Faramir in the books.


I'll admit that I don't like all the changes (the ents being so dumb, the elves @ helms deep, and how they handled the army of the dead.), but that's life.


The ents are not dumb, just slow.
I agree with you about the elves at Helm's Deep, they had no real reason for being there.
About the Army of the Dead, it was fun, at least. But they could made it differently.

[nagora]

I agree with you about the elves at Helm's Deep, they had no real reason for being there.

It always amazes me that people get worked up about some elves being at Helm's Deep. This is a film of Lord of the Rings where Frodo shows a Nazgul that he has the ring and the Nazgul just flies away and Mordor doesn't EMPTY onto Osgiliath, and people are bothered about a troop of elves that just happened to be near Helms Deep and decided to help!? That's pretty small beer compared to the rest of the movies, which include a bit where the Balrog rescues the Fellowship from certain death and dozens of other terrible, terrible scenes.

These are really bad movies, whether you regard them as generic fantasy or adaptions/mangling of a source book.

[Turcano]

I only watched The Fellowship of the Ring, disliked it intensely, and gave the last two a miss. This dim view of the films is due to the fact that they are a piss-weak adaptation, but if you care about The Lord of the Rings on the same level that I care about, say, the Wheel of Time series, you'd might as well give it a shot.

[Spiryt]

Myself, I rather enjoyed The Fellowship and The Two towers, althought Return was indeed really poorly written, with way too many dumb ideas.

[factotum]

That's pretty small beer compared to the rest of the movies, which include a bit where the Balrog rescues the Fellowship from certain death and dozens of other terrible, terrible scenes.


Dozens of other terrible scenes that apparently don't exist outside your imagination--the Balrog saving the Fellowship from certain death? Were you even watching the same film I was?

[nagora]

Dozens of other terrible scenes that apparently don't exist outside your imagination--the Balrog saving the Fellowship from certain death? Were you even watching the same film I was?

Yes, you remember when they were surrounded by, well, by whatever those things in Moria were supposed to be? Everyone was looking really worried as even the walls vanished under the mass of bodies. Then the Balrog appears and everyone's saved because all the nasties run away! Hooray for the Balrog, who then gets lost on the way to the scene on the stairs. Well, I say "lost", but he probably just didn't want to be involved with that piece of **** on the stairs. Even balrogs have standards, you know. Garbage writing at its finest.

If I hadn't been at the cinema with my girlfriend who needed a lift home, I would have walked out at that point. The rest of the audience seemed fairly unimpressed as well.

[SmartAlec]

On Tom Bombadil: Jackson has been quoted as saying he left out Bombadil for a very simple reason - he didn't think he could get him right. Which is fair enough, I guess.

On the Elves at Helm's Deep: The original draft of the script had Arwen arriving at Helm's Deep bearing Anduril, with a detachment of fighting Elves. Those scenes were shot, but then the idea of having Anduril in Two Towers was dropped and it was saved for the movie where it'd have the most significance, Return of the King. It would have been very costly to re-shoot the Helm's Deep scenes, however, so the inclusion of Elves is basically trying to use the existing footage.

On Faramir: To be fair, Faramir's not quite as bad as his brother. He's shown to be susceptible to the Ring's power just like his brother, but whereas Boromir was insistent that he should take it, Faramir is instead insistent that it should go to his father. That captures the main difference between them, in the books; Faramir wants Gondor to be saved, whereas Boromir wants to save Gondor.

On Denethor: Not as bad as people claim if you bear in mind three things. One, he's mad; unhinged by the loss of his son, in whom he'd placed all his hope. Two, he hates Gandalf for getting Boromir killed on some crazy journey, and doesn't want to even look at him. Three, he's lost all motivation to fight; the extended edition makes it clear that he believes victory is impossible, and he's too proud to lose. Denethor is heavily contrasted against Theoden, who is in a similar position and likewise believes that victory is impossible, but he fights to the last nevertheless.

On the Scouring of the Shire: Although missing, the themes in the Scouring (the danger of complacency, the pernicious nature of evil, and renewal) are sufficiently touched-on in other scenes. Not only that, but the lack of the Scouring instead allows Jackson to fit in a few scenes of the four Hobbits coming back to an unchanged Shire, and having no words to explain to the people there of what they've been through and what has happened in the world. The image I had was of soldiers coming home from war and finding it had changed them, and I am of the opinion that Tolkien would have approved of that, at least.

Frodo does seem weaker, but the dreadful nature of the Ring hanging round his neck is made graphically clear. Sam, on the other hand, comes across as a complete Badass, and this certainly matches with Tolkien's assertion in his Letters - that Sam is the real hero in Lord of the Rings.

I'm a big fan of the books, and in my opinion the movies are probably the best we could have hoped for.

[nagora]

On the Scouring of the Shire: Although missing, the themes in the Scouring (the danger of complacency, the pernicious nature of evil, and renewal) are sufficiently touched-on in other scenes. Not only that, but the lack of the Scouring instead allows Jackson to fit in a few scenes of the four Hobbits coming back to an unchanged Shire, and having no words to explain to the people there of what they've been through and what has happened in the world. The image I had was of soldiers coming home from war and finding it had changed them, and I am of the opinion that Tolkien would have approved of that, at least.
I agree, although I couldn't stomach the idea of watching another of Jackson's awful scripts. The Scouring is very hard to put into a movie because of the "two endings" issues but if they did manage to get that feeling across then I'd say that was well done. I just find it hard to believe that they managed it after the first two movies which were devoid of subtlety.

[Dallas-Dakota]

I cling to my oppinion : Peter Jackson and the script writers screwed it up and the actors tried to make the best of it.

[Ditto]

Everyone ran away when the Balrog showed up, sure, but that's because mooks said, "OMGWTFBBQ overkill! Run for your lives, he's gonna massacre them!" The Balrog then tried to burninate the Fellowship and snagged Gandalf.

Eowyn was battleclad and such, but they avoided making her get-up excessively swaddling and manly because it would have been more confusing than it was worth to Viewers Like You in the audience. You see that in tons of movies with crossdressing, when you get down to it - if you were looking at the guy/girl, there's no way you wouldn't immediately say, "Look! You're not a guy/girl!"

The thing that pissed me off most was Arwen having ANY roll in the plot. Her involvment in the books, as I recall, goes something like this:
FOTR - Elrond: Hey, look over there, that'd my daughter Arwen.
TTT - Arwen: Hi, I'm Arwen.
ROTK - Arwen: Remember me? Marry me.
Instead, she gets to rouse the waterhorses after saving Frodo from the Riders, waste several scenes USTing after Aragorn, and spending a truly retarded half-hour dream sequence waking Aragorn up after the fall from the warg fight. Ridiculous. Just play nice like Hugo Weave/Elrond and take your minor role as written, Liv Tyler. :smalltongue:

The movies are quite faithful to the central plot of the trilogy. There are side branches chopped off and some significant (but not Middle-earth-shattering) details changed, but if you're like, "Hey, how can I learn about LOTR in 8-12 hours without speedreading the books?", I'd hardly say "Y'know, give these movies a pass and learn to speedread, they suck." :smallsmile:

[DomaDoma]

The main problem deviation in the movies - worse than the Faramir thing - is that Saruman is no longer an independent party and is basically Sauron's western franchise. (Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire were better left out, frankly.) That said, the movies are still breathtaking. The Rohan part of Two Towers, in my opinion, was infinitely better than it was in the books, where I quit the series the first time through and only dragged myself through the second time by telling myself the first chapter in part two was called "The Taming of Smeagol." Whereas in the movie, I wept when the wind ripped the banner away.

[Manga Shoggoth]

On Tom Bombadil: Jackson has been quoted as saying he left out Bombadil for a very simple reason - he didn't think he could get him right. Which is fair enough, I guess.

As a matter of fact, I cannot think of a single cut (as opposed to change) from the first film that I didn't agree with - even though my reasons would differ from Jackson's.

Tom Bombadil's part is mostly poetry (although there are several other interesting elements to the character that could be emphasised instead). If he goes, then the Old Man Willow and Barrow Wight scenes have to go as well.

The first book is really too large for a sensible film to cover everything, and the best parts to remove are the Shire sequences, which mostly exist to give the backstory and to develop the characters of the Hobbits. It's all good stuff, but not vital to the overall story.


On Faramir: To be fair, Faramir's not quite as bad as his brother. He's shown to be susceptible to the Ring's power just like his brother, but whereas Boromir was insistent that he should take it, Faramir is instead insistent that it should go to his father. That captures the main difference between them, in the books; Faramir wants Gondor to be saved, whereas Boromir wants to save Gondor.

Fair comments - I didn't interpret the film that way. However, in the book Faramir doesn't even want to deal with the ring. He sends Sam and Frodo (and Gollum) on their way almost immediately, and in the short period he has them, treats them honourably. In the film he takes them prisoner and drags them across half the country before releasing them after the destruction of Minas Trith. This what makes him come across as an equal or bigger thug than his brother.


On Denethor: Not as bad as people claim if you bear in mind three things. One, he's mad; unhinged by the loss of his son, in whom he'd placed all his hope. Two, he hates Gandalf for getting Boromir killed on some crazy journey, and doesn't want to even look at him. Three, he's lost all motivation to fight; the extended edition makes it clear that he believes victory is impossible, and he's too proud to lose. Denethor is heavily contrasted against Theoden, who is in a similar position and likewise believes that victory is impossible, but he fights to the last nevertheless.

Very true. However in the book he treats Pippin very well (one might say kindly), rather than treating him like a servant. It shows up in the book as one of his redeeming features.


On the Scouring of the Shire: Although missing, the themes in the Scouring (the danger of complacency, the pernicious nature of evil, and renewal) are sufficiently touched-on in other scenes. Not only that, but the lack of the Scouring instead allows Jackson to fit in a few scenes of the four Hobbits coming back to an unchanged Shire, and having no words to explain to the people there of what they've been through and what has happened in the world. The image I had was of soldiers coming home from war and finding it had changed them, and I am of the opinion that Tolkien would have approved of that, at least.

Considering the period that much of the story was written, I would have to agree. Given the limitations, the ending of ROTH was handled very well.


Frodo does seem weaker, but the dreadful nature of the Ring hanging round his neck is made graphically clear. Sam, on the other hand, comes across as a complete Badass, and this certainly matches with Tolkien's assertion in his Letters - that Sam is the real hero in Lord of the Rings.

Are we talking about the Sam who:

Makes his way into a high-level strategy meeting in Rivendell
Challenges Faramir
Single-handedly storms an Orc tower (admittedly with the One Ring)


He's pretty badass in the book... But yes, he is good in the film.


I'm a big fan of the books, and in my opinion the movies are probably the best we could have hoped for.

The adaptation could have been better. On the other hand, it could have been a whole lot worse. As I said, it could have been another Dune, but avoided it.


Yes, you remember when they were surrounded by, well, by whatever those things in Moria were supposed to be? Everyone was looking really worried as even the walls vanished under the mass of bodies. Then the Balrog appears and everyone's saved because all the nasties run away! Hooray for the Balrog, who then gets lost on the way to the scene on the stairs. Well, I say "lost", but he probably just didn't want to be involved with that piece of **** on the stairs. Even balrogs have standards, you know. Garbage writing at its finest.

Interesting. This scene showed me how **** dangerous Tolkien orcs and goblins were on their hoime ground (not very high stats, but an awful lot of them...).

And the Balrog didn't get lost - he ended up in a huge fight with Gandalf, ending with both of them going over the edge. What? You didn't notice that one of the major characters had disappeared from the story?


The thing that pissed me off most was Arwen having ANY roll in the plot. Her involvment in the books, as I recall, goes something like this:
FOTR - Elrond: Hey, look over there, that'd my daughter Arwen.
TTT - Arwen: Hi, I'm Arwen.
ROTK - Arwen: Remember me? Marry me.
Instead, she gets to rouse the waterhorses after saving Frodo from the Riders, waste several scenes USTing after Aragorn, and spending a truly retarded half-hour dream sequence waking Aragorn up after the fall from the warg fight. Ridiculous.

Unfortunately, LORT is pretty much a "women stay at home" sort of story, (which is in part why Eowyn ends up in drag). Putting Arwen the position played by Glorfindel (in the book) and Legolas (in the animated adaptation) is a good compromise to modern sensibilities. Although I agree that having her save Frodo from the riders ruined that scene for me.

Good grief! I am being unusually active on the boards today. Must be a slow day at work...

[pendell]

I am a lifelong Tolkien fan. I have read all the books. Yes, including the silmarillion. Yes, even the ones Chris Tolkien shipped after his father's death that are only *about* the books.

And I loved the LOTR movies.

Are they too darn long? HELL yes. Did they cut some scenes which were not important to the plot? Yes. Did they gut the scouring of the shire? Yes. Did all of the characters get taken down a peg or two in the nobility scale, so they aren't quite as heroic as they were in the books? Yes.

Even so. This is as good as it gets. This is the Best LOTR adaptation to film. Ever. You will never see its like again.

I remember the *first* game attempt at LOTR adaptation By Mr. Bakshi (http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm). This was in the days before computer graphics, and everything was done with hand animation and rotoscoping. They tried to tell the entire story in 90 minutes. I was 8 years old at the time, and I thought they needed a six hour movie to really do the story justice.

Peter Jackson took 12.

He remained true to the letter and spirit of the stories -- unlike, say Starship Troopers, where the director deliberately subverted and parodied the point the original author was trying to make. Peter Jackson allowed Tolkien's thought and what he was trying to communicate to remain intact. He did a marvelous job of communicating Tolkien's vision, even if he didn't necessarily see the world his way. To a high degree He told *Tolkien's* story, not his own.

Those bits he cut for the most part I agree with. Yes, Bombadil was cut. But it's already a 12 hour movie, and the budget isn't infinite. I also agree with his decision to cut some of the minor characters and make the stars (such as Liv Tyler) carry more of the load -- this is film, not books, and the fewer people you have to pay speaking lines bucks too, the better.

And I think he did a better job of establishing male-female relationships than Tolkien did. The books are a guy's story straight out, with the occasional appearance of a woman as a cardboard picture on the sidelines. Arwen's appearance as the woman Aragorn will marry is more or less out of nowhere. I think Peter Jackson did a better job of *establishing* the characters and the romance.

So I highly recommend the films. I have all three at home , where they occupy a prominent place on my shelf. My suggestion is to rent 'em or beg 'em off a friend and see 'em for yourself once. If you like 'em well enough, then you can think about buying 'em.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Oslecamo]

The LOTR are a set of massive books, each roughly half a kilo of pages.

Peter Jackson would have needed three movies for each book to put all the story.

Anyway, I say he has done a wonderfull job with what he had at hand.

Personally, the first film would be the best, TTT the worst(but still very good), and TRK is worth mainly for the awesome massive battles, since indeed Faramir and his father got thier personalities somewhat choped down.

[EvilElitest]

I have to say, its worth watching once, but my problem is that i don't think they are good movies, because of PJ

Let me explain. I'm not one of those people who saw that Tom and the Barrow wights weren't there and declared it an awful film. i know they couldn't be a 100% accurate, i just wanted them to be accurate as much as is logically possible. Now here is my beef, PJ often wasted time with unneeded scenes that we didn't need in the least instead of focusing on proper editing. He really is a bad editor, and it hurts the films

Now i have to say, the landscape and the props are really really really good. I mean really good. I think weta did an amazing job with the props. I like how they went with the whole realistic weapons and armor style, instead of absurd fantasy stuff, they really did hte monsters make up well, and in terms of visuals i really liked it. The props are actually extremly good, and the monster/ land design


My Favorite film was the fellowhsip. I think that was the beast done, the most interesting fight scenes.

however in Two towers, we wasted time. The massive amount of time utterly wasted with Arwin, Eowyn, Aragon love crap was just absurd, we could have had the Giant Spider in the second movie (and some actual suspense, because Frodos "death" and rescue was so much better in the book because there was time between two books to wonder what will happen, while in the movie it was just a quick feeling of "eh, oh wait he isn't dead"

the third movie suffered because the second wasted time. We just spent the entire time cutting from one place to another again and again and again, i mean it was like 3 mins for each different place. Really bad quality, because nothing really had any time, and the siege felt really forced in effort. It was just the editing
from
EE

[Dallas-Dakota]

Peter Jackson would have needed three movies for each book to put all the story.

Except for maybe a lack of funding, what would the problem be with that?

[Prophaniti]

Some good points and opinions all around. As you can see, veiw of the movies can vary widely, which is why I would suggest seeing them for yourself. Although you may want to just borrow or rent them for the first time.

Honestly, all the cuts, alterations, and adaptations do kinda bug me, but as I said earlier I do understand why they were done. Movies are not the same kind of media as books, and it is difficult to convey the same things in the same manner.

There is, however, one thing I did not touch on earlier due to lack of time. A change that quite simply and completely breaks the movie.

The *explitive deleted* pansy coward they made out of Frodo. The movies (on days that I just can't overlook this) end for me at Weathertop, not even halfway through the first film. It's quite simple. In the book, the wraith king went to stab Frodo, aiming for the heart and with the intent of turning him instantly into a wraith and taking him to Mordor. In the book, he misses because Frodo finds his courage and attacks - something the king did not expect from one so small, when veteran human and elven soldiers cower in fear at his presence. Thus, he strikes Frodo in the shoulder, and the race to Rivendell and a cure ensues.

In the movie, however, the scene ends as soon as Frodo drops his sword, wets himself, and cowers in a little heap. The wraith, at that point, has no reason to miss, no excuse for not stabbing him clean through the heart and ending the movie right there. Except, of course, that it would end the movie right there.

This is followed by scene after scene where the writers and director apparently forgot that Frodo is supposed to have strength of character and, for god's sake, a bit of courage. The second most egregious example is, as nagora points out, the scene in TT where he is in Osgiliath (a change that bugs me all by itself, for those who don't know, Faramir let him go in the wilds), standing on a bridge, waving the bloody ring right in the Nazgul's face.

This is the problem with the films that I have the most trouble ignoring, and is singlehandedly the issue that stops me from declaring them outstanding films and decent adaptations of a great work. But, hey, if that doesn't bother you so much, I'm sure you'll enjoy them.

[Spiryt]

I agree with EvilElitest, Shelob was completely screwed, what's more, whole Cirith Ungol episode was completely screwed. It had nothing from the book suspense, and Shelob was just some Damn Stereotypical Fantasy Spider.

Those movies just gone gradually worse, from fairly good Fellowship into rather crappy Return of the King.

[WalkingTarget]

Something that hasn't really been brought up yet is that the films really tries to hammer home the "men are weak" theme.

Aragorn is full of doubts throughout the films and keeps harping on about how he doesn't want to claim his birthright because he's worried about failing like Isildur did. This is related to the facts that they changed his relationship with the Sword That Was Broken in that it's been enshrined in Rivendell instead of being his personal token of his ancestry and symbol of his nobility and with the removal of his kingship being the prerequisite to his marrying Arwen. In the books he had doubts as to the correct course of action in the short term (go with Frodo to Mordor vs. going to the aid of Minas Tirith for example), but his major goals were always there in front of him.

Faramir is improved in the extended version of the films, but is still a fair bit short of his book equivalent.

Denethor isn't given any redeeming qualities whatsoever in the films and even the extended cut doesn't include any mention of the palantir or any reason why he thinks it's hopeless other than the wounding of Faramir.

I guess it's just that they removed almost every shred of the Nobility of Men that they could. Boromir's redemption was very well done, in my opinion, and Theoden gets to shine through occasionally but most of it has been stripped away.

[Ossian]

Some good points and opinions all around. As you can see, veiw of the movies can vary widely, which is why I would suggest seeing them for yourself. Although you may want to just borrow or rent them for the first time.

Honestly, all the cuts, alterations, and adaptations do kinda bug me, but as I said earlier I do understand why they were done. Movies are not the same kind of media as books, and it is difficult to convey the same things in the same manner.

There is, however, one thing I did not touch on earlier due to lack of time. A change that quite simply and completely breaks the movie.

The *explitive deleted* pansy coward they made out of Frodo. The movies (on days that I just can't overlook this) end for me at Weathertop, not even halfway through the first film. It's quite simple. In the book, the wraith king went to stab Frodo, aiming for the heart and with the intent of turning him instantly into a wraith and taking him to Mordor. In the book, he misses because Frodo finds his courage and attacks - something the king did not expect from one so small, when veteran human and elven soldiers cower in fear at his presence. Thus, he strikes Frodo in the shoulder, and the race to Rivendell and a cure ensues..

Quote and agree, although partially. I am your brother, prohaniti, for all the devastation unleashed on Faramir (my absolute favourite in the book) and the bloody ring waiving in the Nazgul's face thing. It outraged me to no end.

What got me past those scenes was the fact that the girl next to me also sported "two towers" and a tank top. As much as this image will be perceived as vile and make the playgrounders gag for hours, it saved my sanity. Twice.
The shoulder stabbing is a bit nitpicking though. Still, have to agree on the weaker Frodo. In the books Frodo proves you don't have to be a shiny mail coated wise elf lord to defeat evil, but all the contrary (the Professor's point, basically). In the movies, the spotlight has to go more to a hot chick or a badass ranger.

Plus, the elfs at the helms deep are ridiculous. besides, the rohirrim (my favorite human race) fight like wusses there, and look like they are hopeless and desperate. But then again, screenplay reasons. Add more fleeing peasants and refugees in rags to add drama to the invasion of the dunmen and orcs, I guess.


Good Points (movie-pace wise)

Replace Glorfindel with Arwen: not only this gives a chance for a bunch of interludes and to hint a little bit better at the troubled love story between her and Aragorn. It replaces a character who would have been quite insignificant (the way PJ depicted male elves), namely Glorfindel, as opposed to a creature of truly amazing beauty (Liv Työler is an elf without even having to wear make up). Glorfindel, IMHO, is the "Super Sayan of Middle Earth". Thousands of years old Vanyar Elf of unfathomable valour. No point in using him as "just another volcanian like Haldir". Plus, the way she invokes the waters of the river is just awesome.

The "battle speach" (very few words actually) by Theoden, at the Pelennor. MAKES.ME.SHIVER. I mean, the whole charge sequence, and the way it is announced like in the books by that horn at sunrise.

Boromir's final moments. I cried in the book (was 12) and the way it was done brought back memories. Cried again.

Sam: awesome. My personal hero (also, the cheif of the goonies CANNOT look bad in whichever role he plays)

Galadriel: royalty. Literally. I wish she was the queen of somewhere (Cate Blanchett) so I could apply for the citizenship there and be her servant.

Pippin's song to Denethor (who was well portrayed, but quite unfaithful to a lot deeper character in the books). Although Faramir's charge is just dumb, the sequence works well.

The Beacons' sequence. AWESOME. BEYOND.WORDS. Again, Tolkien's and not PJ's credit. The scene was awesome to begin with, so it was sort of easy to render. Still, well done. The "re-kindling of hope" makes me want to cry (again, I cry a lot in this book). Gondor calls for help! (aragorn) And Rohan will answer! (Theoden). Beautiful...

[nagora]

And the Balrog didn't get lost - he ended up in a huge fight with Gandalf, ending with both of them going over the edge. What? You didn't notice that one of the major characters had disappeared from the story?
It was right behind them and walking through stone walls like they were paper, then suddenly he's disappeared long enough for all that tedious buffonery on the stairs. Maybe he was having a sneaky smoke or something.


Considering the period that much of the story was written, I would have to agree. Given the limitations, the ending of ROTH was handled very well.
What do you mean about the period the story was written in?

As to Arwin: she was inevitable given the period the movies were made in, and could have been far worse. Compared to the treatment of Elrond ("I've waited to see Sauron overthrown for thousands of years. Now we have a chance. Oh, GOD, I'm so depressed - that's it, we're leaving!"), Arwin is a breath of fresh air. At least she wasn't added to the Fellowship, which I'm sure some marketing Merry Andrew must have suggested at some point!

[Steven the Lich]

I say the movies were awesome. I think the Ring Wraiths were well done, Battle Scenes were good, characters were well desgined (Grumush or whats his name moving out of the way of a giant rock and then spitting on it), and the music is classic.

As for accuracy... Well, you can't say that Peter Jackson didn't try, because I believe he attempted to be as accurate to the book as possible, only cutting out difficult content (Such as Tom Bombadil). And if you ask me, there are a few pieces where he out done Tolkien himself (Like Frodo actually crying when Gandalf fell, being in shock and all that). He also used some scene from an earlier version of a LotRs movie and redone it, and actually made it better than the original one.

I say that it was a classic, and while it couldn't keep to the book as some people, Peter Jackson tried keeping it there where he could.

Oh, and I don't see why cutting Tom Bombadil out was such a bad call, he didn't have that much of an effect on the story.

[Prophaniti]

Oh, I just gotta say, if any of you have not seen it yet, check out DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?cat=14). Hi-freakin-larious, he uses screen caps from the movie and tells the story like its a group going through someone's campaign. Great stuff. I especially like this one (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1148), which is to me, the only explanation for the way they handled Anduril in the films. "Sweet Smoking Conan!" oh, man, get's me laughing every time I read it.

EDIT: Ok, I can't read this at work anymore. It's too hard to hold the laughter in, despite this being the third time I've been through them. "I took the feat Improved Hating This Campaign." "I'll just roll my saving throw vs. ridiculous contrivances." This stuff is pure win.

[DraPrime]

Oh, and I don't see why cutting Tom Bombadil out was such a bad call, he didn't have that much of an effect on the story.

I have to agree here. Tom Bombadil only showed up when they were going to Bree. He never really did much besides saving the hobbits from an evil tree. But in the end, I really don't see what he brought to the story.

[Manga Shoggoth]

What do you mean about the period the story was written in?

Much of the story was written during WW2, and was sent to Christopher Tolkien as a serial. Tolkein himself was involved in WW1.

[SmartAlec]

Aragorn is full of doubts throughout the films and keeps harping on about how he doesn't want to claim his birthright because he's worried about failing like Isildur did. This is related to the facts that they changed his relationship with the Sword That Was Broken in that it's been enshrined in Rivendell instead of being his personal token of his ancestry and symbol of his nobility and with the removal of his kingship being the prerequisite to his marrying Arwen. In the books he had doubts as to the correct course of action in the short term (go with Frodo to Mordor vs. going to the aid of Minas Tirith for example), but his major goals were always there in front of him.

Aragorn's a tricky case, in that most of his character development, his 'arc' if you like, happens 50 years before the book is set. He does go through the period of doubt, the years of wanderings that make him into the grizzled survivor that he is, and eventually he comes round to the idea that he has to face up to what he has to do.

As a result, in the book, he's indefatigable and singular of purpose. Lots of people I've talked to think Aragorn is a flat, uninteresting Arthur-figure in the book, because they don't touch the Appendices. Now, the movies try to get over this by taking Aragorn's 'arc' and putting it right into the story, so that from the beginning to the end we see him move from the ranger who has his doubts to the leader of men he is at the final battle, who doesn't give up even after Gandalf has given up, and not even after everyone believes that Sauron has won.

[WalkingTarget]

Aragorn's a tricky case, in that most of his character development, his 'arc' if you like, happens 50 years before the book is set. He does go through the period of doubt, the years of wanderings that make him into the grizzled survivor that he is, and eventually he comes round to the idea that he has to face up to what he has to do.

As a result, in the book, he's indefatigable and singular of purpose. Lots of people I've talked to think Aragorn is a flat, uninteresting Arthur-figure in the book, because they don't touch the Appendices. Now, the movies try to get over this by taking Aragorn's 'arc' and putting it right into the story, so that from the beginning to the end we see him move from the ranger who has his doubts to the leader of men he is at the final battle, who doesn't give up even after Gandalf has given up, and not even after everyone believes that Sauron has won.

Yeah, I get that, but I don't think we ever really get to see him in the proper mode in the film at all. It being his idea to attack the black gates as a distraction is good, but then he "loses" the encounter with Sauron via palantir right after that; it's supposed to be Aragorn's "I'm in charge here!" moment, but it ends with him being rattled. Then they arrive at the gate (and the extended version has that distinctly ignoble ending to the Mouth of Sauron sequence) and they give the whole "will he give in to the power of the dark side" moment just before the fight starts. It works in that it adds a level of tension to the film, but it's not true to the character of the novel.

The progression is there, as you say, but the endpoint of his development is still not up to his literary equivalent. I get that the weakness of Men is played up in order to build dramatic tension, but it's still something for a fan of the books might watch out for when first watching the films.

[Bayar]

Wow, alot of LOTR movie hating...or significant dislike around here. personally, I consider them to be a work of art worth watching. And I watch them enery time they air on TV. And the extended editions are awesome.

On a side note, I read the books after watching the movies. The battle of Helms Deep is kinda short and not detailed in the books and that made me sad :smallfrown:

[Dallas-Dakota]

On the battle of helmsdeep.
It was said in the books that there was a forest with what was described as ents(or atleast huorns, wild ents) near helmsdeep, those had been entirely left out in the movie, but instead, they added elves. :smallfrown::smallconfused:



Wow, alot of LOTR movie hating...or significant dislike around here. personally, I consider them to be a work of art worth watching. And I watch them enery time they air on TV. And the extended editions are awesome.

On a side note, I read the books after watching the movies. The battle of Helms Deep is kinda short and not detailed in the books and that made me sad :smallfrown:
No, no. The movies were good, only they couldn't simply stand up to the awesome of the books.

[Prophaniti]

The Hourn forest was done in RotK, I don't recall if it's only on the extended version, since that's the only one I'll watch.

[WalkingTarget]

The Hourn forest was done in RotK, I don't recall if it's only on the extended version, since that's the only one I'll watch.

It was in TTT extended version, right around the final tally of the Gimli vs. Legolas orc-killing contest (Gimli still wins :biggrin:).

Don't get me wrong. I really like the films. I just like the book more.

[comicshorse]

It's not so much the 'weakness of men' I have a problem with in the movies but the stupidity.. It seems the orcs are winning not because there are uncounted hordes of them but because men wouldn't know tactics if they bit them on the face.
Denethor throwing away his elite in a meaningless charge.Theoden forming up in clear sight of the enemy and then just in case the orcs don't have time to get their archers in position and form a spear wall he makes a speech to give them the time. And who really thinks charging giant war mammoths head on is a good idea.
All of this fades before Faramir at Osgiliath, I really don't think repelling the orc river crossing could be done worse if you tried.
Ahem, sorry just needed to get that out of my system.

[Sir_Norbert]

Pretty much everything I could say has been said already, but what the heck.

The movies were an enjoyable waste of ten hours, but nothing more -- I wouldn't watch them again. I don't mind there being changes, and some of the changes were obvious ones (e.g. Tom Bombadil being cut; as already mentioned, he contributes nothing to the overall plot. He's only in the book because JRRT had already invented him and wanted to work him in.) What I do mind is the huge stream of gratuitous changes -- Jackson showing complete lack of respect for his source material. In essence, he thinks he can write a better story than Tolkien, and he can't, and that's where it all goes wrong. For instance, the idea of Frodo abandoning Sam as they ascend the mountains adds a bit of tension and makes Sam's part a bit more dramatic -- but it ruins the character development. Some people, and Jackson is clearly one of them, believe the main point of going to see a film is to see dramatic action. Not me. I don't deny that I enjoy dramatic action, battle sequences, gorgeous panoramas and what-have-you, but when that's all there is to a movie, it's not worth going back to.

[Killersquid]

Wow a lot of opinions and thoughts. Thanks guys! I'll probably check it out to sate my curiosity.

[nagora]

Much of the story was written during WW2, and was sent to Christopher Tolkien as a serial. Tolkein himself was involved in WW1.

Yes, I know, but you seemed to be suggesting that that caused the Scouring of the Shire to be a weak ending or something; I'm not quite sure what you meant about time period...Oh, hold on. Yeah, now I get it. Sorry, I was misreading your post.:smallredface:

[VanBuren]

It was right behind them and walking through stone walls like they were paper, then suddenly he's disappeared long enough for all that tedious buffonery on the stairs. Maybe he was having a sneaky smoke or something.

It was only right behind them in the sense that you could see the light on the walls from the flames on its body, which we have no way of knowing how far that goes.

Also, is this seriously an issue? That the Balrog was just a little slow? That
s what you have an issue with? No offense, but that's a really stupid reason.

[Mr. Scaly]

Someone mentioned something about the ents earlier (too lazy to go looking :smallwink:). I just want to say that they were the highlight of Two Towers for me. And I kind of understand why they refused to fight at first. They're tree shepherds. Their very existence is associated with nature, and nature doesn't fight. It survives. They exemplified the theme of the natural world even more so than the elves. So despite what happens in the books it makes sense for them to stand back and let the world take its toll.

Which is why Treebeard reacts so badly to the destruction of his forest. Saruman's city and his Uruk Hai are unnatural and sadistic, everything that nature isn't. Since nature is normally so easy going and random it would take a lot to really bring out its strength, which is just what happens. Every time I hear Treebeard curse Isengard and lead the ents down the hills I get a shiver up my spine. They're going to correct a blight upon their very way of life.

[EvilElitest]

now my issues with PJ's directing and editing issues aside, and the utter bastardization of elves men and dwarves, i think there are some other problems.

Now Boromir was great. he was amazing, spectacular, wonderful ect in the movie. And then Faramir was.........eh? Acting issues aside, he just had no appeal. They should have had Sean Bean play him.


Saurman suffered greatly in the ends, as his character's speech on the tower was ruined


The change in the ents was simply pointless. Like there was no point in making them pansies


The Elves at helms deep doesn't even have a justification. I mean if it was the Grey company i'd be fine, but these guys are just there


The acting is mixed, some good, some decent, some bad.



Really good actors, the guys who made exceptional performances.

Bilbo
Gandalf
Elrond
Saurman
Boromir
Lurgtz/WK/Gothmog
Gollum
Gimli
Wormtouge
Theoden gets special mention, because he isn't actually a good actor, at all. However he really really really really tried and put a lot into it, so it seemed like he was a good actor, so he gets up here for ethusasim

Good actors- These guys did a good job, nothing amazing, they all have flaws but they are still good

Frodo
Sam
Aragorn
Gladerial and other minor elves (it isn't her fault really, lack of proper screen time but still)
All the monsters
Minor characters

Decent actors, nothing bad, nothing special however
Pippin
Denethor (good actor, bad role sadly)
Eowyn

Bad
Arwin
Faramir
Eomer
Merry


Super bad
Legolas


Also i didn't like the killing of the Mouth of Sauron, it is just dishonorable
from
EE

[kamikasei]

Someone mentioned something about the ents earlier (too lazy to go looking :smallwink:). I just want to say that they were the highlight of Two Towers for me. And I kind of understand why they refused to fight at first. They're tree shepherds. Their very existence is associated with nature, and nature doesn't fight. It survives. They exemplified the theme of the natural world even more so than the elves. So despite what happens in the books it makes sense for them to stand back and let the world take its toll.

I think this exemplifies a general problem with the movies - they lack the sense of time of the books.

In the books, Saruman has been fortifying Isengard and building his army for years, or decades. He's been slowly encroaching more and more on the forest and giving less and less respect to the Ents as time goes by. Treebeard calls the Entmoot and the Ents march to the attack because they've been suffering for a long, long time.

In the movies, Saruman seems to start industrializing Isengard only after his confrontation with Gandalf. You get the feeling the Ents just hadn't had time to react to the sudden act of tearing down and burning trees. Their sudden "Oh well I hadn't realized he was burning trees, that's bad, I'd better do something about that" fails to capture the feeling the the books that they've been putting up with worse and worse behaviour and building up more and more of a grievance before it all bursts forth in a terrible fury.

[WalkingTarget]

It also gives Merry and Pippen something to do besides be luggage for the entire film (if giving Treebeard a navigation tip counts as "doing something").

[EvilElitest]

It also gives Merry and Pippen something to do besides be luggage for the entire film (if giving Treebeard a navigation tip counts as "doing something").

personally i'd rather have cooler ents than slightly less usless hobbits
from
EE

[Mr. Scaly]

So basically I was the only one who DID feel a great and terrible rage from Treebeard and his kin then.

[EvilElitest]

So basically I was the only one who DID feel a great and terrible rage from Treebeard and his kin then.

yes. you should feel ashamed and repent with chocolate.

Comic horse, could you explain in more detail
from
EE

[DraPrime]

Also i didn't like the killing of the Mouth of Sauron, it is just dishonorable
from
EE

Which is why it was a deleted scene that was only in the extended edition.

[EvilElitest]

Which is why it was a deleted scene that was only in the extended edition.

even so, it just isn't something a movie based off Lord of hte Rings should condone
from
EE

[DraPrime]

even so, it just isn't something a movie based off Lord of hte Rings should condone
from
EE

Which is probably why it was removed. The extended edition was just PJ saying "Hey people, wanna see all the crap that I removed? Here you go!" The scene wasn't in the version intended to be viewed by the public, so forgiveness is due to PJ.

[EvilElitest]

Which is probably why it was removed. The extended edition was just PJ saying "Hey people, wanna see all the crap that I removed? Here you go!" The scene wasn't in the version intended to be viewed by the public, so forgiveness is due to PJ.

i thought he cut it because of time issues. Wouldn't it not be included in the final extended version otherwise?
from
EE

[Mr. Scaly]

yes. you should feel ashamed and repent with chocolate.

Naw...I think I'll just pity everyone else who has bad taste in movies. Hehe.

[WalkingTarget]

i thought he cut it because of time issues. Wouldn't it not be included in the final extended version otherwise?
from
EE

My take is that they had filmed the MoS scene, and then deleted it for whatever reason (pacing of the film, being way out of line from a character perspective, whatever) but people expected to have it in the extended version, so they included it despite its faults. I remember seeing that Bruce Spence had been cast back when the films were being made and wondered why he wasn't in the theatrical version when RotK finally came out and I looked forward to seeing him in the extended version (much like the gift scene in Lothlorien, I knew it had been filmed so I wanted to see it).

[Philistine]

Re: the "dragging to Osgiliath" thing. I think I understand why PJ changed this - it's meant to evoke a parallel with the Battle of Helm's Deep and the Flooding of Isengard (especially with all three apparently going on more-or-less simultaneously), and show how the fates of the surviving members of the Fellowship are still bound together, even after they've separated. It's supposed to be ratcheting up the drama.

But understanding doesn't mean I agree with the decision. I think Frodo & Sam vs. Shelob in Cirith Ungol could have established the parallel just as well, and with the added distinction that the various splinter groups of the Fellowship were facing different kinds of danger, consonant with their different resources and abilities. Of course in order to shoehorn this into the running time, they'd have had to leave Faramir's character alone - leaving him as the wise and honorable man he was in the books. Thus my idea is rich with Win.

Re: The Aragorn/Arwen/Eowyn thing. This change I understand, and agree with completely; IMO it actually fixes a problem with the original. Eowyn is the closest thing to an actual female character in the LotR books, and her romantic interest in Aragorn is straight from the text. Arwen, on the other hand, barely exists at all in the novels - there's no reason, no relationship, depicted at all to explain why Aragorn would marry her. PJ HAD TO change that for Aragorn's choice to work in the movies. Arwen's role absolutely needed to be buffed up to be at least as large as Eowyn's, with a significant amount of time devoted to showing her and Aragorn together. Because the way she's written in the books (meaning "mostly isn't written") is kind of strange and silly, unless you already know the whole backstory.

Also - Eowyn is a real heartbreaker of a role, and Miranda Otto absolutely nailed it. Second only to Andy Serkis as Smeagol/Gollum, IMO.

[Guildorn Tanaleth]

The Lord of the Rings movies are the most faithful movie adaptations of a book that I have ever seen -- which, given Hollywood's track record, isn't saying much.

Fun Fact: In the artificial language Lojban (http://www.lojban.org), Tolkien's name is transliterated as "la tolkin.", which literally translates as "(the one named) The Polar Opposite of Cinema."

[comicshorse]

Comic horse, could you explain in more detail
from
EE

Which bit ?

[WalkingTarget]

But understanding doesn't mean I agree with the decision. I think Frodo & Sam vs. Shelob in Cirith Ungol could have established the parallel just as well, and with the added distinction that the various splinter groups of the Fellowship were facing different kinds of danger, consonant with their different resources and abilities. Of course in order to shoehorn this into the running time, they'd have had to leave Faramir's character alone - leaving him as the wise and honorable man he was in the books. Thus my idea is rich with Win.

The problem with moving Shelob into the second film is that PJ tried to keep things happening in the correct chronological order from the books (not the order in which they are presented to the reader). Helm's Deep is definitely the climax of the second film, but Frodo & Co. aren't really doing anything interesting at that time. Hell, in the book chronology, he doesn't even run into Faramir until 4 days after the Battle of the Hornburg and doesn't encounter Shelob until around the time that Aragorn is taking control of the fleet.

[Matthew]

Lovely looking films, reasonable to good casting and acting... that's about all I can really say about them. They get generally worse as they go along, the soundtrack is average to poor (give me the Conan the Barbarian soundtrack any day), and they're just not dark enough.

That said, I went in with very low expectations, so I enjoyed them. I have since watched them about a half dozen times or more (mainly whilst doing something else) and have enjoyed them less and less each time. The books I have also read about a half dozen times and enjoyed them better on each occasion.

[DomaDoma]

Oh, you do not rag on Howard Shore's soundtrack. The only ones better are the Braveheart soundtrack and the Latin parts of the Death Note soundtrack (throwing Dirge into that category). And even then, not by much.

[Storm Bringer]

Guys, let's not go thier. music is an inheritly subjective thing, just like the movies in general. Matthew just said he didn't like the music. you do like it, and lets just stop it thier. I'm enjoying reading this thread too much to want it to go down in flames.

[nagora]

It was only right behind them in the sense that you could see the light on the walls from the flames on its body, which we have no way of knowing how far that goes.

Also, is this seriously an issue? That the Balrog was just a little slow? That
s what you have an issue with? No offense, but that's a really stupid reason.

Come off it! "A little slow"? They spent ages on that stupid balancing act and the moronic "tossing the dwarf" jokes.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the movies, Frodo's character was undermined at every step, as was Elrond's, the nazgul were inflamable incompetant clowns, Faramer was an idiot, Bilbo's spot was ruined by childish special effects, Lothlorien was an incoherent mess (in the cinema: you know, where I'd paid to see a completed movie), Saruman's character was simply dropped when Jackson got distracted, we had an extra bonus "he's dead! No he's not!" routine, Gandalf was portrayed as an idiot break-dancer, and Aragorn was shown to be full of doubt for no good reason - he'd only been working up to this moment for 70 years, why would he have any self-belief?! And, as someone else said, Jackson completely missed the careful timing and structure of the story, throwing it all away for cheap effects and endless unneeded extra fight scenes while not even filming some of the best scenes in the damn books!

I could go on, but, no: the stupid Balrog scene was not the only thing I had an issue with.

I found the music repetitive myself, but good in smaller bits.

[DomaDoma]

Actually, music is so subjective that I don't see it giving anywhere near the arguing material of anything else in this thread, but as I think the soundtrack is one of the best points of the movies, I had to say it.

[Mr. Scaly]

Come off it! "A little slow"? They spent ages on that stupid balancing act and the moronic "tossing the dwarf" jokes.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the movies, Frodo's character was undermined at every step, as was Elrond's, the nazgul were inflamable incompetant clowns, Faramer was an idiot, Bilbo's spot was ruined by childish special effects, Lothlorien was an incoherent mess (in the cinema: you know, where I'd paid to see a completed movie), Saruman's character was simply dropped when Jackson got distracted, we had an extra bonus "he's dead! No he's not!" routine, Gandalf was portrayed as an idiot break-dancer, and Aragorn was shown to be full of doubt for no good reason - he'd only been working up to this moment for 70 years, why would he have any self-belief?! And, as someone else said, Jackson completely missed the careful timing and structure of the story, throwing it all away for cheap effects and endless unneeded extra fight scenes while not even filming some of the best scenes in the damn books!

I could go on, but, no: the stupid Balrog scene was not the only thing I had an issue with.

I found the music repetitive myself, but good in smaller bits.

Most of these points have been covered already, but...break-dancer?

[nagora]

Most of these points have been covered already, but...break-dancer?
Yes, you remember that embarrasing "fight" on Orthanc?

When two great wizards oppose each other, they summon the mightiest magics, the most powerful ancient words of power and...oh, sod it, actually they just belt each other with sticks and spin around on the floor. :smallfrown:

The cinema I saw it in was in fits of laughter, which I didn't feel was the response desired for that part.

[VanBuren]

Yes, you remember that embarrasing "fight" on Orthanc?

When two great wizards oppose each other, they summon the mightiest magics, the most powerful ancient words of power

Tolkien magic does not work that way!

[EvilElitest]

Re: the "dragging to Osgiliath" thing. I think I understand why PJ changed this - it's meant to evoke a parallel with the Battle of Helm's Deep and the Flooding of Isengard (especially with all three apparently going on more-or-less simultaneously), and show how the fates of the surviving members of the Fellowship are still bound together, even after they've separated. It's supposed to be ratcheting up the drama.

But understanding doesn't mean I agree with the decision. I think Frodo & Sam vs. Shelob in Cirith Ungol could have established the parallel just as well, and with the added distinction that the various splinter groups of the Fellowship were facing different kinds of danger, consonant with their different resources and abilities. Of course in order to shoehorn this into the running time, they'd have had to leave Faramir's character alone - leaving him as the wise and honorable man he was in the books. Thus my idea is rich with Win.


Also the othgiliath/helm's deep cuts really weakened both scenes



Re: The Aragorn/Arwen/Eowyn thing. This change I understand, and agree with completely; IMO it actually fixes a problem with the original. Eowyn is the closest thing to an actual female character in the LotR books, and her romantic interest in Aragorn is straight from the text. Arwen, on the other hand, barely exists at all in the novels - there's no reason, no relationship, depicted at all to explain why Aragorn would marry her. PJ HAD TO change that for Aragorn's choice to work in the movies. Arwen's role absolutely needed to be buffed up to be at least as large as Eowyn's, with a significant amount of time devoted to showing her and Aragorn together. Because the way she's written in the books (meaning "mostly isn't written") is kind of strange and silly, unless you already know the whole backstory.

Also - Eowyn is a real heartbreaker of a role, and Miranda Otto absolutely nailed it. Second only to Andy Serkis as Smeagol/Gollum, IMO.

It was included to give teenagers another love story, remember its hollywood. It wasted so much time. Apart from being very badly handled (it was so obvious, i mean can PJ do subtlety?) it simply wasted time better spent on other things

I mean, i see your perspective, but the way it was handled, blah


Comichorse, i meant the part in the ruined city, some of the bat tactics used

I actually liked the music, and i have to agree on Death's note's latin (brave heart was awful)
However i don't like the way it was used. It was too blunt, to ham handed. It was made to inspire emotion, but the directing made it sound a little over the top every time. Still good music however

Also Mr. Scaly, do you want to go back in the box?
from
EE

[Matthew]

Oh, you do not rag on Howard Shore's soundtrack. The only ones better are the Braveheart soundtrack and the Latin parts of the Death Note soundtrack (throwing Dirge into that category). And even then, not by much.

Sorry, but it sucks (and I own all three cds). Just my opinion, of course, and I am no fan of the Braveheart soundtrack either.

I pretty much agree with Nagora as regards "stuff I was unhappy with" in terms of content.

[Spiryt]

Yes, you remember that embarrasing "fight" on Orthanc?

When two great wizards oppose each other, they summon the mightiest magics, the most powerful ancient words of power and...oh, sod it, actually they just belt each other with sticks and spin around on the floor. :smallfrown:

The cinema I saw it in was in fits of laughter, which I didn't feel was the response desired for that part.

Well, Gandalf actually dealt with Wargs with burning cones in book... Of course other Istari is not some wolf, but noone said that duel of mind and spirits can't take place in additon to throwing each other around.

For me it looked kinda OK. Could be much better, I agree, but wan't bad.

What I really hated, (and wasn't mentioned, I believe) were damn wights. The oathbreakers. They couldn't just cast fear on Mordor forces, allowing Aragorn to gather men and ships. They couldn't just drive away the corsairs. Heck, they couldn't just use their swords.

No, they actually rolled over everything, covering Mûmaks like tropical ants, winning whole battle by themselves :smallsigh:

Worst part of the film for me.

[Mr. Scaly]

Yes, you remember that embarrasing "fight" on Orthanc?

When two great wizards oppose each other, they summon the mightiest magics, the most powerful ancient words of power and...oh, sod it, actually they just belt each other with sticks and spin around on the floor. :smallfrown:

The cinema I saw it in was in fits of laughter, which I didn't feel was the response desired for that part.

I think break dancing in voluntary, as opposed to compulsory by means of magic. Being spun around like that is disorienting and painful.



EE, meep! Not the box!

[EvilElitest]

"please don't send me back there"
is what the last person said

Mr. Scaly, repent or prepare to mean the consciences
from
EE

[Mr. Scaly]

How about I pretend to repent then? Will that work?

[EvilElitest]

How about I pretend to repent then? Will that work?

It did for Ned Stark..........wait
from
EE

[SmartAlec]

The problem with moving Shelob into the second film is that PJ tried to keep things happening in the correct chronological order from the books (not the order in which they are presented to the reader). Helm's Deep is definitely the climax of the second film, but Frodo & Co. aren't really doing anything interesting at that time. Hell, in the book chronology, he doesn't even run into Faramir until 4 days after the Battle of the Hornburg and doesn't encounter Shelob until around the time that Aragorn is taking control of the fleet.

Also, Frodo and Sam see the Witch-King's army march from Minas Morgul whilst looking for Cirith Ungol (yes, they see it in the book there too). The way that the events in the story interlock is actually quite complex, and the movie plays it as the timeline has it. This is preferable, I think, to having the forces of Mordor march in one movie and have them arrive at Osgiliath in the next. Sam and Frodo, meanshile, would have to have a rushed showdown with Shelob in one movie and then not have anything to do in the next.

You can call that abandoning the book's careful timing if you like, but where Tolkien had the luxury of having two totally divorced plotlines running seperately, the movies had to cut back and forth quite heavily. Thus, they stick to the timeline rather than the rather skewed way the events are presented in the books.


It was included to give teenagers another love story, remember its hollywood. It wasted so much time. Apart from being very badly handled (it was so obvious, i mean can PJ do subtlety?) it simply wasted time better spent on other things

Tolkien admitted he dropped the ball when it came to Arwen, and he wrote the tale of Aragorn and Arwen found in the book's appendices to try to remedy that deficiency.

[EvilElitest]

Also, Frodo and Sam see the Witch-King's army march from Minas Morgul whilst looking for Cirith Ungol (yes, they see it in the book there too). The way that the events in the story interlock is actually quite complex, and the movie plays it as the timeline has it. This is preferable, I think, to having the forces of Mordor march in one movie and have them arrive at Osgiliath in the next. Sam and Frodo, meanshile, would have to have a rushed showdown with Shelob in one movie and then not have anything to do in the next.

You can call that abandoning the book's careful timing if you like, but where Tolkien had the luxury of having two totally divorced plotlines running seperately, the movies had to cut back and forth quite heavily. Thus, they stick to the timeline rather than the rather skewed way the events are presented in the books.

Except the suspense in book 2's ending was so much better, while the third movie was bogged down with so much bad editing devices
from
EE

[SmartAlec]

Except the suspense in book 2's ending was so much better, while the third movie was bogged down with so much bad editing devices
from
EE

Literary tricks don't work in films; at the end of the Two Towers the book, Sam and Frodo were 10 days ahead of the rest of the Fellowship. That's not going to fly in a movie. Each movie had a 'bookend' so that it was able to stand alone rather than be a cliffhanger. Considering it would be a year until the next one was released, not a bad thing; everyone'd have forgotten about it by then. And... I don't know what you're referring to in terms of bad editing.

Come to think of it, I quite liked the end of the second movie. Ominous muttering from Gollum, and that slow pan upwards to the moody shot of Mordor. Not a bad image to end on.


Yes, you remember that embarrasing "fight" on Orthanc?

That explains the break-dancer snipe, but not the idiot part.

[DraPrime]

Except the suspense in book 2's ending was so much better, while the third movie was bogged down with so much bad editing devices
from
EE

People tend to dislike cliffhangers. I always thought that the ending to TT in the books was unnecessarily suspenseful, while the ending in the movies had enough suspense, but not some irritating cliffhanger.

[Leigh]

The casting, direction, special effects, soundtrack, and editing of these movies was fabulous. They stuck to the books, and were an immediate hit. 'Nuff said.
(Oh, and is this only for discussion of the movies? Or is stuff about the books considered relevant as well?)

[Mr. Scaly]

It did for Ned Stark..........wait
from
EE

Then again, I'm not about to actively trust a man who said I should actively distrust him. >_>

[Swordguy]

The issue here is that the movies (like the Star Wars prequels) were victims of absolutely impossible expectations.

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that the movies which are true to the books in every possible detail could have been, were, or could be made by a Hollywood studio.

As such, I'm glad to have the movies that really were made by a Tolkien fan, who tried as best he could to stay true to the spirit of the tale, even if some details had to be changed to allow the movies to be made at all. Do I agree with all that changes? Of course not. But I don't hold animosity towards PJ for making them, because the alternative is having no LOTR movies at all. (The cartoons do not count.)

Or are people saying they actually would prefer the movies HAD NOT been made?! That's the impression I'm getting from many of the comments...

[Executor]

On Howard Shore's soundtrack: It was too meh for me. It did it's job, it was adequate. But that's it. It was just so... adequate. You listen to scores by Basil Poledouris (Conan the Barbarian) or Hans Zimmer (Gladiator, Lion King, Last Samurai, Da Vinci Code) or James Horner (Titantic, Braveheart, Troy) and you can feel something in the music. The music tells you a story. Howard Shore's was just too... average really. Not bad, but not exceptional either. Compare any piece from the LotR films to any of these pieces:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQtuRPy6IWI
The Greek Army (James Horner, Troy)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNod5hYsBek
Chevaliers de Sangreal (Hans Zimmer, The DaVinci Code)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onGWF8mz1Zw
The Riddle of Steel/Riders of Doom (Basil Poledouris, Conan the Barbarian)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiOtDfLwwn4
Red Warrior (Hans Zimmer, the Last Samurai)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWo__6Xn6Qs
The Trio (Ennio Morricone, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly)

The emotional impact, the epic sense, any of Howard Shore's pieces pales in comparison with these. He is not bad, no, just average. Too average. I believe that the Lord of the Rings deserved a Hans Zimmer score. Or Basil Poledouris, Ennio Morricone, or any of those other truly great composers. Howard Shore is simply too adequate, not exceptional as these films demanded.

And on the topic of too adequate, Peter Jackson is the same way. He's not bad, but not as great as Tolkien's story demanded. These films should've been directed by someone like John Milius, James Cameron, Shekhar Kapur, Kenneth Branagh, Edward Zwick, John Boorman, or, my personal choice, Ridley Scott. Now i'm not saying that these people would've been interested in directing these films like Jackson was, but I think they would've done a far better job than Peter Jackson. The only thing Peter Jackson did truly well was choosing locations, New Zealand was truly spectacular. And also, his props and effects were first rate.

[Turcano]

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that the movies which are true to the books in every possible detail could have been, were, or could be made by a Hollywood studio.

True, but there is a distinct difference between making a change or cut due to pragmatism (and perhaps even necessity) and wiping your member all over a good thing just for innovation's sake. For instance, cutting Tom Bombadil is a textbook case of the former, while the Flight to the Ford is a textbook case of the latter.


Bad
Arwin
Faramir
Eomer
Merry

Thank you. Everybody has a list of characters that Jackson mischaracterized, but almost no one mentions Merry.

[turkishproverb]

The main problem deviation in the movies - worse than the Faramir thing - is that Saruman is no longer an independent party and is basically Sauron's western franchise.


Agreed. I also missed the discussion about the nature of knowledge and "Saruman of Many Colors" Saruman represented the fall of greatness and virtue well.


(Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire were better left out, frankly.)

Given the structure of the films. agreed.


That said, the movies are still breathtaking. The Rohan part of Two Towers, in my opinion, was infinitely better than it was in the books, where I quit the series the first time through and only dragged myself through the second time by telling myself the first chapter in part two was called "The Taming of Smeagol." Whereas in the movie, I wept when the wind ripped the banner away.

Me too on the banner. I also kind've thought the Death of Bormir was more heroic and saddening only because its given in more detail.


On the battle of helmsdeep.
It was said in the books that there was a forest with what was described as ents(or atleast huorns, wild ents) near helmsdeep, those had been entirely left out in the movie, but instead, they added elves. :smallfrown::smallconfused:

Extended version has the Forest waking up and taking down all the fleeing Uruk-Hai by appearing in the path they would've retreated.


No, no. The movies were good, only they couldn't simply stand up to the awesome of the books.

Seconded.


I remember the *first* game attempt at LOTR adaptation By Mr. Bakshi (http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm). This was in the days before computer graphics, and everything was done with hand animation and rotoscoping. They tried to tell the entire story in 90 minutes. I was 8 years old at the time, and I thought they needed a six hour movie to really do the story justice.

Shame with that movie too, it's flaws have led to the disrespecting of the movie it was made as a sequel to, Namely Jules Bass' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077687/) The Hobbit Animated Film, which is an awesome adaptation of the book it is based off of.

I actually hold out significantly less hope for the Del Toro version.



Really good actors, the guys who made exceptional performances.

Bilbo
Agreed
Gandalf
Agreed
Elrond
NOT Agreed. Good at best
Saurman
Agreed
Boromir
Agreed
Lurgtz/WK/Gothmog
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed. Agreed
Gollum
SOOOOOOOOOO Agreed
Gimli
Great performance, he was made a little more humor that he should be, not actors fault
Wormtouge
Agreed
Theoden gets special mention, because he isn't actually a good actor, at all. However he really really really really tried and put a lot into it, so it seemed like he was a good actor, so he gets up here for ethusasim
Agreed

Good actors- These guys did a good job, nothing amazing, they all have flaws but they are still good

Frodo
Agreed
Sam
NOt agreed. Sam Gets the theodin from me. Inever expected him to act that well
Aragorn
Agreed, with a slightly hugher rank than frodo
Gladerial and other minor elves (it isn't her fault really, lack of proper screen time but still)
NOt Agreed. not having alot of time should not get you cut down in rank
All the monsters
Agreed
Minor characters
Agreed

Decent actors, nothing bad, nothing special however
Pippin
Agreed
Denethor (good actor, bad role sadly)
Agreed
Eowyn
NOT Agreed. Aside from the badly done man disguise, she was wonderful

Bad
Arwin
Not agreed
Faramir
NOt Agreed. wonderful acting, whether or not I like the direction they took the character.
Eomer
Not agreed. Average at worst
Merry
Agreed, albiet reluctantly


Super bad
Legolas
Disagreed. just mad/mediocre at worst, and less than that when you stop blaming him for the writting/surf scene


So basically I was the only one who DID feel a great and terrible rage from Treebeard and his kin then.

Fealt it, just didn't like it as much.

[Vuzzmop]

Except for maybe a lack of funding, what would the problem be with that?

You're kidding me, right? you clearly know little about the media of film and its marketing, so I won't hold that against you, but 27 hours of film?

PS: Tom Bombadil is a useless character who in my opinion gave very little to the books and didn't participate in anything of great importance. Spilt milk.:smallamused:

[Dallas-Dakota]

The casting, direction, special effects, soundtrack, and editing of these movies was fabulous. They stuck to the books, and were an immediate hit. 'Nuff said.
(Oh, and is this only for discussion of the movies? Or is stuff about the books considered relevant as well?)
It was just the original awesome of the books which made it such a great triology.
Also corrected the post for you.

EDIT : VUZZZMOP!:smallfurious: Tom Bombadil is a great character! *smite Vuzzmop* he's a merry good fellow! And he revitalised their spirits.

[turkishproverb]

PS: Tom Bombadil is a useless character who in my opinion gave very little to the books and didn't participate in anything of great importance. Spilt milk.:smallamused:

Bombadil had a purpose, but it was almost entirely philosophical. He represented the nature of good in that it failed only if it was allowed to and such. I wrote a paper on it once. Plotwise, I think him giving the hobbits their weapons was about it.

[DomaDoma]

Bombadil had a purpose, but it was almost entirely philosophical. He represented the nature of good in that it failed only if it was allowed to and such. I wrote a paper on it once. Plotwise, I think him giving the hobbits their weapons was about it.

Yeah, at least with the Scouring of the Shire, you get to see how far they've come (especially Pippin), but it had the same jarring factor. Every scene with Tom Bombadil in it is so cheerful you wonder if it's the same book, whereas in Scouring of the Shire it's the tree-hugging Luddite in Tolkien marching out of the background and shoving the characters from center stage. Even the tobacco in TTT can't make up for that.

[Oslecamo]

Yes, you remember that embarrasing "fight" on Orthanc?

When two great wizards oppose each other, they summon the mightiest magics, the most powerful ancient words of power and...oh, sod it, actually they just belt each other with sticks and spin around on the floor. :smallfrown:


And they used the mightiest magics, the most powerfull ancient words of power.

Unlike 90% of the other magic users out there, Gandalf and Sauruman know how to use magic whitout wasting half their energy to make flashy effects or half an hour incantations.

Where is it written that it isn't mighty magic if it doesn't look like a rock concert anyway?

Just like you wouldn't understand what the hell was going if two chess players were playing against each other and you didn't know anything about chess, we can't fully grasp what hapened in that room because we are mortals who don't know anything about mayar magic.

For once, I was happy PJ didn't fall on the error of try to "actualize" Gandalf to the modern concept of magic user. Or the non magic users anyway. Ok, Legolas was a little over the mark, but LOTR elfs are suposed to be better than humans anyway.

If you want Gandalf to make flashy stuff, ask him to do fireworks. If you want him to duel another magic user, then fireworks definetely aren't the right choice of attack.

[nagora]

And they used the mightiest magics, the most powerfull ancient words of power.

The power of DISCO!

It was very silly and stupid looking. The Bakshi version of the confrontation was much better.

[SmartAlec]

The main problem deviation in the movies - worse than the Faramir thing - is that Saruman is no longer an independent party and is basically Sauron's western franchise.

He always was, wasn't he?

Or, to put it another way, he appeared to be Mordor's ally whilst trying to find the Ring for himself, in both book and movie. His ties to Mordor are more obvious in the movie, because we see things from his perspective, but they were always there in the book, as the Fellowship discover.


The Bakshi version of the confrontation was much better.

The Bakshi version [of anything] was much better are words that just don't make sense to me. Each word on its' own makes sense, but when you try to put them in a sentence, they look wrong.

[WalkingTarget]

Yeah, at least with the Scouring of the Shire, you get to see how far they've come (especially Pippin), but it had the same jarring factor. Every scene with Tom Bombadil in it is so cheerful you wonder if it's the same book, whereas in Scouring of the Shire it's the tree-hugging Luddite in Tolkien marching out of the background and shoving the characters from center stage. Even the tobacco in TTT can't make up for that.

A lot of the first book has a much different vibe than the rest of the story because at that point it's still in "sequel" mode to a children's book. That's how Tolkien began writing LotR and once it became obvious that it was going to be much more serious and dark than The Hobbit (basically, once he decided to fully incorporate the setting into his mythology of Arda) a lot of details changed (like how the Strider character was originally a hobbit named Trotter; doesn't have the same vibe, does it?). Bombadil was already in the story, though, and if there's anything that Old Tom isn't it's serious and dark. Tolkien wanted to keep him in the story but was also unable to change the character from what he was (well, being the author he could have, but you know what I mean).


He always was, wasn't he?

Or, to put it another way, he appeared to be Mordor's ally whilst trying to find the Ring for himself, in both book and movie. His ties to Mordor are more obvious in the movie, because we see things from his perspective, but they were always there in the book, as the Fellowship discover.


Right, but the films don't give any indication at all that he wasn't in complete accord with Sauron. It's that secondary betrayal that's missing.

[Deckmaster]

There are three things you shouldn't debate.

1. Politics
2. Religion
3. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Therefore I will leave my opinions to this.

On a scale of 1-10
Fellowship: 10
The Two Towers: 8
Return of the King: 12

[nagora]

Or are people saying they actually would prefer the movies HAD NOT been made?! That's the impression I'm getting from many of the comments...Yes, a thousand times yes. These terrible movies will probably prevent anyone from doing a decent version for decades; it would have been far better if they had not been made and the door left open for someone who cared about the story and quality movie-making to have a go at it.

[Oslecamo]

The power of DISCO!

It was very silly and stupid looking. The Bakshi version of the confrontation was much better.

The confrontation wasn't even described in the book. And it would be much worst if Gandalf just apeared on the top of the tower whitout any explanation.

[pendell]

Two thoughts:

1) *I* thought Tom Bombadil was a clumsy deus ex machina sent to bail the characters out of trouble twice when it became obvious to the author there was no credible way they could escape from the Willow Man or the Barrow Wights. If D&D existed back then, Bombadil would be the flippin' Mary Sue NPC who waltzes in, makes everything right with a wave of his hand, then waltzes back out again.

Which kind of makes sense, if Tolkien were telling this story using the hobbit's as insertion characters for his children. Killing off your offspring's character often offends.

That's speculation. But I *do* know that Tolkien's son really hated spiders, which is why they appear as monsters so often in the books.

2) The point about "mighty magic" is well-taken. In the book, there are three magical contests -- one between Gandalf and the Balrog over a door (Gandalf has cast the equivalent of Hold Portal on it, the Balrog is attempting to dispel the casting), one between Sauron and Pippin through the Palantir (Not a contest at all --Sauron totally overwhelmed Pippin) and Sauron vs. Aragorn through the Palantir (Aragorn won, but only just, and was able to use the Palantir as he wished).

So a "magical contest" in middle earth is really a fancy form of staring contest ... two Wills clash. Eventually, one of them breaks. The winner gets to work his magical will on the other. And that's when the fireworks happen.

This happens in the Silmarrillion too -- an Elf-king (Finrod Felagund) casts a spell to disguise himself and his companions as orcs, but Sauron becomes suspicious of them. They have a contest of wills, and Finrod loses. Sauron is then able to strip them of their disguise. Presumably if Finrod had won the disguise would have held and Sauron would have let them go. As it was he threw them into a dungeon and fed them to a werewolf , one at a time. Jabba the Hutt syndrome, I guess.

A little later, Sauron is attacked by the female elf Luthien and the dog Huan. Huan gets him by the throat, and Luthien threatens to let Huan rip his throat out unless he yields (magically, I think) to her. Sauron does, and this allows Luthien, who now has power over his tower, to break his spell, and his tower falls down. Sauron is sent running home to Morgoth.

So .. the fireworks are a RESULT of the contest, not the contest itself. To play "middle earth mage", simply sit down with a friend and hold a staring contest. The winner gets to have his/her way with the loser. If this gives you strange ideas, shame on you for having a dirty mind ! :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[kamikasei]

The confrontation wasn't even described in the book. And it would be much worst if Gandalf just apeared on the top of the tower whitout any explanation.

Actually, it was described. Gandalf went to Orthanc. He and Saruman spoke. Saruman revealed his plans and attempted to win over Gandalf. Gandalf refused. Saruman told him he'd keep him imprisoned. And then Gandalf says simply "they took me and they set me alone on the pinnacle..."

No confrontation. Harsh words and a call for the guards. That scene could easily have been filmed without messing with continuity.

[SmartAlec]

Actually, it was described. Gandalf went to Orthanc. He and Saruman spoke. Saruman revealed his plans and attempted to win over Gandalf. Gandalf refused. Saruman told him he'd keep him imprisoned. And then Gandalf says simply "they took me and they set me alone on the pinnacle..."

No confrontation. Harsh words and a call for the guards. That scene could easily have been filmed without messing with continuity.

I dunno... a Gandalf who would meekly surrender to imprisonment does not gel with a Gandalf who launches lightning-bolts at goblins and makes his escape, or a Gandalf that scouts Sauron's fortress in Mirkwood by himself, or a Gandalf who takes on the Balrog, or even a Gandalf willing to accompany and guide Frodo into Mordor. This is a Gandalf prepared to go to any lengths to safeguard the Ring and its' bearer, and him just giving up against Saruman doesn't scan. I always assumed that there was an attempt at resistance, but he didn't mention his attempt at resistance because there was no need to mention it, doubly so because it was unsuccessful.

On the subject of contests of will, you don't need to be a Wizard to do it, just a character of formidable willpower. Gandalf and Denethor face off in such a way too, and - it's said - Denethor and Sauron. A fourth magical contest takes place between Gandalf and Sauron, when Frodo is on Amon Hen and wearing the Ring; Sauron personified by the Eye, and Gandalf as a voice.


Right, but the films don't give any indication at all that he wasn't in complete accord with Sauron. It's that secondary betrayal that's missing.

I thought Gandalf made it clear, in his conversation with Elrond in FotR.

"His treachery runs deeper than you know. By fell craft, Saruman has bred orcs with goblin-men, he's breeding an army in the caverns of Isengard. An army that can move in sunlight, and cover great distance at speed. Saruman is coming for the Ring."

But once his attempt at getting it fails, he's left with no choice but to work with Sauron and hope he can pull something out of his hat when it's time for Isengard and Mordor to tussle.

[WalkingTarget]

I thought Gandalf made it clear, in his conversation with Elrond in FotR.

"His treachery runs deeper than you know. By fell craft, Saruman has bred orcs with goblin-men, he's breeding an army in the caverns of Isengard. An army that can move in sunlight, and cover great distance at speed. Saruman is coming for the Ring."

But once his attempt at getting it fails, he's left with no choice but to work with Sauron and hope he can pull something out of his hat when it's time for Isengard and Mordor to tussle.

That line seems less than clear to me that Saruman is backstabbing Sauron in "coming for the Ring." The "treachery" is that he's improving on Orcs to make them more dangerous rather than just being evil on his own. This "improvement" is, in the film, a direct order from Sauron (but Gandalf doesn't necessarily know that as he was busy being prisoner on the roof at the time).

This goes along with the presence of the Black Breath in the films. If you're already familiar with the books you might recognize its presence but the films themselves do absolutely nothing to explain it. Somebody seeing the films without reading the book (my father, for example) won't necessarily see any schism between Saruman and Sauron.

From what I remember, the Uruk-hai/Orc fight near the beginning of TTT was because the Orcs wanted to eat the hobbits but the Uruks had orders for them to be unharmed, not over which destination they were taken to as in the book.

[pendell]

I always assumed that there was an attempt at resistance, but he didn't mention his attempt at resistance because there was no need to mention it, doubly so because it was unsuccessful.


Not necessarily.

Perhaps it's like chess -- when you know it's unavoidable mate in three moves, you tip over your king. Both Gandalf and Saruman knew their respective balance of power and the result of any outcome. Gandalf may have calculated that he had a negligible chance of winning and a great chance of being badly hurt, and therefore chose not to attempt resistance.

Kind of like 'not resisting' because you're unarmed and the other fellow has a gun pointed at your head.

At this point Saruman outguns Gandalf when on equal footing. But they aren't on equal footing -- Gandalf is alone and friendless in Saruman's stronghold. As seen later on Mount Doom where Galadriel's phial is extinguished, a wizard's magic is strongest at the heart of his domain. And that is where Gandalf is -- in the heart of Saruman's domain.

Then again, the tower is also presumably full of guards. And this isn't D&D -- you can't do a Belkar and simply take on ten thousand low-level mooks with any hope of winning. This was written by a war veteran who knew about non-survivable tactical situations, and Gandalf in Orthanc is in such a situation. Accordingly, he does what any soldier with a lick of sense would do, which is give up.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Swordguy]

Yes, a thousand times yes. These terrible movies will probably prevent anyone from doing a decent version for decades; it would have been far better if they had not been made and the door left open for someone who cared about the story and quality movie-making to have a go at it.

Okay then. LOTR had the reputation for years as being "unfilmable", and in my opinion PJ did the best job that he could under the limitations of having to make a movie that could be released and profitable. The alternative, I truly believe, was that nobody would ever make the movies. Insisting that every part of the series be included in the films is one of the ways to ensure that nobody will ever try them again - because the films won't make money if you don't make a WHOLE LOT of changes to make them accessible. This saddens me, but I'm willing to take the movies on their own merits, and understand that they're the best we're ever likely to get.

In short, you make me sad.

/come Patsy!

[DraPrime]

Let me agree with some people here that Tom Bombadil was unnecessary in the books. He doesn't really do much, and considering how much PJ HAS TO remove for the sake of movie length, he might as well remove Tom, because he contributes almost nothing.

[Oslecamo]

Actually, it was described. Gandalf went to Orthanc. He and Saruman spoke. Saruman revealed his plans and attempted to win over Gandalf. Gandalf refused. Saruman told him he'd keep him imprisoned. And then Gandalf says simply "they took me and they set me alone on the pinnacle..."

No confrontation. Harsh words and a call for the guards. That scene could easily have been filmed without messing with continuity.

You know, maybe Gandalf simply assumed that it wouldn't do much good to the team's moral if he said something among the lines of "I got my ass kicked. Badly."

He's got his pride. And like said above, he's the kind of person who scouts alone into the middle of enemy territorry, ambushes goblin armies by himself and fights Balors head on. Sauruman may have been his superior and he may have been in the middle of his fortress, but I still don't see Gandalf surrendering to anyone whitout trying to fight his way out. When he rejoined the party, he simply tought there was no need to carefully explain how he was subdued, just like he didn't explain how he repelled the ring wraiths when he was alone in the hill.

[WalkingTarget]

You know, maybe Gandalf simply assumed that it wouldn't do much good to the team's moral if he said something among the lines of "I got my ass kicked. Badly."

He's got his pride. And like said above, he's the kind of person who scouts alone into the middle of enemy territorry, ambushes goblin armies by himself and fights Balors head on. Sauruman may have been his superior and he may have been in the middle of his fortress, but I still don't see Gandalf surrendering to anyone whitout trying to fight his way out. When he rejoined the party, he simply tought there was no need to carefully explain how he was subdued, just like he didn't explain how he repelled the ring wraiths when he was alone in the hill.

Which is an argument that allows for any possible scenario which ends in Gandalf being captive on top of Orthanc. Maybe Gandalf went quietly, maybe there was the greatest wizards' duel of all time, maybe they played a game of Battleship... or Twister. :smallamused:

[kamikasei]

Which is an argument that allows for any possible scenario which ends in Gandalf being captive on top of Orthanc. Maybe Gandalf went quietly, maybe there was the greatest wizards' duel of all time, maybe they played a game of Battleship... or Twister. :smallamused:

"This epic confrontation between good and evil can only be settled by... a YO' MOMMA CONTEST!!!"

"Yo' momma so fat, Tolkien's tree-eulogizing prose thinks she's bloated!"

[Leigh]

Jackson did the best job that he could on these movies, and I think that that really paid off. The point is that these movies became (and still are) hugely popular, so obviously people enjoyed them immensely. Originally, Jackson planned to make the LotR trilogy one single movie, but he realized that there was no way that he could fit nearly half of the material in ONE movie. When he showed the one-movie plan to his producers, they thought it was absurd, and that he would obviously have to make at least three movies - and that's what he did. LotR is epic, and honestly there's not much you could do to make the movies much better. If you included every single detail of the books, the movies would get even more complicated and wouldn't appeal to the public {who hadn't read the books} and the whole point of movies is for them to appeal to the general public.
As for weta-digital [the special effects people], just one word. Exceptional.

[Dallas-Dakota]

You know, maybe Gandalf simply assumed that it wouldn't do much good to the team's moral if he said something among the lines of "I got my ass kicked. Badly."

He's got his pride. And like said above, he's the kind of person who scouts alone into the middle of enemy territorry, ambushes goblin armies by himself and fights Balrogs head on. Sauruman may have been his superior and he may have been in the middle of his tower, Orthanc , but I still don't see Gandalf surrendering to anyone without trying to fight his way out. When he rejoined the party, he simply thought there was no need to carefully explain how he was subdued, just like he didn't explain how he repelled the ring wraiths when he was alone in the hill.
Fixed it a bit for you.:smallwink:

And when they came into middle-earth, they were all around the same power level, I think. I agree with the first few lines though.

[SmartAlec]

Jackson planned to make the LotR trilogy one single movie, but he realized that there was no way that he could fit nearly half of the material in ONE movie.

I'd heard the original plan was for two, chosen as a compromise because Jackson wasn't sure if a studio would go for three. In the end, they did.

[kamikasei]

I think people are being unfair to those who dislike the movies. I haven't seen anyone arguing that the movies are bad because they made changes or left out things in the books, and the only way the movies could have been good would have been to adapt everything line-for-line into a screenplay. Rather I've seen a few people arguing that many of the changes fail at distilling the essence of the plot and characters, and take important elements of the story and either mess them up or invert them, so that instead of leaving out material that can't be fit in they use the time to tell the material differently and, in those posters' opinions, badly.

There's no point arguing against people who don't exist except in your responses to them.

[Leigh]

I'd heard the original plan was for two, chosen as a compromise because Jackson wasn't sure if a studio would go for three. In the end, they did.

I'm pretty sure it was for one. I could be wrong though. Jackson didn't think the studio would go for three, he was nervous if they would even go for one because of how epic and well-known the story was. But it all worked out in the end!

[pendell]

ambushes goblin armies by himself


When exactly did Gandalf do this in the books?

Am I the only one who remembers that in the Hobbit he was treed by a contingent of goblins and wolves, and his only solution was to try to leap down on top of them, which "would have been the end of him, though he would have killed many"?

Gandalf is not Raistlin Majere. Middle Earth is not D&D.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[WalkingTarget]

I'm pretty sure it was for one. I could be wrong though. Jackson didn't think the studio would go for three, he was nervous if they would even go for one because of how epic and well-known the story was. But it all worked out in the end!

The way I remember it was that they went to pitch it as two films and were really really afraid that they'd have to condense it to one but the New Line guys said something like "There's enough stuff here for three. Do that."

I want to say the anecdote was on one of the special features discs for Fellowship, but I might be wrong on that.

[nagora]

Okay then. LOTR had the reputation for years as being "unfilmable", and in my opinion PJ did the best job that he could under the limitations of having to make a movie that could be released and profitable. The alternative, I truly believe, was that nobody would ever make the movies.
That is not the case. Jackson's mess is a mess because of the new material he added and to a lesser extent the material he left out (although why he left some of it out is a mystery). A better good director could have pulled it off. Jackson showed that much.


Insisting that every part of the series be included in the films is one of the ways to ensure that nobody will ever try them again
I don't think many people have argued that. Some disagree about what goes in or not, but hardly anyone I've ever seen has argued that everything has to go in, or even could. Strawman.


This saddens me, but I'm willing to take the movies on their own merits, and understand that they're the best we're ever likely to get.
That is a depressing prospect.

[SmartAlec]

When exactly did Gandalf do this in the books?

Underneath the Misty Mountains, in the Hobbit; he kills the goblins that try to capture him with some flash of light, escapes when the rest of the party are captured, sneaks into the Great Goblin's audience chamber and assassinates him while he's questioning the party. Possibly killing more goblins as he does so, I don't remember.

One gets the impression he was certainly channelling D&D there.

[DomaDoma]

Hm, Nagora, if you were at the wheel, what would you cut/change/add from book to movies?

[averagejoe]

Okay then. LOTR had the reputation for years as being "unfilmable", and in my opinion PJ did the best job that he could under the limitations of having to make a movie that could be released and profitable. The alternative, I truly believe, was that nobody would ever make the movies. Insisting that every part of the series be included in the films is one of the ways to ensure that nobody will ever try them again - because the films won't make money if you don't make a WHOLE LOT of changes to make them accessible. This saddens me, but I'm willing to take the movies on their own merits, and understand that they're the best we're ever likely to get.

In short, you make me sad.

/come Patsy!

And it's a mistake to say everyone who dislikes the movies does so because they changed stuff from the books. There's plenty of really bad stuff when you look at the movies on their own merits. For example, Aragorn coming in heroically at the last minute in order to bring the bolstering force of his invincible undead army in order to slaughter a retreat. Forgetting that the books were different, it still doesn't exactly make for an exciting battle. I mean, if he wanted to do the battle the way he did it, it would probably have been better to cut out the paths of the dead thing altogether, since it was pretty much completely unecessary in the movies.

Or the bad writing. "If you want him, come and claim him." This is, apperantly, what really bad cleches turn into in a medival setting. Hearing this caused me actual physical pain.

Also, Denathor gross eating: totally unnecessary. We get it, he's evil.

And so on. I won't go into every single detail I disliked; I'm just trying to show that, even on its own terms, it's a movie held up pretty much by flash and epic. For clarification, I would have been extremely dissapointed if the movie was exactly the same as the book with bits cut out. I mean, if I wanted to read the book again, I'd read the book again. The problem with the movie is that there were too many bits that made me remember I was watching a movie, with no acceptable reaction but to roll my eyes.

[Turcano]

Or the bad writing. "If you want him, come and claim him." This is, apperantly, what really bad cleches turn into in a medival setting. Hearing this caused me actual physical pain.

Yeah, that's up there with "Prepare to meet Kali... in Hell!" (Seriously, it's almost impossible to add "in Hell!" to a random statement and not make it funny.)

[turkishproverb]

The way I remember it was that they went to pitch it as two films and were really really afraid that they'd have to condense it to one but the New Line guys said something like "There's enough stuff here for three. Do that."

I want to say the anecdote was on one of the special features discs for Fellowship, but I might be wrong on that.

Close.

He pitched it to several major studios as two films because one would not be enough and he didn't think he could get 3, and none would do it as 2 films, in the end he decided to try New Line last, and if they said no, he'd just do one.

He gave his presentation and the New Line Rep looked at him and said "Are you Crazy" and according to Jackson his heart sank like a stone until the rep continued, "This is three films."

[nagora]

Hm, Nagora, if you were at the wheel, what would you cut/change/add from book to movies?

In the first movie the most important changes would be:

Remove the prologue. This was just copied from Bakshi who did it because of his budget problems. Without those problems it disrupts the core structure of the story. The book runs from light to dark in an almost constant, very gradual, way starting at the Shire and ending on Mount Doom (even the words Tolkien uses change through the book to reflect this). So the back-story should be saved for later, perhaps it could be told by Elrond in Rivendell where it would play as a counterpoint to the (false) sense of security there.

Fix Gandalf. The terrible "Magic" fight has been mentioned but there's also the bit where Gandalf jumps out on Frodo in the dark in the middle of a lightning storm and screams "Is it safe!". Way to give your fiend a heart-attack. Generally speaking, Gandalf should have more gavitas than in the bits Jackson "improved".

Fix Bilbo. To see how the Frodo/Bilbo scene should be handled, watch the Bakshi version (or just read the book). Cheap, poor, CGI bug-eyes is not the correct way to convey tragedy and pathos.

Then, fix Frodo. In the first movie there are two big blunders with the central story. After all, this is a story about two hobbits, when it comes down to it. Everyone else is stalling the Dark Lord while Sam and Frodo drop the bomb on Hiroshima do the real mission.

The first big mistake is at the Ford. In the book, Frodo has done badly so far. Yes, he did fight back at Weathertop, but he got stabbed anyway, and partly because he put the ring on. Gandalf's faith in him is in doubt, even the possibility that he will live is in doubt. And then he has his Great Moment at the Ford.

Totally alone, sick and injured, facing the Lord of the Nazgul and the combined might of the Nine Riders, Frodo defies them all! Suddenly the strength in him that Gandlaf saw all those years ago comes to the fore for the audience to see and he refuses to bend. He really could be the last hope of the world!

Except, in the movie he's rescued by a passerby on a horse instead. Weak, weak, weak.

Then we have the splitting of the Fellowship. Again, in the book, Frodo shows his strength. He knows in his heart that he has to go and he wants to go alone to spare his friends the pain. Only Sam's instinct for his master's selflessness lets him join the quest.

But, in the movie, Frodo asks Strider's permission to go. Weak, weak, weak.

Jackson constantly undermines Frodo's character until we're left with the question of why on Middle Earth Gandalf trusted him in the first place.

None of these changes had anything to do with "accessibility" or budget or time, they were just plain old Peter Jackson not understanding what makes a good story. In addition, the ford, as written, is a much better scene. Far more dramatic and frightening.

Talking of frightening: let's talk about Weathertop for a moment. In the book the nazgul arrive uncloaked. They are not wearing even physical bodies, let alone the robes dipped in paraffin that they wear in the movie. They are initially visible only because they are slightly blacker than the nighte sky behind them. How frigging scary could you make that in a visual medium?! Apparently, PJ couldn't think of a way to pull that off :smalleek: How utterly useless can a movie director be if they can't even see the visual possibilities in a scene like that?

Instead we got a bunch of tramps in old cloaks who ignite into flame at the slightest touch, run around in a panic and literally slam into each other and fall down. I assume they then get back into their Nazgul Car only to have the doors and wheels fall off.

Totally incompetant handling of the material, and again nothing to do with the fact that it is an adaption from one form to another. This is a scene that should have worked better in the cinema than the book.

There's piles of this stuff, but it's depressing. Time after time, Jackson's inability to understand what story he's telling undermines material that was not difficult to film. Sure, you do have to make changes here and there, and Arwin was probably unavoidable, as was the loss of the Scouring. But that's not where Jackson failed: he failed at the basic question "What is this story about?"

Also: how can anyone film LotR and NOT do the bit where the Lord of the Nazgul enters Minas Tirith to find that everyone has fled before him...except Gandalf the White?! That should be a hanging offense :smallfurious:

[SolkaTruesilver]

About Minas Tirith --> When the Witch King confront Gandalf. It would probably have been better for the Witch King to intercept Gandalf at the point of the tip (easier to think that THAT peticular ground had NEVER EVER been violated by ennemies than the whole military city). Also, we would have seen soldiers flee it (maybe even jumping in fear) rather than face the Witch King, but only Gandalf would have stood his ground.. aww.. that would have been nice. But it never happened. I am not going to hate PJ because of the way he depicted Gandalf. On the contrary. He made a very good movie, and the hell with some problems here and there. I am not going to judge a movie by it's weak parts.

(even if the Army of the Deads WAS very very very very weak depicted. I would have preferred a skeleton army that could run breathlessly and climb mountains without fatigue. And then, at the end, when they confront Aragorn, they all simultaneously fall to the ground, and the camera goes into a perspective to see thousands of skeletons on the ground, now)

Tom Bombalbil's removal was probably the best move PJ has done. I always hate that part, not usefull for a penny in the story. And too bad for the philosophical side.

I LOVED the duel between Gandalf and Saruman. It was probably the best way to depict great "subtle" magic, as it exists in Tolkien's book. (To crash lightnings, you use a storm. To burn wolves, you have to set something in fire. The fire itself may be unnatural, but the source of it isn't illogical).

Gandalf Vs Saruman was a duel when they threw pure kinetic force at each other, probably with mental duel going on at the same time. Until one of them was weakened sufficiently to loose his arcane focus.

[Oslecamo]

Totally alone, sick and injured, facing the Lord of the Nazgul and the combined might of the Nine Riders, Frodo defies them all! Suddenly the strength in him that Gandlaf saw all those years ago comes to the fore for the audience to see and he refuses to bend. He really could be the last hope of the world!

Except, in the movie he's rescued by a passerby on a horse instead. Weak, weak, weak.

Go read the books again. In the book, Frodo is still rescued by a passerby who gives him an elvish super fast horse. When Frodo tries to challenge the Nazgulls, they breack his magic sword with a word, showing he's still just a simple mortal.

And the nazgulls are also cowardly bad fighters in the book. Strider was the only thing standing before them and the hobbits, and they prefer to run after giving a little stab to Frodo with the cursed dagger. Specially considering Aragorn didn't even had a full sword to fight with, they probably could have overrun them easily.

Anyway, nobody stoped to wonder that if the movies are so bad, why did so many people went to see them? Before the movies, hardly anyone knew about LOTR. Now it's a world phenomen, with his own MMORPG, tabletop, action figures, etc, etc.

If the LOTR movies are your definition of bad movie, then you really must see very few good movies nowadays. Or are your good movies so good nobody else remembers them?

As a final note, if you don't like PJ's work, by all means, do better. He did what nobody was willing to do. He made LOTR popular worldwide. There are plenty of good directors out there. Why none of them dared to touch the books?

[DomaDoma]

Nagora: I agree with most of your changes, especially Frodo, but in movie form, an infodumping prologue is a lot easier to swallow than an infodump when the plot has already been set in motion. Also, I found Weathertop scary myself - and showing Aragorn fending them off, in movie form, works better than having Frodo lose consciousness and hear the events after the fact.

But actually, that wasn't my question. For the sake of time and the change of medium, what would you change from the books?

[Dallas-Dakota]

Gandalf Vs Saruman was a duel when they threw pure kinetic force at each other, probably with mental duel going on at the same time. Until one of them was weakened sufficiently to loose his arcane focus.
( Both Gandalf and Saruman are Istari, so they gained their magic from the gods, so I think their magics count as 'divine' not arcane....)

[hamishspence]

Istari isn't so much cleric as angel in mortal form. "wielder of the Flame of Anor, Servant of the Secret fire" A point to remember is that the Red Ring Narya gives Gandalf a big boost to his powers: fire-centric, maybe morale, which is what Cirdan mentions in the last page of the Silmarillion book when he gives Gandalf the Ring.

[WalkingTarget]

( Both Gandalf and Saruman are Istari, so they gained their magic from the gods, so I think their magics count as 'divine' not arcane....)

Minor nitpick: The Istari are gods incarnate in "human" bodies.

Magic in Arda breaks down to roughly "stuff the gods do", "magical items", and "ill-defined sorcery" which may simply be related to connections to Sauron (invocational magic, not evocational; good guys invoke the names of the Valar occasionally and get an effect so it might be similar). The last could be classified under arcane, possibly.

We hear about some bad guys being "sorcerers" (the WK, the MoS, etc.) but what that actually allows them to do is not really discussed (how much of the WK's mojo is due to the Rings isn't explained).

We had a Magic in Middle-earth thread around here someplace a while back...

edit - *grumble* sneaky ninjas

[nagora]

Go read the books again. In the book, Frodo is still rescued by a passerby who gives him an elvish super fast horse. When Frodo tries to challenge the Nazgulls, they breack his magic sword with a word, showing he's still just a simple mortal.
Yes, I know. It's the lack of defiance which is the problem in the movie. We need to see Frodo do something off his own bat.


Anyway, nobody stoped to wonder that if the movies are so bad, why did so many people went to see them?
A lot of people went to see "Titanic". So what?


Before the movies, hardly anyone knew about LOTR. Now it's a world phenomen
Lol!


As a final note, if you don't like PJ's work, by all means, do better.
Give me the money and I'll do it, sure: it wouldn't be hard if I had all the talent that Jackson had around him doing all the other stuff.


For the sake of time and the change of medium, what would you change from the books?
I would probably leave out the Scouring and, of course, most of the songs. I don't think I'd actually bother with anything about the second age other than the sketchiest of background. I think Gollum's history is really all the background needed to enjoy LotR.

I think I would also leave out the Old Forest, although I'd miss it. If I could make the time up by leaving out Caradras, then I would leave out the mountains and put the Old Forest back in. I would like to get the Barrow Downs in. Perhaps we could skip all the stuff at Tom's house and just have him rescue the hobbits at the barrows, tell them about the sword and scoff at the ring and be on his way.

Gandalf and Saruman could be covered by Gandalf's dialog and leave more room for actually doing Saruman properly later on with the breaking of his staff and all that.

I would like to get in the bit from Unfinished Tales of the Lord of the Nazgul meeting Grima on the road. That would be nice, but something would have to go and I think it would have to be....

Actually, now that I think about it, there's plenty of time for most of the books if you just take out Jackson's tiresome fight sequences. I mean, how much time was wasted in the first movie with that stupid SuperOrc or whatever his name was? To put in crap like that and leave out Sam's vision of the Shire in ruins was madness.

Really, Jackson left out very little, he just handled a lot of it badly and what he did leave out was often key moments, and could mostly have been put back in by excising the dross that he added.

The first movie is probably the point where most compression is needed. There's a lot of talk (Elrond, I'm looking at YOU!) and a lot of fairly uneventful travel. After that the pace picks up and the visuals carry a lot of what is done by textual description in the books.

I think I'd leave the woses out but, with Jackson's huge running length, I'm not convinced that you couldn't get all the important stuff in - meaning more than he did. It depends on what you think of as the important stuff, really, I suppose. The Scouring is a "nice to have", as is Sam's return home from the Grey Havens.

One thing I think I would add would be at Weathertop: when Frodo puts on the ring he sees the nazgul in their form of ancient lords; I would put in Aragorn in the same way to stress that there is a reason they are scared of him, and not just his little torch. He represents their Nemesis and everything that they lost when they accepted their rings. In fact, for some of them at least, he is as much their rightful King as he is Gondor's. I'd like to get that across with a vision of him in his regalia-white and blue against their black.

[SmartAlec]

For every downside, an upside.


The book runs from light to dark in an almost constant, very gradual, way starting at the Shire and ending on Mount Doom (even the words Tolkien uses change through the book to reflect this). So the back-story should be saved for later, perhaps it could be told by Elrond in Rivendell where it would play as a counterpoint to the (false) sense of security there.

The Prologue does, however, serve to fix the viewers' minds firmly in Middle-Earth. Remember - no film is going to be made purely for those who have already read the book. Some groundwork has to be laid for those who are new to the whole thing.


Gandalf should have more gavitas than in the bits Jackson "improved".

However, this does allow for the differences in character between Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White; making it clear that Gandalf has undergone a change rather than just a return from death.


Fix Bilbo. To see how the Frodo/Bilbo scene should be handled, watch the Bakshi version (or just read the book). Cheap, poor, CGI bug-eyes is not the correct way to convey tragedy and pathos.

Bilbo is not a tragic character, so I'm not sure what you mean. There is no tragedy here. What that scene does provide is horror, and it reinforces the Ring as a malevolent force.


The first big mistake is at the Ford.

Someone already mentioned this, so let's move on to...


But, in the movie, Frodo asks Strider's permission to go. Weak, weak, weak.

You may be misremembering this. Frodo challenges Aragorn, asking him if he'd have the strength of will to destroy the Ring. Aragorn wrestles with the Ring's compulsion, before succeeding and saying that he would. Frodo agrees, and asks Aragorn to look after the others while he goes on his own. Aragorn then notices Sting is glowing, and tells Frodo to flee while he holds off Saruman's Uruks.


They are initially visible only because they are slightly blacker than the nighte sky behind them. How frigging scary could you make that in a visual medium?! Apparently, PJ couldn't think of a way to pull that off :smalleek: How utterly useless can a movie director be if they can't even see the visual possibilities in a scene like that?

Again, you may be misremembering this. The Nazgul are uncloaked, but watch for the appearance of the first on the summit as it literally steps out of the shadows. It is, essentially, the effect you mention here. Couple that with the other perception-distorting tricks (the emphasis on certain sounds, the lack of others) and they are genuinely intimidating.


Instead we got a bunch of tramps in old cloaks who ignite into flame at the slightest touch, run around in a panic and literally slam into each other and fall down.

On the other hand, this is Aragorn's moment, if you will. This is the point when he makes the transition from dodgy suspicious extra to one of the story's heroes.

And for those who know the books well, it fits. The Nazgul's chief weapon is fear, and if you can overcome that, you have a chance. Showing that the wraiths can be vulnerable makes Eowyn and Merry's victory over the Witch-King heroic, but not unbelievable.


But that's not where Jackson failed: he failed at the basic question "What is this story about?"

The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King. As well as comradeship, hope, and the importance of free will and how it is a central part of destiny.


Also: how can anyone film LotR and NOT do the bit where the Lord of the Nazgul enters Minas Tirith to find that everyone has fled before him...except Gandalf the White?! That should be a hanging offense :smallfurious:

I think you place heavy importance on individual scenes, possibly too much. The desperate situation Minas Tirith is in and the sense that Gandalf is the only thing holding it together are already made very clear earlier in the movie. And by this point, Gandalf is moving from centre stage (as he was in the Fellowship) to the role of observer and supporter, so giving him a hero shot like that might throw off people's perceptions of where the camera is focussed.

[nagora]

The Prologue does, however, serve to fix the viewers' minds firmly in Middle-Earth. Remember - no film is going to be made purely for those who have already read the book. Some groundwork has to be laid for those who are new to the whole thing.
The book has no such groundwork because it is not needed.


However, this does allow for the differences in character between Gandalf the Grey and Gandalf the White; making it clear that Gandalf has undergone a change rather than just a return from death.
That's a poor excuse for depicting him as an idiot.


Bilbo is not a tragic character, so I'm not sure what you mean. There is no tragedy here. What that scene does provide is horror, and it reinforces the Ring as a malevolent force.
Bilbo is a tragic figure, although he keeps a brave face on it in Rivendell. The horror in the movie is out of place specifically because the horror that is overtaking Bilbo is insidious, not bug-eyed squirming worms-type horror. It invades silently even into the Last Homely House so subtley that it can be missed. Jackson did not grasp any of that; he is a hopeless hack and doesn't do "subtle".


You may be misremembering this. Frodo challenges Aragorn, asking him if he'd have the strength of will to destroy the Ring. Aragorn wrestles with the Ring's compulsion, before succeeding and saying that he would. Frodo agrees, and asks Aragorn to look after the others while he goes on his own.
The phrasing and pacing of the scene make it all into a long excuse/request for permission/forgiveness/blessing and as such undermines Frodo's strength.


Again, you may be misremembering this. The Nazgul are uncloaked, but watch for the appearance of the first on the summit as it literally steps out of the shadows. It is, essentially, the effect you mention here. Couple that with the other perception-distorting tricks (the emphasis on certain sounds, the lack of others) and they are genuinely intimidating.
Perhaps; I'm not likely to go back and check. Regardless of the initial moments (and since their cloaks do catch fire, I'm not sure how you can be right), the rest of the scene was so badly done - people were laughing out loud - that it matters not a jot. As crimes against JRRT and cinema in general go, this was a major one.


On the other hand, this is Aragorn's moment, if you will. This is the point when he makes the transition from dodgy suspicious extra to one of the story's heroes.
True, but not relevent to the movie where the opponents are so pathetic that Bill could have fought them off if he'd been smoking a cigar.


The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King. As well as comradeship, hope, and the importance of free will and how it is a central part of destiny.
The latter stuff is the important stuff; the subtitle not so much.


I think you place heavy importance on individual scenes, possibly too much.
I'm perhaps expecting too much in the way of heroics and drama instead of cheap CGI effects and pointless combat tricks that look and feel fake. But, sure, if you don't like drama or characterisation, I'm sure Jackson's polished turd looks like a masterclass in directing.

[hamishspence]

actually, it wasn't clear which of the 3 Unfinished Tales versions followed the timeline in the back of the main LotR book. It said in the notes for the chapter the main story was probably based on version C. The idea of the Nazgul visiting Saruman and asking about Gandalf is interesting. Especially given that in one of the versions (version C) Saruman, on seeing the Nazgul has a change of heart, goes off to beg Gandalf for help, and sees him in the far distance on the Eagle.

In version B Gandalf is already gone, and Wiki waylays Grima. In version C, he grabs the "squint eyed southerner" (possible half orc) one of Saruman's agents, and co-opts him to Sauron's service.

[Mr. Scaly]

I mean, how much time was wasted in the first movie with that stupid SuperOrc or whatever his name was?

I assume you mean Lurtz. Very well then. Here's an alternative.

Celeborn takes Aragorn aside to warn him about some strange orcish men prowling the shores, representing a powerful new threat. Then they're attacked by ordinary every day orcs. Such as the kind they already soundly beat in Moria. And this batch all dies just like every other orc in existence, not even making a significant mark on the movie. Heck, maybe Boromir even lives through the encounter and P and M don't get kidnapped. You don't like it but it had to happen. Otherwise Saruman would never have been relevent at all.

Also, for movies that deal with battles on a massive scale how would you portray them? As small five minute encounters?

[Dallas-Dakota]

[QUOTE=SmartAlec;4527344
The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King. As well as comradeship, hope, and the importance of free will and how it is a central part of destiny.[/QUOTE]
You, my friend, are wrong. You got only one thing right, and that is about the importance of free will.

Even PJ had somehow made the movie that it could have gotten through.
It is to have mercifull. To not be cruel.
If either Bilbo OR Frodo hadn't been mercifull towards Kreacher/Smeagol then the ring wouldn't have been destroyed. And so forth.

___________
Also, remove all the backstory except smeagol? Are you mad?
That would be saying : A creature, called gollem lived in some mountains for hundreds of years, kept alive by a evil and powerfull ring, which desired back for its master.

See, even now you need to go implement other history then that of Gollem/Smeagol.

....

[averagejoe]

Again, you may be misremembering this. The Nazgul are uncloaked, but watch for the appearance of the first on the summit as it literally steps out of the shadows. It is, essentially, the effect you mention here. Couple that with the other perception-distorting tricks (the emphasis on certain sounds, the lack of others) and they are genuinely intimidating.

See, I didn't find this to be true; I thought the nazgul were overdone in the movies. They were guys in black cloaks and raspy voices who made bugs appear. They might as well all worn "I'm evil," nametags. Also, what was up with them always being synchronized? That was just irritating.


On the other hand, this is Aragorn's moment, if you will. This is the point when he makes the transition from dodgy suspicious extra to one of the story's heroes.

And for those who know the books well, it fits. The Nazgul's chief weapon is fear, and if you can overcome that, you have a chance. Showing that the wraiths can be vulnerable makes Eowyn and Merry's victory over the Witch-King heroic, but not unbelievable.

I agree that it was necessary for Aragorn to be cool in this part, but did he really have to do that thing where he throws the torch in an improbable way and it sticks in the nazgul's head in an almost comical manner? By itself that wouldn't be so bad, but the films are peppered with moments like this, and it gets to be really annoying. Also, I don't think Aragorn winning and the nazgul looking cool were mutually exclusive goals. It just seemed to me like the nazgul were really weak after that; I mean, Aragorn just beat half without breaking a sweat.

Actually, this is one bit that I might have divorced from the book entirely. I mean, the books explaination wasn't overly strong, though I still found it to be preferable to the film's.


I assume you mean Lurtz. Very well then. Here's an alternative.

Celeborn takes Aragorn aside to warn him about some strange orcish men prowling the shores, representing a powerful new threat. Then they're attacked by ordinary every day orcs. Such as the kind they already soundly beat in Moria. And this batch all dies just like every other orc in existence, not even making a significant mark on the movie. Heck, maybe Boromir even lives through the encounter and P and M don't get kidnapped. You don't like it but it had to happen. Otherwise Saruman would never have been relevent at all.

Also, for movies that deal with battles on a massive scale how would you portray them? As small five minute encounters?

I think it wasn't the inclusion of the Uruks themselves, but Lurtz being a kind of 'miniboss' that he had a problem with.

Although, to be fair, the orcs in Moria were only beat because they ran when they had the fellowship at their mercy. Which was extremely stupid, even for that movie.

Incidentally, I don't think it would have been terrible if Boromir lived. I actually found him to be one of the most enjoyable parts of the movie, and the only character I found to be satisfyingly done.

[Mr. Scaly]

I think it wasn't the inclusion of the Uruks themselves, but Lurtz being a kind of 'miniboss' that he had a problem with.

Although, to be fair, the orcs in Moria were only beat because they ran when they had the fellowship at their mercy. Which was extremely stupid, even for that movie.

Incidentally, I don't think it would have been terrible if Boromir lived. I actually found him to be one of the most enjoyable parts of the movie, and the only character I found to be satisfyingly done.

I like think of Lurtz as the equivalent of Ugluk. In TT the book Ugluk was the big show of how strong and terrible the Uruk Hai could be but he didn't do so much in the movies so I guess PJ just moved his role up more. Makes sense when you think of the extra time in TT they'd have to dedicate to establish Uruk Hai as a credible threat.

They ran because the balrog was coming and they didn't want to spontaneously burst into flame as he got too close. And orcs are cowards anyway.

No argument there. Sean Bean was the real star of Fellowship.

[SmartAlec]

Lurtz gave the Uruk-Hai a face; more than that, killing him allows the good guys to at least have one moment of token victory at the end of the movie, which otherwise would have been quite bleak.


Also, what was up with them always being synchronized? That was just irritating.

Was it? I confess, I never found it so.

What's this thing about people laughing in the cinema, anyhow? I'm not sure if cinema-goers in the UK are just a more sober bunch than in other countries, or whether I was just lucky, but I saw Fellowship quite a few times when it was in the movies, and no-one laughed at any these scenes people mention.

[averagejoe]

I like think of Lurtz as the equivalent of Ugluk. In TT the book Ugluk was the big show of how strong and terrible the Uruk Hai could be but he didn't do so much in the movies so I guess PJ just moved his role up more. Makes sense when you think of the extra time in TT they'd have to dedicate to establish Uruk Hai as a credible threat.

They ran because the balrog was coming and they didn't want to spontaneously burst into flame as he got too close. And orcs are cowards anyway.

No argument there. Sean Bean was the real star of Fellowship.

Well, I didn't mind Lurtz terribly. I saw him as necessary to give the first movie some kind of closure and such. It gave a good confrontation at the end, and all the stuff you said.

I know why they ran. It was still stupid and gimmicky.

[RobotPerfomance]

I will simply put my $0.02 in here even though most of my main points were made. I just can't resist the topic. I am a avid fan of the books and the movie could never stand up to them but there are a few things that felt like they were changed for no good reason these have all been mentioned before so I won't rehash them. I will say that the ghost army should not have been green and should not have swarmed over everything. But, the movies look so darn good and are fun to watch. Also, it is nice that they popularized such a fantasy classic. As movies I think they work pretty well. I put it like this if you read the books you will like the Fellowship of the Rings best. If on the other hand, you never read the books you will like Return of the King best.

[turkishproverb]

Minor nitpick: The Istari are gods incarnate in "human" bodies.

Magic in Arda breaks down to roughly "stuff the gods do", "magical items", and "ill-defined sorcery" which may simply be related to connections to Sauron (invocational magic, not evocational; good guys invoke the names of the Valar occasionally and get an effect so it might be similar). The last could be classified under arcane, possibly.

We hear about some bad guys being "sorcerers" (the WK, the MoS, etc.) but what that actually allows them to do is not really discussed (how much of the WK's mojo is due to the Rings isn't explained).

We had a Magic in Middle-earth thread around here someplace a while back...

edit - *grumble* sneaky ninjas

IF you're mentioning what they are, the fact is the Silmirillion makes it clear that while they were in those forms they had to live by the "laws of middle earth" or some such and not use their godlike power, but merely that middle earth could offer them.

[Killersquid]

Um...All my questions were answered, but it seems the thread took off like a wildfire.

[Brother Oni]

What's this thing about people laughing in the cinema, anyhow? I'm not sure if cinema-goers in the UK are just a more sober bunch than in other countries, or whether I was just lucky, but I saw Fellowship quite a few times when it was in the movies, and no-one laughed at any these scenes people mention.

Depends on the audience I guess. When I went to see the film, I had the bloke behind me sniggering at Boromir's death monologue where he finally accepts Aragorn as his king.

Made me want to turn round and slap him... :smallfurious:

[Swordguy]

Um...All my questions were answered, but it seems the thread took off like a wildfire.

Any thread involving these movies is going to do that. Few issues absolutely polarize the geek community like the LotR movies. Really, it's an order of magnitude equal to the 3.5 v 4e question - EVERYONE has an opinion.

[nagora]

Incidentally, I don't think it would have been terrible if Boromir lived. I actually found him to be one of the most enjoyable parts of the movie, and the only character I found to be satisfyingly done.

Yes, one major irritation was that Boromir and Strider were cast the wrong way around. Everytime someone mentioned Strider, my eyes automatically went to the guy who looked like a ranger only to have to scuttle back to the guy that looked like he had never spent a night outdoors in his life.

Also, I saw Fellowship in Woking, England.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Any thread involving these movies is going to do that. Few issues absolutely polarize the geek community like the LotR movies. Really, it's an order of magnitude equal to the 3.5 v 4e question - EVERYONE has an opinion.

Hum... lemme think...

warhammer 40k Vs [put something here]

Off course, at the beginning of the internet, it was Kirk Vs Picard

Anyone can think of other polarizing geek topic?

[turkishproverb]

Hum... lemme think...

warhammer 40k Vs [put something here]

Off course, at the beginning of the internet, it was Kirk Vs Picard

Anyone can think of other polarizing geek topic?

Does Shatner wear a toupee.

I've been chased out of conventions by hordes of Klingons over that one.

[hamishspence]

ninjas vs pirates :smallsmile:

[kamikasei]

Vi vs. Emacs

[Were-Sandwich]

I certainly liked the movies. If someone ever tries another Starship Troopers movie, I want PJ directing it.

[nagora]

Vi vs. Emacs

That's easy: BOTH! I like vi on terminals and emacs in any sort of GUI with windows.

[kamikasei]

That's easy: BOTH! I like vi on terminals and emacs in any sort of GUI with windows.

...why on earth? Emacs works best when its window is basically turned into a terminal, anyway.

Also, uh, Tolkien or something. cough.

[SmartAlec]

Does Shatner wear a toupee.

I always used to think Shatner's girdle was the best special effect in the Trek movies. That is, until they managed to get his wig to stick to his head during the underwater sequences in Trek IV.

[SolkaTruesilver]

did DS9 destroyed Gene Roddenburry's ideal world? (In the Pale Moonlight, Section whatever)

and if yes, was it a good thing?

[comicshorse]

Yes and definitely yes.

( runs for cover)

Oh and in the LOTR movies can anyone tell me what was the point of the wave of skulls released by the restless dead. I mean that has got to be the biggest waste of time and money in the movies

[SolkaTruesilver]

Yes and definitely yes.


You asked for it..

Mister Worf, ramming speed!!! (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20051220.html)

[TheElfLord]

The book has no such groundwork because it is not needed.


I would suggest you reread Book I Chapter 2 and Book II Chapter 2. Both of them contain huge amounts of history and background that lay the groundwork the prologue does in the films.

[Mr. Scaly]

Ah, so we're on to polarising topics now? Star Wars Episodes 1-3 vs Star Wars Episodes 4-6.

You know, when I first read LotR in grade school I got really bored with the plot exposition chapters and skipped a bunch. I've reread them by now but I can understand the desire to simplify them some.

[EvilElitest]

My biggest problem isn't with the books, it is with the directing. PJ isn't a hack, but he and subtly have apparently never met

And the reason why Bloom gets his own special category is because he doesn't even try to act. It is like he isn't an actor, he is a card board face of an actor that moves around
from
EE

[Turcano]

And the reason why Bloom gets his own special category is because he doesn't even try to act. It is like he isn't an actor, he is a card board face of an actor that moves around

This is what is known as the Keanu Reeves school of acting.

[Mr. Scaly]

In his defence, wasn't it his first movie?

[Turcano]

Yeah, but he never got any better.

[EvilElitest]

This is what is known as the Keanu Reeves school of acting.

.......touche
from
EE

[SolkaTruesilver]

Yeah, but he never got any better.

Well, since his popularity is based on those 3 movies who started his career, I don't see why he would feel the need to change. That's what his fangirls want..

Even then, I loved the moment when he started crying and ran to his brother's dress in Troy. That was an Orlando Bloom we never seen before, and it proved he can be something else than [Generic badass hero]

[WalkingTarget]

IF you're mentioning what they are, the fact is the Silmirillion makes it clear that while they were in those forms they had to live by the "laws of middle earth" or some such and not use their godlike power, but merely that middle earth could offer them.

Yeah, they had living bodies and had to deal with the consequences of that. They had to eat and sleep and could be injured. They were subject to emotions like fear and doubt. And they were sent to be advisors and guides and so didn't go in guns-a-blazin'. Their strength was veiled because that was part of their mission (the Valar had learned their lesson in the War of Wrath) but at several points Gandalf lets this drop somewhat (confronting Bilbo about the Ring after his party, for example; at least, that's my interpretation of what's happening there).

My point was that the "magic" that is present in Middle-earth doesn't really have categories (divine vs. arcane or whatever). Setting aside one or two outlying exceptions (and just about every "rule" in Tolkien's writing has exceptions) all of the "spells" used are either cast by or are plausibly derived from the Valar and Maiar.

[hamishspence]

Unfinished Tales gives us the main details on the Istari. Gandalf "lets slip" a bit more in his conversations with Frodo and Company after the war, in Gondor, on the subject of his actions in the Hobbit (the separate versions are compiled into one account in one of the most recent editions of the Hobbit)

Olorin is his name among the Valar.

[Prophaniti]

Yeah, magic in Tolkien's works is very vague, subtle, and mysterious. IMO, a great place for it, and I find nearly every story that does magic in this fashion more interesting than one that spells out what it can do and how.

[kamikasei]

Olorin is his name among the Valar.

Actually, this is stated by Faramir right in the main text of The Two Towers.

(I was once disqualified from a quiz for knowing it.)

[hamishspence]

yes. Its mentioned a second time in UT. I like the fact that it puts the Smaug mission in perspective: Why Gandalf wanted smaug dealt with: because the Dragon might make common cause with Sauron.