Lord of the rings. Book or movie?

[Greep]

There are people who like LotR the movie more than the book, and vice verse. Personally, I liked the movies better.

Now I'm not generally a "Movies>books" person, I'm usually the opposite, but the movies were incredibly well done! The actors couldn't have been better (Boromir primarily, aragorn was kinda flat in the first movie tho), the atmosphere was great (whoo new zealand!) the music was fitting, the battles were epic, it goes on and on.

Now sure some things were missed. I personally didn't like Tom bombadil being cut, among some things. But ask yourself this: is it worth it to cut this out to save yourself having to read through some of tolkiens more... soporific passages in the book?

Anyways, discuss :)

[Piedmon_Sama]

Honestly, I think Peter Jackson did about as well as you could reasonably do to try and adapt LotR into a film. I'm sorry, Tom Bombadil would simply not come across well on film (he didn't really come across well for me on the page), and I'm not exactly perturbed they left him out, TBH.

EDIT: I still prefer the book, I mean, of course. Doesn't everyone? >_>

[Spiryt]

Gonna say book.

Beacuse original is.. well original, and also while First movie was very well done and second was mostly OK, third one was simply tragic at times. Two towers had weak moments too.

[Anteros]

The LOTR books are an absolutely fantastic set of folklore and tales. They laid the groundwork for modern fantasy as we know it. Tolkien was a genius at worldcrafting.

However, they are atrociously bad literature. The characterization is poor, the narrative is rambling and easily distracted, the character motives are shallow and never develop, etc.

In this one instance I believe that the movies are better than the books, although ussually the situation is reversed. When characters in movies based off of a book are deeper than they were in the novels, you have a problem.

[Satyr]

I think that the first movie was better than the first book, the two towers were about equal but that the novel version of Return of the King was much better than the movie version, mostly because of the undead soldiers who looked almost exactly like the undead legionairs in an Asterix movie and completely ruined the moot of what was supposed a terrible battle.
Generally speaking, the travel scenes are much more impressive in the movies, the combat scenes and battles were better in the book, mostly because they weren't ruined through more comical degradation of te enemy into stupid mook territory and Legolas surfing actions.
The worst parts of the books - Tom Bombadil and his infatile lulabies - were left out in the movies, but on the otherhand they just had to completely overblow the romance in the movie.

[Greep]

haha. Maybe Tom wasn't so great ;) I read fellowship when I was in middle school so really boring parts I just kinda skipped and filled it in with whatever I wanted.

I read Two Towers later in life and wished I still used this reading philosophy, but then I'd probably skip half the book.

And yeah, I DO agree, the undead warriors in the movie were not very well portrayed.

[Eldan]

That, and did they really have to degrade Gimli to a joke? I liked him. Same with Merry and Pippin.

Also, I wasn't unhappy with the movies, until I heard they left out the best part: the shire vs. Gobbos. Seriously. I even thought the first movie was good.

[Hazkali]

Book, by far. Whilst the films are good, they cannot beat the books, warts and all. Especially with their unfortunate tendency to alter the plot in unfortunate ways (were the Dead Men really necessary in the Pellenor Fields? were Elves really necessary at Helm's Deep?), you just can't get across the struggle of Frodo across Mordor, which was one of the defining features of the book for me. There is simply no way to do it on film, so it was soft-peddled to some extent, which lost the film marks.

[rayne_dragon]

Hmm... plotwise I have to go with the books. However, I think I prefer the movie over being bored to tears by the abhorently excessive descriptions of scenery in the books. Don`t get me wrong, I enjoy reading, I loved The Hobbit, but the Lord of the Rings was just boggy to read through.

[warty goblin]

The LOTR books are an absolutely fantastic set of folklore and tales. They laid the groundwork for modern fantasy as we know it. Tolkien was a genius at worldcrafting.

However, they are atrociously bad literature. The characterization is poor, the narrative is rambling and easily distracted, the character motives are shallow and never develop, etc.

In this one instance I believe that the movies are better than the books, although ussually the situation is reversed. When characters in movies based off of a book are deeper than they were in the novels, you have a problem.

Can I eat this one? Please?

Compared to some works of literature, LOTR is the holy grail of character development (looks daggers at The Scarlet Letter). Hell, a lot of literature, even works I don't despise, doesn't explore character motivation overmuch. Look at Moby D ick*, we don't even know who the narrator really is, or a lot Poe. The Cask of Amontillado just says that the narrator wants revenge for something, we're given no idea what.

Seriously, if one requires character development and clarity of motive, you may as well fire half the canon out a cannon, for a metaphorical meta-bombardment.


*Spelled this way due to forum censor, which clearly has no taste in reading material.

Personally I prefer the books, which I read more or less once a year. Of course I also watch the movies yearly, so...

[Anteros]

Can I eat this one? Please?

Compared to some works of literature, LOTR is the holy grail of character development (looks daggers at The Scarlet Letter). Hell, a lot of literature, even works I don't despise, doesn't explore character motivation overmuch. Look at Moby D ick*, we don't even know who the narrator really is, or a lot Poe. The Cask of Amontillado just says that the narrator wants revenge for something, we're given no idea what.

Seriously, if one requires character development and clarity of motive, you may as well fire half the canon out a cannon, for a metaphorical meta-bombardment.


*Spelled this way due to forum censor, which clearly has no taste in reading material.

Personally I prefer the books, which I read more or less once a year. Of course I also watch the movies yearly, so...

Scarlet Letter absolutely blows Tolkien out of the water in character development. People actually change as the novel goes on, and are a little deeper than, "elf guy," "dwarf guy," "human warrior" "hobbits."

What makes Legolas or Gimli any different than any other elf or dwarf? Why are Merry and Pippin almost interchangeable in personality?

They're completely bland. (Although to be fair, these characters were not built to carry the novel.)

Also just because we don't learn about the narrator in books, does not mean there is no development. This is because these books are not focused on the narrator, so he does not have to develop.

I'm not getting into an argument with you here because you're completely biased. The fact that you even compared Tolkien's work to Poe's should be enough to prove that.

[Tirian]

Personally I prefer the books, which I read more or less once a year. Of course I also watch the movies yearly, so...

This. It's really a false choice, as they're both strong in the ways that they aimed to be strong.

If you were only allowed to experience one, it should be the books. There are ten members of the Fellowship (including Gollum), and JRRT is more or less good in advancing nearly all of their characters. Peter Jackson made the understandable choice that you really can't do that even in three extended-length movies, so he focuses on Aragorn, Sam, and Gollum and pushes the rest into the background. That was a travesty agaisnt Gimli and a shame to Legolas, Merry, and Pippin, and anyone who enjoyed the movies should read the books to find out what they really were like.

At the same time, the movies are gorgeous, arguably the first time that someone used a ton of CGI that was meant to be seamlessly integrated into the story instead of the lead character, and it's much easier to watch the first movie than read the first book.

[Ms.Malbolge]

The books were a great read the first time around but upon rereading I tend to skip over the vast majority of Frodo and Sam. The character development was superb in the book and I am all for Warty Goblin eating the guy who said otherwise.

The movies were great movies but the medium is completely different. Yes the books ramble in places and yes Tolkien spent a lot of time describing scenery but if you close your eyes for a moment you can practically taste Middle Earth due to those descriptions.

The movies got rid of Tom, which I thought was a good move but I liked the bit about the wights and the sword that was created, more or less, to specifically kill the man who later became the Witch King. Just, little things that I wish they would've mentioned in passing in the movies.

Anyways, before I ramble on further and risk making a bigger ninny out of myself. The books win. Because I said so! :smalltongue:

[Tirian]

What makes Legolas or Gimli any different than any other elf or dwarf? Why are Merry and Pippin almost interchangeable in personality?

Well, Gimli is different from every other dwarf in that he meets and falls in love with Galadriel, and he spends the last two books as a remarkably different person. It would be hard to say whether Legolas is the only elf who would put aside the eons-old emnity between their races to embrace Gimli as a brother and Elf-friend under those circumstances, but he is remarkable in that he was the one to do so.

I don't particularly agree that Merry and Pippin were interchangeable, although I think it's perhaps fair to say that Merry didn't have any personality at all before their separation.

[Haruki-kun]

Usually I prefer books, but the movies won't kill you. For one, watching a battle is more epic than reading it. Usually. There are exceptions, of course.

However, I only read the first one, and watched all three movies, so I can't really say...

[warty goblin]

Scarlet Letter absolutely blows Tolkien out of the water in character development. People actually change as the novel goes on, and are a little deeper than, "elf guy," "dwarf guy," "human warrior" "hobbits."

Well, I could mention the dialog in Scarlet Letter here, which is completely different than anything ever uttered by actual human being that I have ever conversed with. Also, how the hell can you look at Frodo and say that characters in LOTR don't change? The way I read it, he changes fairly considerably from beginning to end, from innocence to someone who has lost everything he loved in order to save it.


What makes Legolas or Gimli any different than any other elf or dwarf? Why are Merry and Pippin almost interchangeable in personality?

They're completely bland. (Although to be fair, these characters were not built to carry the novel.) They still, despite being not human, converse in a more human way than anyone in Scarlet Letter. They are a bit unapproachable, because they aren't human, but look at their relationship when they leave Rivendell compared to at the end of RoTK, by the way I read it, there's a pretty drastic change there.


Also just because we don't learn about the narrator in books, does not mean there is no development. This is because these books are not focused on the narrator, so he does not have to develop. Fair enough. I would point out that in The Cask of Amontillido, there's really not a whole lot of development there. Guy is pissed off, guy walls other guy up in wall, guy has about 2 seconds of second thoughts, guy goes on with life for next 40 years.



I'm not getting into an argument with you here because you're completely biased. The fact that you even compared Tolkien's work to Poe's should be enough to prove that.
Comparison of two things is not evidence for bias. It is, more or less, the font of pretty much all human understanding of the universe, which has produced some fairly incontrovertible results. Saying that comparing two books is proof of bias is like saying that comparing Earth to Mercury and observing that the second is hotter than the first is proof of temperature bias.

Also, it's a book. Everything is a matter of opinion. There is exactly one type of non-biased thing that can be said about a book, and that is 'on page 45, such and such is written.' Everything else is a matter of opinion. All that literature consists of is books that people with Ph.D.s in studying books have decided they like and are worth writing lots of commentary on. That's something that can be objectively measured. The quality of a book can't be.

[SmartAlec]

I'm not getting into an argument with you here because you're completely biased. The fact that you even compared Tolkien's work to Poe's should be enough to prove that.

No.

Just to add a bit, Aragorn's character changes, too. From ranger and follower of Gandalf with hopes of re-establishing his kingdom, to leader faced with a difficult choice once Gandalf goes - and when Gandalf reappears, he does not lapse back into being a follower but goes from strength to strength, accepting his kingly role and going his own way, summoning the Army of the Dead, looking into the Palantir and challenging Sauron.

The character development's there.

As for the elves at Helm's Deep, that was complicated, a holdover from previous drafts of the movie. Arwen was originally intended to be at Helm's Deep, and to deliver Anduril to Aragorn. That was changed, but most of Helm's Deep had already been shot. There was no way to remove the Elves without re-shooting a lot of expensive footage, so Haldir's scene of appearaing at Helm's Deep alone was inserted to explain why the Elves were there (watch that part, with Haldir introducing himself to Theoden - it doesn't quite fit with the rest, the camerawork and lighting aren't quite right). As such, I don't hold a grudge over the Elves being there.

Anyhow. I like the book, but there are a fair few points that the movies managed to do better, and vice versa.

[toasty]

Both.

The movie was great. It had great fight scenes and really did a good job. In terms of movies, they were some of the best movies made.

The books... in terms of other fantasy literature blow everything else out of the water (except perhaps Malazan... or GRRM's stuff, but I haven't read this stuff). Maybe the characters were bland but IMO, its not called the father of modern fantasy for no reason. It gave us so much of what fantasy is (even if half of it was stolen from norse/saxon myth).

For me though, you need both the books and the movies, especially since we have the hobbits coming back to the shire part removed. Especially since Peter Jackson's reasoning for the elves helping at Helm's Deep, "because it would have been nice if they did help." (yet Elrond gave his help via advice and the reforging of Narsil and the elves of Lorien fought a 3 day battle against the orcs of moria... and helped the fellowship).

That being said, the LotR movies are some of the first movies I've seen where I can say the Books aren't better than the movies, they are just different.

[averagejoe]

I actually did not enjoy the later movies much, and only just managed to enjoy the first movie because I bit down and cringed through the more groanworthy parts. It isn't that I was comparing the movie to the books the whole time-it actually irritates me when the movie is too much like the books. As far as I'm concerned, Sean Bean was the only thing in those movies good enough to balance off all the badness, and he was killed off in the first movie. (I'm actually torn on this point. On the one hand I think they should have changed the movie to have Boromir live, because Sean Bean was awesome. On the other hand, that was a really awesome death scene, and I'm someone who doesn't like death scenes. *sigh* One can't have everything.)

But, yeah, my complaints about the movies are pretty numerous, but it mostly boils down to them being pretty stupid. They're watchable, and have their moments, but there's too much that just makes me wince.


I'm not getting into an argument with you here because you're completely biased. The fact that you even compared Tolkien's work to Poe's should be enough to prove that.

If I might offer an opinion, you seem by far the most biased of the two. You've offered no arguments or criticism that you couldn't have developed by simply looking at the common criticisms leveled against Tolkien, or, indeed, any evidence at all that you've read the books. (Not that I doubt that you did, of course.) On the other hand, your defense of Litrahchah seems automatic and fanatical, and has a similar lack of rationale. Now, I know nothing about you, so I'm not saying this is necessarily true, but from what I see here one could easily conclude that you're just blindly defending the literary canon against a well known and bafflingly popular upstart.

[Rogue 7]

Movies. I'm sorry, but Tolkien writes like a glacier- big, cold, and not going anywhere fast. The Fellowship of the Ring was one of the few books that bored me enough to stop reading midway through, and the second two weren't that much better. I loved Tolkien's style in The Hobbit, but it was simply boring in Lord of the Rings. Then I tried the Silmarillion. I've read history textbooks that are more exciting.

The movies capture the epic scale of Tolkien's writing with a much better pace and a lot more action, simply put. Character-wise, neither is anything special, but that's all right. Lord of the Rings isn't a character-driven plot, so it works. But movies, ten times over.

[Texas_Ben]

Then I tried the Silmarillion. I've read history textbooks that are more exciting.
Heh, I thought the Silmarillion was extremely interesting. Totally agree about the LotR though... Lots of "and then there was some grass and a rock and a stick and 2 trees and another rock and...(60 pages later)... and some more rocks and a grass and another grass and some more grass then some rocks... and then they were there.

Anyways, I really liked the first movie, I think it really captured the essence of the book... They changed some things, but nothing essential, and what they changed I think is all well within reason and made it a better film. Then they decided in the last 2 movies to muck about with things that they had no business changing... Faramir dragging them all the way back to osgilliath, Army of the dead at the pelennor fields, things like that... not minor things, and for no good reason. Thus I spit on them and call them stupid.
I still really like the first movie though.

[Setra]

Personally I couldn't bring myself to read the books, didn't really enjoy the style of writing perhaps. Maybe my tastes are too simple... either way I love the movies.

[RPGuru1331]

Movie. The Book.. isn't unreadable, but all the page space burned on description is so aptly handled in a movie.

[Tirian]

Then I tried the Silmarillion. I've read history textbooks that are more exciting.

A conversation from about five years ago:

My friend: You know, Tolkien died before finishing The Silmarillion?
Me: I'm not surprised. I couldn't finish it either.

After that, I was ... um ... persuaded to give it another chance, and I wound up enjoying it. Maybe you have to be in the mood for it.

[warty goblin]

A conversation from about five years ago:

My friend: You know, Tolkien died before finishing The Silmarillion?
Me: I'm not surprised. I couldn't finish it either.

After that, I was ... um ... persuaded to give it another chance, and I wound up enjoying it. Maybe you have to be in the mood for it.

Indeed. Also the first part of it is by far the hardest. Once he gets done enumerating Valar it becomes about a dozen times more readable.

[Weezer]

I think that the books were better than the movie, because while they did as well as expected they added some things that were irritating (army of the dead and Frodo's betrayal of Sam). Also I think that the books did a better job at capturing the epic scale of the journey and the feeling of hopelessness that was quite prevalent throughout most of the books.


Indeed. Also the first part of it is by far the hardest. Once he gets done enumerating Valar it becomes about a dozen times more readable.

Very true, the first time I tried to read it I didn't get past the first few chapters but the second time I skipped until the elves became the primary focus of the book, and it was much more enjoyable.

[Turcano]

My vote goes to the books, hands down.


However, they are atrociously bad literature. The characterization is poor, the narrative is rambling and easily distracted, the character motives are shallow and never develop, etc.

Um, were we reading the same set of books?

[Gavin Sage]

Is it ever meaningful to compare movies to books? I mean seriously most people have no standard other then "more plot/detail quantity = better" and books inevitably win this argument. I don't think the mediums are actually comparable, especially anything modern.

However I give the Peter Jackson credit for the following:

1. Everything cut from the respective Shire sequences at the begining and end. They do not work and when I read the books there is a major difference in tone to those chapters that does not make sense in the movie. This goes triple for Tom Bombadil.

2. In the books Arwen appears in a single non-speaking scene before showing up and marrying Aragorn. Most of the detail is provided in an index for crying out loud. Its not that romance is particularly needed for LOTR, but if its there at all it need not be hiding in the back of the book. So I approve of most things to do with Arwen. And to objectors allow me to ask whether you would rather she been the tenth person on the Fellowship, or perhaps replaced Legolas? Since that would be more par the course you know.

There is plenty of other stuff I have no objection too but do not love. The army of the dead for example, because when out numbered a hundred to one a suprise flanking manuver by militia and armsmen clearly destroys the army. At least Jackson made it outright deus ex machina, plus shortens what is a weirdly off page event in the books.

Which isn't to say I don't have objections a plenty:

1. The Elves, at Helm's Deep and Legolas being god mode sue. I hear the point was to address the "why don't the elves do jack" question people have with the books. However them being a race of badarses only exacerbates this problem. Forget the eagles, why doesn't the elven army march on Mordor because they clearly would kick Sauron's butt.

2. Faramir, by far the worst excess taken with the movies. The difference between being and sucummbing to temptation is vast and important in Tolkien's work.

[valadil]

I can't compare the two. The books were a big deal to me in ways that I can't explain. I held them dear. The movies took LotR aware from me and made it pop culture and for that I resent them.

I will give Jackson credit though. Tolkien himself said that LotR as written wouldn't work as a movie. The movies worked quite well and the changes made were minimal.

[averagejoe]

Um, were we reading the same set of books?

I often wonder that whenever I have this sort of discussion.


Is it ever meaningful to compare movies to books? I mean seriously most people have no standard other then "more plot/detail quantity = better" and books inevitably win this argument. I don't think the mediums are actually comparable, especially anything modern.

Not many people here have been making that argument; in fact, I stated that I find almost the opposite to be true. They're not completely comparable (I do not, for example, admire Tolkien's fine camera work or special effects), but they are still comparable.

[Gamiress]

I would think that if you can only experience one, you should watch the movies. The Lord of the Rings is really just a vehicle for the languages Tolkien invented - he was a linguist, not a writer. This is why the books are about as readable as bricks, they are not story driven. They are "look at this fantastic world" driven. Most people who attempt to read LotR give up halfway through the first book.

That said, I love the books. I think they're amazing fantasy and would recommend them to everyone if I weren't acutely aware of how inaccessible they are. The movies do a wonderful job of showcasing the world Tolkien built, without having to slog through the man's atrocious pacing.

I do hate Orlando Bloom as Legolas though. It would have been so much better if they'd cast someone who could pull off the overemotional showoff that Legolas was in the books.

[endoperez]

Personally, I prefer the Finnish translation of the books to the movies, and I couldn't get through the dry writing of the Two Towers when I tried reading the trilogy in English. I think some of the poems are better translated than as Tolkien wrote them. Especially the Last March of the Ents. The rhythm of the translation has really stuck with me. I didn't have heart to watch Return of the King, since Two Towers' portrayal of the ents disappointed me and I heard the Scouring of the Shire had been left out.

Scouring is where the character development really became apparent for me when I first read the books. Just thinking about it gives me chills. It's just so awesome...


I'll give one thing to the movies, though: the background music is great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTWYbzGGIis
It's almost as good as what I imagined the March of the Ents to be. Different, of course, but very good.

[Spiryt]

Well, maybe I have read Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion while being too young, but I haven't found them boring or difficult to read at all... :smallconfused:

Pretty fascinating rather.

[averagejoe]

I'll give one thing to the movies, though: the background music is great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTWYbzGGIis
It's almost as good as what I imagined the March of the Ents to be. Different, of course, but very good.

Point. The soundtrack for the movie was freaking amazing.

I don't get all this talk about dryness and inaccessibility, though. Most of the accusations on this count have been, at best, gross exaggerations. Vehicle for language bollocks; the man was crafty with words. (Okay, I'll admit some dry spots in the Frodo/Sam part of The Two Towers, but these were hardly a big deal.)

[Irenaeus]

There are people who like LotR the movie more than the book...Are there? I honestly had no idea. The movies are ok, though.

[Athaniar]

I liked both the movies and the books, but there are several changes to the films that I did not like (Sauron is an eye? Come on, Jackson, at least attempt to read the books. Also, the Scouring of the Shire). The visual stuff is cool, though (Sauron at the beginning of FotR, balrog, nazgul, mumakil), and so is the music.

[sun_tzu]

I loved the movies. They had their imperfection (notably turning Gimli into comic relief), but they were enjoyable.
I tried to read the books twice. First in junior high, and I stopped at the Tom Bombadil sequence. The second time in college, and I got halfway through "The Two Towers" before giving up. It was boring me to tears. OK, the tears part is hyperbole - but seriously, I just couldn't see any reason I'd want to keep reading. I'm usually a guy who loves books, but in this specific case...Ugh.
It was pretty disappointing, especially since I had loved "The Hobbit" years earlier.:smallfrown:

[Tengu_temp]

Gonna say book.

Beacuse original is.. well original, and also while First movie was very well done and second was mostly OK, third one was simply tragic at times. Two towers had weak moments too.

While I liked the second more than the first (it was much less faithful to the source, but much more epic), I can't help but agree on the third! It had very few interesting moments (why was the battle at Pellenor Fields much less epic than Helm's Deep?), the character derailment that they did to Denethor was atrocious (from a tragic ruler who tries his best despite his madness to a revolting old man), and there were too many unintentional comedic things - the already mentioned Twelve Tasks of Asterix ghosts, the battle at Pellenor being a Looney Tunes "guy X pulls out a gun, guy Y pulls out a bigger gun, X pulls out an even bigger gun, Y pulls out a cannon" duel...

I liked the books a bit more than the movies. I think that the Polish translation was very good and thus made the books much more enjoyable for us than the rest of the world.

[Avilan the Grey]

Honestly, I think Peter Jackson did about as well as you could reasonably do to try and adapt LotR into a film. I'm sorry, Tom Bombadil would simply not come across well on film (he didn't really come across well for me on the page), and I'm not exactly perturbed they left him out, TBH.

EDIT: I still prefer the book, I mean, of course. Doesn't everyone? >_>


This is basically exactly was I was going to write.
I Love the books. I really like the movies. I prefer the extended editions, but the theatrical release was good too.

[Dallas-Dakota]

I'm gonna say....book.

The movies were great, but the books were just better.

[Astrella]

Pelennor fields not epic in the movie?
The charge of the rohirrim was bloody awesome!

[Z-dan]

The age old discussion I see on every forum I visit...
I'll say the same here as I say on the others: The movies were better, in the sense that they got people to read the books and reignited interest in fantasy, and now there's not as much of a social stigma against fantasy fans. A lot of people were upset about the lack of Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire, but when you consider that the extended versions of the films are possibly the longest films ever, then just imagine how long they would be if they included all the other non-essential parts. I think they were an extremely well written adaptation, and can fully understand why sequences like the scouring of the shire were not added because to movie fans it would appear to be something unnecessarily tagged on to the ending. In short, the films inspired me to read the book, the book inspired me to read more fantasy fiction (up to that point I'd only read Discworld), and reading other fantasy fiction has inspired me to write fantasy fiction of my own.

[Tengu_temp]

Pelennor fields not epic in the movie?
The charge of the rohirrim was bloody awesome!

In comparison to anything that happened during the battle at Helm's Deep? No, no it wasn't.

[Avilan the Grey]

In comparison to anything that happened during the battle at Helm's Deep? No, no it wasn't.

?

I so preferred it to Helms Deep. Seriously.

[WalkingTarget]

...then just imagine how long they would be if they included all the other non-essential parts....

Well, Tolkien would have had words with anybody who said that the Scouring of the Shire was a "non-essential part", but with the changes Jackson made in the overall tone of the story it may have become one for his purposes.

People seem to complain about the lack of development in the Aragorn/Arwen Romance subplot frequently. The thing is, the book is presented as being written by the Hobbits ("being the memoirs of Bilbo and Frodo of the Shire, supplemented by the accounts of their friends and the learning of the Wise.") and from their perspective that part of the story wasn't apparent until after the war was over. If it had been told from Aragorn's perspective the romance would have been more obvious.

I like the films, but not as much as I like the novels. Plot holes introduced by the filmmakers aside, I think the oversimplification of virtually everything hurts the setting and the frequent character degradation/derailment makes me wince. People complain about Tolkien's description of places, but then go on and remark on how wonderful the filmmaker's choices of location are. Without some of the level of detail JRRT put into his descriptions, there would have been less emphasis put on finding places to shoot that would stand up to the story as written and we'd probably have ended up with much blander locations.

I'll be the first to admit that the man's writing style isn't for everybody (I read Fellowship when I was 12, had to stop, and take another running start at it after going through all of Tom Clancy, Michael Crichton, and Frank Herbert along the way before I got through it the first time). However, everything that I've heard anybody criticize him for is something that we recognize, but like the books despite them (or, in some cases, are a reason to like them in the first place; for every cry of "Too much description!" there's an answering "So much detail the setting comes to life!").

[late for dinner]

I lose focus so much when reading. I didnt like reading the Hobbit, so I am gonna go with the Movies. I love them and the first one makes me cry. I also really like Battle for Middle Earth II as well...I guess I am a visual person.

[Evil DM Mark3]

The movies. A 1000 times over.

[The Minx]

The books. They have better special effects.

The movies are good, but they have too many flaws to match the booksd, which I won't go into here.

[Aotrs Commander]

Both.

Plus, in what in a shocking travesty of injustice had been neglected thus far in the dicussion, the BBC Radio show.

The movie and radio show do some aspects much better than the book (the battles in the former, the poetry and songs in the latter) but are much more abridged than the book; even the radio show, which comprises some 13 45-60 minute episodes. (Both lack Bombadil, though this is a common factor in any adaption I've encountered).

The radio show in particular really adds flesh to the bone with the audio. The Lay of Gilgalad - one of my favourite songs actually (I will ever feel sorrow that I cannot learn the Lay it's it's full form, beyond what Sam spoke) - and hearing the chanted Black Speech of the Nazgul as they command Frodo to give them the Ring has a great deal more impact, I think than, the film or book did. (The latter because it focused more on the visual - no duh.)

All in all, though, I think all three are superlative in their own medium. Lord of the Rings still remains my favourite book, the movies rank up with Star Wars sextuplete as my favourites and the radio show speaks for itself. (Har-de-har.)



Side rant: I find that most of what is considered classic literature1 (or for that matter, preportedly 'mature' film, TV and radio) to be at best banal; being as it always seems to be, large numbers of people being terribly unhappy. I don't find watching/reading about/listening to people without humour shouting at each other/ being depressed and/or making some sweeping social statement/allogory or whatever else classic literature and it's derivatives spend their time doing, to be remotely entertaining. (Th only time I enjoy people's suffering - unless they're the bad guys - is when I'm inflicting it in person...) Eye of the Beholder and all. Or Eyeglow of the Lich. Or Eyeglow of the Beholder Lich? I'm not sure now...



1Discounting Shakespeare, which I personally think is less literature and more play. Scripts don't read so well on the page, and I think it would be unfair of me personally to judge it (and judge it harshly based on what my English literature courses showed me in the past) - aside from it's purely historical interest (the same way I view, say, Chaucer) - outside it's native medium. I mean, I've read the script for the Phantom Menance, and shockingly - not even close to the film (which yes, I did enjoy, thank you).

[TheDeeMan]

I too read the books when I was really young, so my memory of what I hear folks complain about most often as being left out of the movies is vague. But I love the movies. Pure kickass entertainment.

Can't wait to see what Del Toro has in store for the Hobbit. Isn't he the director now?

Dee

[warty goblin]

Both.

Plus, in what in a shocking travesty of injustice had been neglected thus far in the dicussion, the BBC Radio show.

The movie and radio show do some aspects much better than the book (the battles in the former, the poetry and songs in the latter) but are much more abridged than the book; even the radio show, which comprises some 13 45-60 minute episodes. (Both lack Bombadil, though this is a common factor in any adaption I've encountered).

The radio show in particular really adds flesh to the bone with the audio. The Lay of Gilgalad - one of my favourite songs actually (I will ever feel sorrow that I cannot learn the Lay it's it's full form, beyond what Sam spoke) - and hearing the chanted Black Speech of the Nazgul as they command Frodo to give them the Ring has a great deal more impact, I think than, the film or book did. (The latter because it focused more on the visual - no duh.)

All in all, though, I think all three are superlative in their own medium. Lord of the Rings still remains my favourite book, the movies rank up with Star Wars sextuplete as my favourites and the radio show speaks for itself. (Har-de-har.)



Side rant: I find that most of what is considered classic literature1 (or for that matter, preportedly 'mature' film, TV and radio) to be at best banal; being as it always seems to be, large numbers of people being terribly unhappy. I don't find watching/reading about/listening to people without humour shouting at each other/ being depressed and/or making some sweeping social statement/allogory or whatever else classic literature and it's derivatives spend their time doing, to be remotely entertaining. (Th only time I enjoy people's suffering - unless they're the bad guys - is when I'm inflicting it in person...) Eye of the Beholder and all. Or Eyeglow of the Lich. Or Eyeglow of the Beholder Lich? I'm not sure now...



1Discounting Shakespeare, which I personally think is less literature and more play. Scripts don't read so well on the page, and I think it would be unfair of me personally to judge it (and judge it harshly based on what my English literature courses showed me in the past) - aside from it's purely historical interest (the same way I view, say, Chaucer) - outside it's native medium. I mean, I've read the script for the Phantom Menance, and shockingly - not even close to the film (which yes, I did enjoy, thank you).

This one speaks the truth. I used to have entire episodes of the radio play memorized, and I still know the words and tunes to most of the poetry/songs. My only complaint? They didn't do Sam's troll song, which is hilarious.

edit: also I feel it worth pointing out that I also do a mean Gollum impression based mostly on the BBC version, although Andy Serkis' Gollum is very good too.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The books don't have armies charging down mountains onto pike formations, so that's one point in their favour.

[Tyrant]

The books don't have armies charging down mountains onto pike formations, so that's one point in their favour.

I always had a problem with both of the big charges in the movies. Neither should have really accomplished much of anything. At Helm's Deep they were still vastly outnumbered and should have just been swarmed to death. Whoever didn't get impaled on the 12+ foot long pikes we all saw every last Uruk carrying to Helm's Deep that is. In RotK the charge shouldn't have made it that far into the formation. Even if it did, they would then be completely surrounded and again vastly outnumbered. And once again, charging into pikes at the onset should have done a great deal of damage and possibly halted the charge. I know mounted has advantages to unmounted, but it isn't that extreme.

As to the OP question, I like them both for what they are. The movies are entertaining and hopefully get more people to read the books. The books are far more detailed and actually explain some of the things going on and don't just hope that you come up with it on your own with the few vague hints that are given. I saw the movies first, so maybe I am being more kind to them than someone who read the books first. After reading the books a few things definately stuck out. Like:

1) Did PJ hate everyone in Denethor's line or what? Denethor is shown to be
a lunatic and not the man portrayed in the earlier parts of the book. Faramir hauls the Hobbits around everywhere. Boromir is obviously after the Ring from the onset instead of showing only hints of it's begining hold on him. At least his sacrifice wasn't altered so he could he at least die with dignity. Poor Denethor didn't even get his truly lunatic death.

2) The Eye. It looks cool and it is a way to give Sauron a physical presence in the movies. They simply wouldn't work as well if he weren't in the story somehow. However, I think they would have been better off going with his humanoid form (not the one in the opening, cool though it was). He didn't need lines beyond his few in the book, but a real body would have been better to me anyway.

3) Different sequences of events. This works in RotK as it would be hard to do as written. However, things like when Aragorn gets his sword were unnecessary. Taking it out of one place creates a need to put it in elsewhere. I think the DM of the Rings parody of this particular event isn't too far off. It doesn't hurt the story, but it makes me wonder why it was done. If it isn't broke, don't fix it as they say.

[averagejoe]

The books don't have armies charging down mountains onto pike formations, so that's one point in their favour.

Down embankments that became somehow absurdly steep during the night. Or something.

Or across vast obviously CG plains that have no features AT ALL until you hit a river or mountains. (The mountains, by the way, also have vast featureless plains behind them, only more evil.)

[Rockphed]

I am going to say I prefer the book, simply because I love Tolkien's poetry. Not the dry epics about Aragorn's ancestors, but the short ones, for instance

All that is gold does not glitter,
.....Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
.....Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
.....A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken:
.....The crownless again shall be king.

On the other hand, I must confess that Glacial is the best adjective to describe Tolkien's writing. It is a little slow, and doesn't seem to move very fast, but when it arrives, it is unstoppable.

[Aotrs Commander]

That was very nicely done in the radio show as well. It always gets me, that Aragorn's poem set to the swelling music they backed it with. Beautiful.

Heck, I Almost forgot to mention the Ent's marching song is simply mind-splinteringly awesome.

(Oddly enough, that sprung right into my head and wouldn't let go at the moment Redcloak had his epiphany and lead the charge at the battle of Azure City.)

The last CD release had the bulk of the songs on a bonus disk - which I've promptly swiped to my hard drive.

[Gavin Sage]

I always had a problem with both of the big charges in the movies. Neither should have really accomplished much of anything. At Helm's Deep they were still vastly outnumbered and should have just been swarmed to death. Whoever didn't get impaled on the 12+ foot long pikes we all saw every last Uruk carrying to Helm's Deep that is. In RotK the charge shouldn't have made it that far into the formation. Even if it did, they would then be completely surrounded and again vastly outnumbered. And once again, charging into pikes at the onset should have done a great deal of damage and possibly halted the charge. I know mounted has advantages to unmounted, but it isn't that extreme.

I think this applies fairly equally to both versions. It seems in the books any orc host can be broken by the valor of righteous men, a few cavarlry charges, and a suprise flanking manuver. Even in the Hobbit the men/elves/dwarves only win the Battle of the Five Armies because the eagles and Beorn show up. The eagles are the cavalry and Beorn is the suprise flanking manuver.

Battle in the Simarillion seems to be complete one sided, either the elves are badarsed enough or the orcs/dragons are just too much. Then there's the battle before the gates of Mordor. I know its just a distraction, but honestly Aragorn what if Frodo had been two hours later? March your army up then retreat once Sauron sends out his hosts and keep them out with some hit and run battles, not some last stand and hope Sauron is a load bearing boss. At least the books note the Haradrim and co didn't just up and kill themselves.

Lets face it folks Tolkien's has no sense of tactics.

[-Baldur-]

For me, I think it will always be the movies, for society in general, the same.

It's a matter of how lazy our society has become, honestly who can be bothered reading two pages about how a tree looks. Whilst the imagery is beautiful and detailed, in todays world it is unfortunately unneccesary, it is a shame but that is how it is. We want our information fast, and our imagery faster, DVD accomplishes this, Blu Ray even more so.

Written Imagery slowly dies out as media takes it's ever tightening hold on the world to a new level.

Not that I'm complaining. :smallwink:

[Tyrant]

I think this applies fairly equally to both versions. It seems in the books any orc host can be broken by the valor of righteous men, a few cavarlry charges, and a suprise flanking manuver. Even in the Hobbit the men/elves/dwarves only win the Battle of the Five Armies because the eagles and Beorn show up. The eagles are the cavalry and Beorn is the suprise flanking manuver.

Battle in the Simarillion seems to be complete one sided, either the elves are badarsed enough or the orcs/dragons are just too much. Then there's the battle before the gates of Mordor. I know its just a distraction, but honestly Aragorn what if Frodo had been two hours later? March your army up then retreat once Sauron sends out his hosts and keep them out with some hit and run battles, not some last stand and hope Sauron is a load bearing boss. At least the books note the Haradrim and co didn't just up and kill themselves.

Lets face it folks Tolkien's has no sense of tactics.

I guess I should have said that the tactics in the books weren't a whole lot better. That is when they are actually discussed at all. Maybe I need to reread it, but Helm's Deep seemed to be mostly, "and then the orcs lost". That kind of stuck out given the detail of pretty much everything else. Page after describing hills, and then a brief description of one of the major plot points of the book. In respect to detail of the battles themselves, the movies seem to have the edge.

[DomaDoma]

Am I the only one who thought the first half of the Two Towers book was incredibly, agonizingly dull but the second half was completely awesome?

Seriously, I have my issues with the movie - Saruman at the fore, Frodo's wimpitude and the instant mass Apparition to the Black Gate not far behind - but the way they competely and utterly redeemed the Rohan storyline gives them a lot of street cred in my book. I wept when that flag came off the pole, whereas the book had me going "why is everyone worrying about the lame wizard, and why can't I see Frodo now?"

[warty goblin]

I guess I should have said that the tactics in the books weren't a whole lot better. That is when they are actually discussed at all. Maybe I need to reread it, but Helm's Deep seemed to be mostly, "and then the orcs lost". That kind of stuck out given the detail of pretty much everything else. Page after describing hills, and then a brief description of one of the major plot points of the book. In respect to detail of the battles themselves, the movies seem to have the edge.

It's been about nine months since my last reading of TTT, so I'm a bit foggy on Helm's Deep, but as I recall the orcs got run over by Theoden et al charging from the Hornburg, followed by Erkenbrand who came out of nowhere and swept them along dike. Being hit by a cavalry shock out of nowhere tends to disorganize just about any army, which is when the Hourns showed up and started doing unkind things with orc bodies. All of that is pretty reasonable actually, if one grants walking trees with a bone to pick with orcs. The bit where Theoden pushes Saruman's army all the way back to the dike is a bit of a stretch, but it's covered in the Standard Badass Ruler Document: Section B: Paragraph C, which clearly states

...If at any time the afformentioned ruler shall make a last stand, charge, defense or other action in a combat situation that they have every reason to believe will result in their death, ruler shall be able to accomplish hitherto unsuspected feats of martial prowess, up to and including deflecting arrows with a wave of pure testosterone. Furthermore this shall not be thought of as cheesy by the audience unless the following eventualities occur:
1) This has happened at least twice before to afformentioned ruler.
2) Said ruler conciously invokes this.
If either eventualities 1) and 2) occur, ruler shall be forced to wear a scarlet "M" to proclaim their now official Mary Sue status, and also to speak in an altogether unnatural manner, as if all of their dialog is being written by Nathanial Hawthorne.

[Turcano]

Then there's the battle before the gates of Mordor. I know its just a distraction, but honestly Aragorn what if Frodo had been two hours later? March your army up then retreat once Sauron sends out his hosts and keep them out with some hit and run battles, not some last stand and hope Sauron is a load bearing boss.

I think you missed the point of that overture; they knew they probably weren't going to make it back alive:


"As Aragorn has begun, so we must go on. We must push Sauron to his last throw. We must call out his hidden strength, so that he shall empty his land. We must march out to meet him at one. We must make ourselves the bait, though his jaws should close around us. He will take that bait, in hope and in greed, for he will think that in such rashness he sees the pride of the new Ringlord: and he will say, 'So! He pushes out his neck too soon and too far. Let him come on, and behold I have him in a trap from which he cannot escape. There I will crush him, and what he has taken in his insolence shall be mine again for ever.'

We must walk open-eyed into that trap, with courage, but small hope for ourselves. For, my lords, it may well prove that we ourselves shall perish utterly in a black battle far from living lands; so that even if Barad-Dûr be thrown down, we shall not live to see a new age. But this, I deem, is our duty. And better so than to perish nonetheless -- as we surely shall, if we sit here -- and know as die that no new age shall come."

In other words, this was not a part of a strategic initiative, but an act of desperation that would almost surely cost them their lives for no direct gain to themselves, but had do be done anyway (did I mention that Tolkien fought in World War I?).

[Erloas]

I'm going to say movies as well. For one I didn't find the books worth the trouble of finishing, however given that I didn't read the last book (or last 2, I forget exactly now) I missed a lot of the epic part of the story.

I hated Tom Bombadilli and thought he didn't fit at all and for me he sort of took credability away from the rest of the story. I was happy to not see him in the movies. I also happened to read some book about Tolkien and the LOTR books and I wasn't really suprised at all to find out that Tom was some other character Tolkien had writen quite a few short stories about and pretty much just found some excuse to wedge him into the books.

I found some of the characters in the books simply didn't work. The main problems I had with the characters were changed (for the better) in the movies. Though how that may have changed if I had finished all the books isn't clear.

It probably didn't help that I didn't try to read the LOTR books until about 3-4 years ago. At which point I'd already read a dozen other epic fantasy books by other authors and was getting tired of the whole epic fantasy thing before I ever got to the LOTR books, which is of course the original.

I'm sure at some point I'll read the books again, but as it is I have 11 books that I bought and haven't got to read yet.

[Setra]

I'm going to shift the topic a bit..

Did anyone else find the Hobbit superior to the actual Lord of the Rings books?

[Capn Con]

I'm going to shift the topic a bit..

Did anyone else find the Hobbit superior to the actual Lord of the Rings books?

From what I remember, The Hobbit was a fun adventure novel while the Lord of the Rings had great ideas but poor execution. So, yes, I liked The Hobbit more than the Lord of the Rings.

[SmartAlec]

At Helm's Deep they were still vastly outnumbered and should have just been swarmed to death. Whoever didn't get impaled on the 12+ foot long pikes we all saw every last Uruk carrying to Helm's Deep that is.

While that would be true in the real world, no real-world cavalry charge was ever led by a wizard. Watch the scene again - the Uruk-Hai line up their pikes, and then suddenly the sun comes up over the lip of the valley, it blazes brightly, and Gandalf's voice is heard echoing across the Deep as the Uruk-Hai recoil, disrupting their line. Presumably, as the cavalry charge succeeds, that disruption really messed up their whole formation. There's magic at work!


Faramir hauls the Hobbits around everywhere. Boromir is obviously after the Ring from the onset instead of showing only hints of it's begining hold on him. At least his sacrifice wasn't altered so he could he at least die with dignity.

The problem faced here, as described by the scriptwriters, was that in making Faramir immune to the Ring's influence, you kill off the tension. As for Boromir, he is after the Ring from the outset, but it's not until Amon Hen that his desire for it finally manages to overcome his honour and common sense.

The film does manage to maintain the difference between the two brothers, though; Boromir wants to save Gondor and would take the Ring for himself, whereas Faramir merely wants Gondor to be saved, and rather than keep the Ring for himself, and he was going to send it to his father.


However, things like when Aragorn gets his sword were unnecessary.

In the book's appendices, Aragorn goes through a long coming-of-age story as he matures from orphan to ranger to a man willing to help reclaim Gondor. The movie doesn't have the luxury of appendices, so Aragorn is a very different character at the start of the movies; he's just a Ranger, no-one special, great warrior doing his bit to fight Sauron but doesn't want to be King - and he changes as the movies go on. That's his 'arc', if you will. In the book, having Anduril reforged is the point that signifies Aragorn is setting out to reclaim his throne. In the movies, it's the same. His resolution to become King just comes a lot later.

I get the feeling that having the books firmly in mind before seeing the movies threw a lot of fans for a loop. I remember having a blistering but short argument with someone who swore blind that Movie Aragorn was using Anduril in the first movie; he criticised the movie for missing out the reforging.

"But they didn't do the reforging because he wasn't using the sword."
"Yes he was! They even showed a closeup of it!"

Bizarre.

(Also had people claim that the Raplh Bakshi animation was more faithful to the books. That's something I'm not going to be agreeing with... ever, really.)

[Avilan the Grey]

I always had a problem with both of the big charges in the movies. Neither should have really accomplished much of anything. At Helm's Deep they were still vastly outnumbered and should have just been swarmed to death. Whoever didn't get impaled on the 12+ foot long pikes we all saw every last Uruk carrying to Helm's Deep that is. In RotK the charge shouldn't have made it that far into the formation. Even if it did, they would then be completely surrounded and again vastly outnumbered. And once again, charging into pikes at the onset should have done a great deal of damage and possibly halted the charge. I know mounted has advantages to unmounted, but it isn't that extreme.

Appart from the "It's in the book" reply:

1) When the returning army of Rohan led by Gandalf comes over the hill, they have the sun in the back, enhanced by Gandalf, using psychological warfare. You see that the Orcs first prepare for their charge, but when the blinding light comes you see them beginning to break before the horses reaches them.

2) At the Fields: The pikes was not that many, most of the orcs at the front line had short bows and short spears. Yes short spears are bad, but a 3-4 foot spear is far less a threat than a pike. The line of the Rohan cavalry was long enough not to be encircled quickly especially since the front of the black army was busy destroying the city (most heavy infantery, trolls and big orcs were inside the walls, others were still streaming inside). And again, the common orc (unlike the Uruks, and our tumor-ridden captain) are cowards. When the charge didn't break after the first two wolleys of arrows (and you see a lot of men and horses go down, but the rest goes on) they broke. Which is very common. And a breaking army is far harder to control, obviously. When the rest of that flank sees the front (well side) break and flee into them and through them they break too.
It does not matter how big the army is, if it is breaking.
Real life example: When the Swedish army at Poltava (between 3000 and 6000 men depending on who's counting) charged the Russian army (22 000 men) the Russian frontline broke and the whole army took to the hills.
(Yes we lost that battle, because of mistakes we didn't finish the job before someone on the Russian side stopped running and thought "Hey wait a minute! We're like... 4 times as many! At least!" and they reformed and came back. But there was a window where the Swedish army, if it had acted as decisively as it did at the beginning of the battle, could have won the greatest military victory in history. Oh well...)

[Rockphed]

Real life example: When the Swedish army at Poltava (between 3000 and 6000 men depending on who's counting) charged the Russian army (22 000 men) the Russian frontline broke and the whole army took to the hills.
(Yes we lost that battle, because of mistakes we didn't finish the job before someone on the Russian side stopped running and thought "Hey wait a minute! We're like... 4 times as many! At least!" and they reformed and came back. But there was a window where the Swedish army, if it had acted as decisively as it did at the beginning of the battle, could have won the greatest military victory in history. Oh well...)

That sounds like the entire Potomac campaign of the American Civil War up until Grant was put in charge.

[Avilan the Grey]

That sounds like the entire Potomac campaign of the American Civil War up until Grant was put in charge.

Heh yeah. But this was all in an afternoon...
The serious mistake made was that one of the Colonels on the Swedish side locked his men up at a small fortress that he had orders to just circle around to destroy the fleeing army. He misunderstood the orders (he thought he was supposed to contain or take the small fortification, not just make sure they didn't cause any damage as long as the Swedish army passed by). By his mistake, the whole slaughter of fleeing Russians was delayed (An army in uncontrollable retreat is unable to defend itself, as you know) to a point where they had collected themselves and turned first into an ordered retreat and then in a counter attack.

[sun_tzu]

I'm going to shift the topic a bit..

Did anyone else find the Hobbit superior to the actual Lord of the Rings books?

I loved the Hobbit, and couldn't finish Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit was fun. Lord of the Rings gave me a big feeling of "why should I care about any of this, and why am I wasting my time with it?"

[Dacia Brabant]

Both are great, both have a lot of problems, and both serve very different media needs/interests.

The books are terrific for world-building, mythography and are generally epic and effective at conveying the intended moral message of agrarian > industrial. There are some really nice speeches, poems and narrative passages, but the writing style is definitely weighty and academic compared to his lighter bits of fiction.

A major problem that the movies fix is it has too many incidental, once-off characters filling important narrative functions or just not really fitting in. From Farmer Maggot, Fatty Bolger and Tom Bombadil to Glorfindel, Erkenbrand, Ghan-Buri-Ghan and the prince of Dol Amroth, there were many roles that were rightly merged with other characters or omitted from the films outright (even if it meant omitting large portions of the narrative). I know this gives a sense of realness for the world, the Fellowship aren't player characters and everything doesn't need to be done by them or the major NPCs, but still, it makes for clunky narrative.

The movies are lovely works of cinematography, the sights and sounds are incredibly well done, and many of the acting performances and characterizations are excellent or at least solid. The Nazgul were freaking frightening as they should be, there's hardly a low moment in the first film (everything from Moria onward is pure awesome), I absolutely loved how the Rohirrim were handled, and the two major monsters, the Balrog and Shelob, were well made.

Unfortunately while Peter Jackson's cinematic vision was amazing, his directorial largesse got the better of him too many times in the second and especially third films. The Dead Men of Dunharrow are the most egregious, followed by Denethor and Faramir being turned into outright bad guys (at least the latter got a lame heel-face-turn), Frodo turning on Sam, Ninja Legolas, One-Liner Gimli, the whole "the Ring is killing Arwen" thing (I didn't mind the long-distance romance though), the non-resolution for Saruman in the theatrical release, and the elves apparently teleporting to Helm's Deep and likewise the Ents to Isengard.

Oh well, you take the bad with the good.

[pendell]

Battle in the Simarillion seems to be complete one sided, either the elves are badarsed enough or the orcs/dragons are just too much.


It's myth. Few mythical battles, except for Troy, are anything less than overwhelmingly decisive.



Then there's the battle before the gates of Mordor. I know its just a distraction, but honestly Aragorn what if Frodo had been two hours later?


Then Aragon and his entire army would have died, but the enemy's attention would have been distracted in the days leading up to the battle and for some time after, as his people would be scouring the battlefield hunting the ring. It would be a long time before Sauron could turn his attention back to internal security. So they bought Frodo a distraction at the potential cost of the entire army. This was considered acceptable losses.



March your army up then retreat once Sauron sends out his hosts and keep them out with some hit and run battles,


Given the tempo of the book and the movies both, I don't see anyway a retreat would have been possible once the army behind the black gate was unleashed. Anything but a last stand at that point would have resulted in the destruction of the entire army. A command to separate and scatter would have resulted in the vast majority being butchered. I suspect there really weren't that many men in Aragorn's army qualified to carry out guerrilla warfare in the hostile terrain before Mordor, which their enemies were familiar with but they were not.

Nor could they have gone to ground before the army was unleashed. Had they done so, Sauron would not have his eye fixed on the army, away from Frodo in Sam. Instead, a guerrilla campaign would have resulted in Sauron concentrating on countering infiltration -- *precisely* the thing this entire gambit was designed to avoid.

So I honestly believe Aragorn's move was the only reasonable one to accomplish the goal Gandalf had in mind -- by a show of force, gain and hold the Enemy's attention in order to give Frodo and Sam a better chance. Their next best bet would be to simply hole up in Minas Tirith and stay there.

But attempting a guerrilla campaign in the outskirts of Mordor? In the first place, Faramir had already been doing that for years with his rangers -- which is what he was doing when he captured Frodo in the first place -- and it didn't seem to draw much interest or attention. It would not serve to capture attention. And if it did, it would cause Sauron to bend his mind to internal security, precisely the thing Gandalf was attempting to avoid. The strategy is counterproductive.

One final issue: How exactly do we supply 6000 men on the outskirts of Mordor? You'll need a conventional army to protect supply trains. And if Aragorn tried to tell his men to 'live off the land' in the Dead Marshes, they'd probably shut him up for a madman.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Texas_Ben]

(Okay, I'll admit some dry spots in the Frodo/Sam part of The Two Towers, but these were hardly a big deal.)
I'd actually say the biggest offender insofar as dry spots were concerned was the first book, which was mostly long descriptions of them walking, some elves, then more descriptions of walking, descriptions of them walking in a cave, some more elves, descriptions of them being in boats, some fighting, the end.

[Post-Man]

The movies by far beat out the books. I could'nt even make it halfway through the Silmarillion, and I only drudged all the way through the trilogy just to say I had actually read it.

[Tyrant]

While that would be true in the real world, no real-world cavalry charge was ever led by a wizard. Watch the scene again - the Uruk-Hai line up their pikes, and then suddenly the sun comes up over the lip of the valley, it blazes brightly, and Gandalf's voice is heard echoing across the Deep as the Uruk-Hai recoil, disrupting their line. Presumably, as the cavalry charge succeeds, that disruption really messed up their whole formation. There's magic at work!
I'm aware that Gandalf was leading them. And that the sun was blinding them. That would not change the fact that there should be several very long and very sharp objects that the front line should have still plowed right into. Even if every single orc used one arm to shield their eyes, a large number of their pikes would still be facing the oncoming charge and still achieve the desired result. Momentum alone would provide enough force to impale men and horses on the pikes even if they weren't in 100% proper position. Once the front line starts falling dead, that would mean everyone behind them would have to find a way over their dying comrades at full speed. Good luck with that. The charging army would do more harm to itself than the enemy, at which point the enemy would start stabbing and poking the stalled charge. If Gandalf can single handedly break the army like that, why did he bother leaving and letting all the defenders of Helm's Deep die? Not to mention, with absolutely no explanation of the things Gandalf can and can't do, what is he supposed to be doing aside from yelling?

Also, I apparently need to reread that part of the book as it sounds like it isn't much better. I feel that being of the movie in this case is warranted, however. They go out of their way to show us the Uruk army and in every scene, what are they primarily armed with? Massive pikes. They obviously have a good idea what they were going to be fighting (realm of the horselords, mounted combat might be an issue). And then, everything just falls apart because of the sun rise? The sun rise that should have minimal effect on the Uruks (they don't have problems with the sun). Not to mention Jackson absolutely had to remind us it was imminent, thus killing all tension in the scene (and going against any arguments of things being changed to create tension). Seriously, was the voice over really necessary to remind everyone that the Dues Ex was about to show up?

The problem faced here, as described by the scriptwriters, was that in making Faramir immune to the Ring's influence, you kill off the tension.
The possibility of Sauron ruling everything, everyone being enslaved or killed, etc wasn't tension enough?

As for Boromir, he is after the Ring from the outset, but it's not until Amon Hen that his desire for it finally manages to overcome his honour and common sense.
What I am saying is that the book is able to do that without having him walking around with a sign that says "Don't even think of letting me anywhere near the Ring". He speaks almost as a brother to Aragorn instead of this "Gondor has no king and needs no king" nonsense. His character was railroaded for no apparently good reason.


In the book's appendices, Aragorn goes through a long coming-of-age story as he matures from orphan to ranger to a man willing to help reclaim Gondor. The movie doesn't have the luxury of appendices, so Aragorn is a very different character at the start of the movies; he's just a Ranger, no-one special, great warrior doing his bit to fight Sauron but doesn't want to be King - and he changes as the movies go on. That's his 'arc', if you will. In the book, having Anduril reforged is the point that signifies Aragorn is setting out to reclaim his throne. In the movies, it's the same. His resolution to become King just comes a lot later.
You don't have to tell the man's life story and that's not what I am saying they should have done. The books manage to do it just fine without the appndices. We know from almost the get go that he isn't what he appears to be. Half way through the first movie we know he will be the king of Gondor by the end. Instead of using tons of flashbacks later on, just show the parts that deal with struggle over his choice to try to claim his destiny in the first movie where they would actually take place. Again, there is no apparent gain to reordering these things.


I get the feeling that having the books firmly in mind before seeing the movies threw a lot of fans for a loop.
I read the books after seeing the movies.

I want to be clear that I am not saying the books should be 100% faithful. As others have said, the writing style of teh books isn't for everyone and i agree. Certain parts are not needed and others simply won't work. It's changing things for no apparent reason that I don't understand. Especially with things like the sword as it is obviously not for running time (in fact, their method took even longer). I actually agree with putting in scenes with Arwen, for instance. It's nice to know Aragorn is marrying an actual live entity that actually does something. Cutting out bit characters is okay. Cutting out Bombadil is okay. Giving us a lot more Saruman was nice. Actually showing, in detail, the battles was very nice. Screwing up the character of everyone in Denethor's line? Sounds intentional and I don't see the point other than to make people dislike them from the get go. There are enough villains in the story already.

[SmartAlec]

If Gandalf can single handedly break the army like that, why did he bother leaving and letting all the defenders of Helm's Deep die? Not to mention, with absolutely no explanation of the things Gandalf can and can't do, what is he supposed to be doing aside from yelling?

Well, what would suffice? A CGI'd fireball? A detailed explanation whenever Gandalf does something mystical? A brief shot of the relevant spell description? Do you want him to yell out his abilities anime-style? It's magic! More than that, it's Middle-Earth Magic, and half of its' power is in its' mystique.

And no, he couldn't break the Uruks on his own. He's only one being. He could, however, help the army of Rohan to break the Uruks. He's an enabler, not a doer.


The possibility of Sauron ruling everything, everyone being enslaved or killed, etc wasn't tension enough?

No, because at that point, the Hobbits aren't near the forces of Mordor. The tension in that part of Frodo's journey revolves around the Ring and that it could turn these potential allies, the Rangers, into enemies. And, by extrapolation, the damage it could do if it ever reached Gondor. To put it another way, by making Faramir immune to the Ring's influence, you're robbing the Ring of its' on-screen power. If there are men immune to it after all, that potential damage is much lesser. If there are men immune to it, then why is Gandalf s++t-scared of it?

Falling under the Ring's influence isn't a sign of being a bad guy. It just happens. Faramir sees sense in the end, and he does ok. Boromir gets his heroic death. It's only Denethor who comes across as a bad guy, and at the very least, he still works as a contrast to Theoden.


He speaks almost as a brother to Aragorn instead of this "Gondor has no king and needs no king" nonsense. His character was railroaded for no apparently good reason.

Boromir is another character who changes as the movie goes on, but I'm not sure what you mean about this 'railroading'. Boromir was a 100% Gondorian and wasn't entirely sure about the heir of Elendil returning to Gondor even in the book's Council of Elrond, so it's fair that he's ill-disposed to Aragorn when they first meet in the movie (and do bear in mind that in the movie, Boromir might almost see Aragorn as a coward, seeing as Aragorn pointedly isn't looking to reclaim the throne in the first movie, but is instead hiding in exile in the North). The only change, really, is that instead of Boromir's 'all hope is lost' speech in the book, it's changed to something more hopeful in the movie, as he openly declares his faith in Aragorn.


The books manage to do it just fine without the appndices.

That is debatable, I think. I've seen a lot of complaints about Book Aragorn over the years, and they're all the same - he has no depth, he's one-dimensional, he's uninteresting. At least you can't say the same of Movie Aragorn.

[Avilan the Grey]

It's myth. Few mythical battles, except for Troy, are anything less than overwhelmingly decisive.

And that might have something to do with the fact that the Siege of Troy actually happened. Without Achilles, but it happened.

[The Boyce]

I guess I should have said that the tactics in the books weren't a whole lot better. That is when they are actually discussed at all. Maybe I need to reread it, but Helm's Deep seemed to be mostly, "and then the orcs lost". That kind of stuck out given the detail of pretty much everything else. Page after describing hills, and then a brief description of one of the major plot points of the book. In respect to detail of the battles themselves, the movies seem to have the edge.

Helms Deep was won because an army of Hourns, half-asleep Ents, showed up and murdered the rest of the army. Also I'm 90% certain that Gandalf was in Helm's Deep and 60% certain the entire Rohan Army was in Helm's Deep.

Also regarding the Battle of Five Armies, The Evil Army had reinforcements of their own. The Good army, at least initially, had the high ground, and had two legendary entities, Wizard and Bearman, not to mention the strikeforce of Dwarves equipped with Dwarvern Artifacts. Really the Evil Army didn't stand a chance.

[Satyr]

I've seen a lot of complaints about Book Aragorn over the years, and they're all the same - he has no depth, he's one-dimensional, he's uninteresting. At least you can't say the same of Movie Aragorn.

Actually you can say that about every single character in the movie. Thhey were all extrelemly flat and one dimensional (which may be a valid form of the lliterature adaptation - I also had the impression that the novel's characters lacked depth as well).


And that might have something to do with the fact that the Siege of Troy actually happened. Without Achilles, but it happened.

Actually, Troy was sieged and attacked so often, that Schliemann found six or more towns on the same place which were build on each other. The siege of Troy did not even happen, it happened quite frequently.

[Avilan the Grey]

Actually you can say that about every single character in the movie. Thhey were all extrelemly flat and one dimensional (which may be a valid form of the lliterature adaptation - I also had the impression that the novel's characters lacked depth as well).

Actually, Troy was sieged and attacked so often, that Schliemann found six or more towns on the same place which were build on each other. The siege of Troy did not even happen, it happened quite frequently.

Character development for the sake of character development is overrated. And I don't think any of the main characters in the books nor movies are as "flat" as you try to make them.

As for Troy... True, although "Frequently" might be a relative term. I doubt "frequently" means "every 10 years" :smallbiggrin:

[averagejoe]

Helms Deep was won because an army of Hourns, half-asleep Ents, showed up and murdered the rest of the army. Also I'm 90% certain that Gandalf was in Helm's Deep and 60% certain the entire Rohan Army was in Helm's Deep.

No, not quite. The entire Rohan Army wasn't even at Pellinor fields; it takes time to muster such a force. Theoden did recall Eomer, however, and he took what forces he could quickly gather to reinforce the garrison at Helm's deep. Gandalf was not there; he rode off to muster additional forces, the Rohirrim which had been routed and scattered by the various skirmishes going on elsewhere. Then he and Erkenbrand led those forces and went to Helm's Deep, arriving in the nick of time.

And, yes, at one point there was a huge frickin' forest munching on the orcs. Good times.

[Tyrant]

Well, what would suffice? A CGI'd fireball? A detailed explanation whenever Gandalf does something mystical? A brief shot of the relevant spell description? Do you want him to yell out his abilities anime-style?
Given that is how magic is displayed in almost every other instance that we are supposed to be sure magic is at work in the movies, yes I expect that when magic is at work. For instance: Saruman trying to cook Gandalf with your aforementioned CGI fireball, Saruman summoning the storm to batter them on the mountainside, the wizard fight, Gandalf's shield against the Balrog's weapons, Gandalf sundering the bridge, Gandalf forcing out Saurman from Theoden's mind, the Witch King igniting his sword and destroying Gandalf's staff, the Witch King signaling the start of his armies advance from Minas Morgul, the Army of the Dead, the Palantirs, Arwen destroying the Nazgul outside Rivendell, the scrying bowl. All of these are accompanied by pretty obvious clues that magic is at work. This scene is a suicidal downhill charge with the sun at their back complete with voice over to kill any and all tension of the scene by reminding us the white clad Dues Ex is about to show up with the cavalry (which also, in my mind kills any arguments about things being changed to create tension when they willingly destroy it). I'm sure there are a few scenes that have magic that aren't blatantly obvious, but it's clear the overall style of the movie is to deliberately make sure that you know without a doubt that magic is at work.

No, because at that point, the Hobbits aren't near the forces of Mordor.
Isn't this not long after they were at the Black Gate? In a land riddled with Sauron's human thralls? I think they are quite near the forces of Mordor. The other men can still desire the ring all they want without changing Faramir. Or, they could choose to focus on the threat right in the middle of things just waiting to take the Ring, Gollum. Again, there is no need to change that to create tension when tension can be easily made with what they already had. Not to mention again, they willingly destroyed all of the tension at Helm's Deep with the voice over reminding everyone Gandalf was about to show up and save everyone's bacon. The movies look great and are overall well made. However, I believe there are some things PJ just doesn't excel at.

The tension in that part of Frodo's journey revolves around the Ring and that it could turn these potential allies, the Rangers, into enemies. And, by extrapolation, the damage it could do if it ever reached Gondor.
Too bad they never really tell us what it could do if it were taken to Gondor. Sure we know that Sauron will live if it isn't destroyed and that if Galadrial or Gandalf were to get it they could theroteically become a dark power themselves, but per the movie what would happen if Denethor were to try and use it? The books lead me to believe he could do much more than become invisible with it. The movie leads me to believe he would hand deliver it to Sauron without a second thought in his insanity.

To put it another way, by making Faramir immune to the Ring's influence, you're robbing the Ring of its' on-screen power. If there are men immune to it after all, that potential damage is much lesser. If there are men immune to it, then why is Gandalf s++t-scared of it?
I think simply explaining what the ring (and it's master for that matter)
is truly capable of would work better. Faramir isn't immune. He simply isn't tempted to the point he will accept because he is strong willed and, like his father, the ancient blood of their line comes through in him. Isildur gave in because he took the Ring to the heart of it's power where anyone would become enthralled by it. Like other men of the west, he could have possibly resisted it's pull long enough to get rid of it some other way. Faramir did just that. He felt it's pull (or saw it in Frodo or realised it's abilities by what happened to Boromir, can't remember) and realised what it could do to anyone and that to try to use it was folly. He wasn't immune, just smart enough and fast enough to send it away from him on the only mission with any hope of success. That wouldn't have been hard to portray without making changes to Faramir. It doesn't rune the character or the movie, but I see it as completely unnecessary with no apparent pay off so I question it.

Boromir is another character who changes as the movie goes on, but I'm not sure what you mean about this 'railroading'.
What I mean is that in the book, he comes across as reasonable in his desire to go to Minas Tirith. He present his arguments rationally and accepts Aragorn's decisions despite the fact they are counter to his ideals. There are hints that the Ring has begun to ensnare him, but it isn't telelgraphed an hour before it happens that he is going to make a move for the Ring. Again, I have only read the books once but as I was reading them he came across as a reasonable guy who knew his people were on the road to ruin. I think the fact Sean Bean played him didn't help how I perceived him. Nothing against Sean Bean, I think he is a decent enough actor. However, his more prominent roles seem to see him in the role of the villain more often than not. Like other actors that seem to do this, I usually suspect them of being vaillains from the get go. That might have tainted my initial view.

That is debatable, I think. I've seen a lot of complaints about Book Aragorn over the years, and they're all the same - he has no depth, he's one-dimensional, he's uninteresting. At least you can't say the same of Movie Aragorn.
I never thought him one dimensional. I thought he came off a little holeir than thou once he took on the mantle of king, but I never thought him one dimensional. Or at least no more than any other non hobbit character in the books.

[Reverent-One]

Given that is how magic is displayed in almost every other instance that we are supposed to be sure magic is at work in the movies, yes I expect that when magic is at work. For instance: Saruman trying to cook Gandalf with your aforementioned CGI fireball, Saruman summoning the storm to batter them on the mountainside, the wizard fight, Gandalf's shield against the Balrog's weapons, Gandalf sundering the bridge, Gandalf forcing out Saurman from Theoden's mind, the Witch King igniting his sword and destroying Gandalf's staff, the Witch King signaling the start of his armies advance from Minas Morgul, the Army of the Dead, the Palantirs, Arwen destroying the Nazgul outside Rivendell, the scrying bowl. All of these are accompanied by pretty obvious clues that magic is at work. This scene is a suicidal downhill charge with the sun at their back complete with voice over to kill any and all tension of the scene by reminding us the white clad Dues Ex is about to show up with the cavalry (which also, in my mind kills any arguments about things being changed to create tension when they willingly destroy it). I'm sure there are a few scenes that have magic that aren't blatantly obvious, but it's clear the overall style of the movie is to deliberately make sure that you know without a doubt that magic is at work.

And you could see the magic in the charge, people don't normally start glowing randomly. Gandalf does, and you see the uruks falter before the light.


Too bad they never really tell us what it could do if it were taken to Gondor. Sure we know that Sauron will live if it isn't destroyed and that if Galadrial or Gandalf were to get it they could theroteically become a dark power themselves, but per the movie what would happen if Denethor were to try and use it? The books lead me to believe he could do much more than become invisible with it. The movie leads me to believe he would hand deliver it to Sauron without a second thought in his insanity.

So in the books it makes it seem like he would become a mini-sauron, and in the movies it makes it seem like he would become a Saruman. So he'll turn bad either way.


I think simply explaining what the ring (and it's master for that matter)
is truly capable of would work better. Faramir isn't immune. He simply isn't tempted to the point he will accept because he is strong willed and, like his father, the ancient blood of their line comes through in him. Isildur gave in because he took the Ring to the heart of it's power where anyone would become enthralled by it. Like other men of the west, he could have possibly resisted it's pull long enough to get rid of it some other way. Faramir did just that. He felt it's pull (or saw it in Frodo or realised it's abilities by what happened to Boromir, can't remember) and realised what it could do to anyone and that to try to use it was folly. He wasn't immune, just smart enough and fast enough to send it away from him on the only mission with any hope of success. That wouldn't have been hard to portray without making changes to Faramir. It doesn't rune the character or the movie, but I see it as completely unnecessary with no apparent pay off so I question it.

There's a very big payoff in the movie, it gives Frodo and Sam a part in the movie beyond meeting with Faramir, since the run-in with Shelob doesn't happen till the third movie. Without the short period that Faramir is tempted, (and seriously, it's enough time for them to leave the woods and get to Osgiliath, it's not that long, a momentary lapse in his willpower.) Frodo and company would be out of a decent sized portion of the movie.

[Tyrant]

And you could see the magic in the charge, people don't normally start glowing randomly. Gandalf does, and you see the uruks falter before the light.
I'll have to watch it again but I'm pretty sure that's the sun at his back doing that. That does actually make things look like they are glowing. And again, given how completely unsubtle it is in every other major instance, this doesn't fit the pattern so I question whether it is really supposed to be seen as magic. I guess that's my overall problems with the movies. Small inconsistancies like this and needless (to me, anyway) changes. I still like them a lot. It's just, like Star Wars, I have to overlook some things.

So in the books it makes it seem like he would become a mini-sauron, and in the movies it makes it seem like he would become a Saruman. So he'll turn bad either way.
Yes, either way it's bad if he gets the Ring and what I said is the way I took it from one reading. The difference is one way Denethor is described as being able to lock wills with Gandalf (ableit briefly) and even though madness is clawing at the edges of him he isn't a complete lunatic when they first meet. He's a once great man who has lost all hope, not a lunatic. By the end, he's a lunatic when he sets the fire himself and climbes into it to burn. PJ didn't even go all the way with the crazy. I just find his characterization to be off. If they are going to show him as crazy, why take out his crowning moment of crazy and make him just come off as pathetic? It has no major impact on the plot or timing (the two typical reasons for changing things) so I can't see why they would do it.

There's a very big payoff in the movie, it gives Frodo and Sam a part in the movie beyond meeting with Faramir, since the run-in with Shelob doesn't happen till the third movie.
That's because they altered the pacing. The encounter with Shelob is supposed to happen at the end of book 2. I'm not saying that is the only way to do it "right", but I am saying that if they changed it for that reason then it was a problem of their own making. I've heard talk of tension (and presumably suspense) yet they totally blew it by not having that encounter as it happens in the book leaving you wondering what will happen.

Without the short period that Faramir is tempted, (and seriously, it's enough time for them to leave the woods and get to Osgiliath, it's not that long, a momentary lapse in his willpower.) Frodo and company would be out of a decent sized portion of the movie.
They wouldn't be out as much if they followed the sequence of the books. I'm not saying follow the books to the letter (as I have already said), but I am saying that changing things creates more problems that require more changes. I don't view that as progress. Some changes can be swept under the rug as they don't affect anything such as folding bit characters into other characters and using a concurrent time frame in RotK so people know what is happening to both groups at any one time. Again, I like the movies and I am not a book purist but some changes (and again, in my opinion) seem to be for no apparent payoff and I am forced to question them.

[Greep]

Wow this is turning into a war of the posts :D


I'll have to watch it again but I'm pretty sure that's the sun at his back doing that. That does actually make things look like they are glowing. And again, given how completely unsubtle it is in every other major instance, this doesn't fit the pattern so I question whether it is really supposed to be seen as magic. I guess that's my overall problems with the movies. Small inconsistancies like this and needless (to me, anyway) changes. I still like them a lot. It's just, like Star Wars, I have to overlook some things.


Well I've seen it a few times, and the light actually originates from his staff I believe :P This happens again later against some wyverns so I think I'm right.

[Tyrant]

Wow this is turning into a war of the posts :D
I'd like to view it a s afriendly debate. As I have said, no problem I have with the movie makes them unwatchable to me. It's just that like Star Wars, movies I greatly enjoy, I have to overlook some things. That doesn't change the fact I think there are problems. The movies are good enough for me to overlook them when I watch them.

Well I've seen it a few times, and the light actually originates from his staff I believe :P This happens again later against some wyverns so I think I'm right.
Honestly, I've been more against the idea that his voice was doing anything than the whole light issue. If it came from his staff, then I'm guessing he wasn't glowing (his staff would be, but not him). And, I know they're foul creatures, but they aren't the link to pure evil like the ring wraiths so it should only do so much to them. It still comes back to there should still be quite a few pikes aimed the right way and the charge shouldn't have been able to carry through withought running over all kinds of their own men (which clearly doesn't happen) magic or no. I list it as a problem with the movie because unlike the book they go out of their way to make absolutely certain we know just how well armed and armored the Uruk's are. To then have it all fall apart because the sun is in their eyes after they have already set the line with pikes? My suspension of disbelief only goes so far.

As an aside, shouldn't running over so many armored opponents also slow them down? I am not terribly familiar with the ins and outs of cavalry, but I would think horses would find it difficult to repeatedly crush large, metal coated objects and maintain speed and that's with those metal objects not fighting back. Coupled with the pikes, the spikes in the armor and shields, and the fact that some sword blows will connect and some swords will just get run over (and thus stab into horses and riders) shouldn't the charge really only be able to go so far before it just can't go any farther? Subtract the armor and shouldn't that also apply to the battle at Minas Tirith? Again, I'm not familiar with what a horse can actually overcome but it seems unlikely to me that running over that many armed orcs (or just that many orcs period) would result in a large number of horses just being randomly brought down by flailing weapons and twisted ankles getting caught up in falling or fallen bodies and thus stopping the charge well before it makes it as deep into their army as it does. Maybe I am wrong so I am asking anyone who has more in depth knowledge on the subject.

[FoE]

I prefer the movies. Quite frankly, I found the books kind of dull.

OK! Time to read the Fellowship of the Ring! Let's see .. OK, they're in the Shire ... there's some descriptions of landscapes ... they run into some jackass named Tom Bombadil ... a history lesson ... some more landscapes ... they're in Rivendell ... there's some more singing ... another history lesson ... there's the Mines of Moria ... another history lesson ... some more singing ... main character gets flung off bridge in anti-climactic battle ... some grieving ... some more singing ... more descriptions of landscapes ... And the first book's done.

[TigerHunter]

It's been a while since I read the books, but I'd have to say movie.

[SmartAlec]

They wouldn't be out as much if they followed the sequence of the books. I'm not saying follow the books to the letter (as I have already said), but I am saying that changing things creates more problems that require more changes.

The irony here is that the movies did follow the sequence of the books. The timeline in the book is documented, but the presentation in the books is all skewed. In the book, Frodo and Sam are climbing Cirith Ungol in The Two Towers at the same time as Gandalf and Pippin are trying to help Gondor's defence in Return of the King. I daresay the movie wanted that moment of connection when the two seperate plotlines happen to co-incide (the marching of the Witch King's forces from Minas Morgul), because it's cool, so they had no choice but to follow the timeline more faithfully than the book.


Honestly, I've been more against the idea that his voice was doing anything than the whole light issue.

Sometimes, magic happens. Middle-Earth is full of magic of a natural and fundamental kind. Does the sun happen to break through the clouds just as the Rohirrim appear on the Pelennor Fields by some freak chance? Is it coincidence the earth swallows up the Orcs at the Black Gate, but stops at the feet of the Army of the West? No-one is consciously doing these things, but they happen, because things are just 'right'. Maybe it's the Valar. Maybe it's the land itself. Maybe there's an even higher power at work. We don't know why it happens, but it does.

Don't think of it as the traditional 'magic spell' kind of magic. The magic in Lord of the Rings is more biblical than that. Gandalf (Gandalf the White, at least) is closer to Moses than he is Merlin. He's more in touch with this sort of thing than anyone, and with him at the head, a lot of things are possible that wouldn't be possible.

I mean, as far as I can tell, you're saying:

- I don't think there's any magic at work.

- The sunrise wouldn't have been enough to disorder the Uruk lines.

- The Rohirrim should have been slaughtered.

Call me crazy, but that makes me think your first assumption might be a little off.

[pearl jam]

That's because they altered the pacing. The encounter with Shelob is supposed to happen at the end of book 2.

Technically, Tolkien wrote the whole LOTR as 1 book. Due to the fiscal impracticality of publishing it as such at the time of its initial release, it was broken into 3 books by the decision of the publishing company. Thus, the encounter with Shelob was not "supposed" to happen at the end of book 2, because in the mind of the writer it was simply 1 long story.

Incidentally, now that the financial implications of publishing the LOTR as a single volume are less inhibiting, it has been released in this format.

[pearl jam]

As far as movies vs. books goes,

I prefer the books, but I enjoy the movies and have watched them all numerous times.

I also enjoyed the Silmarilion and the Unfinished/Lost Tales. I would like to read more of the books in the history of Middle Earth/History of the Ring series to see how the story developed over the years to its final form. Aragorn, for example, was originally conceived as a Hobbit. Clearly his character underwent drastic changes to reach its final form.

[Avilan the Grey]

That's because they altered the pacing. The encounter with Shelob is supposed to happen at the end of book 2. I'm not saying that is the only way to do it "right", but I am saying that if they changed it for that reason then it was a problem of their own making. I've heard talk of tension (and presumably suspense) yet they totally blew it by not having that encounter as it happens in the book leaving you wondering what will happen.

They did not alter the pacing; or rather they altered the pacing, to keep the correct time line. The book, as written, would be quite confusing as a movie because the time lines between the split up fellowship does not sync. In the movies, they did what was necessary to make it work on screen and ran the time lines in sync all the way (that way you understand which events happens simultaneously without "dream sequences" or speaker voices saying "Two weeks earlier...")

[Aotrs Commander]

As an aside, shouldn't running over so many armored opponents also slow them down? I am not terribly familiar with the ins and outs of cavalry, but I would think horses would find it difficult to repeatedly crush large, metal coated objects and maintain speed and that's with those metal objects not fighting back. Coupled with the pikes, the spikes in the armor and shields, and the fact that some sword blows will connect and some swords will just get run over (and thus stab into horses and riders) shouldn't the charge really only be able to go so far before it just can't go any farther? Subtract the armor and shouldn't that also apply to the battle at Minas Tirith? Again, I'm not familiar with what a horse can actually overcome but it seems unlikely to me that running over that many armed orcs (or just that many orcs period) would result in a large number of horses just being randomly brought down by flailing weapons and twisted ankles getting caught up in falling or fallen bodies and thus stopping the charge well before it makes it as deep into their army as it does. Maybe I am wrong so I am asking anyone who has more in depth knowledge on the subject.

No, that's pretty much what medium and heavy cavalry do. (Arguably, the Rohirrim were acting as medium cavalry there - heavy would be fully armoured knights - even if a fair chunk of the time they seem to act like light cavalry).

(Light cavalry basically run round the enemy shooting or chucking javelins, to which the enemy who can't respond. Rather like what the Eomer did to Grishnakh's group at least to start with.)

Now, bear in mind the following is a gross generalalisation over the last 3000 years or so of cavalry tactics. The following also applies to medium and heavy cavalry, as opposed to light cavalry (who are basically just fast skirmishers).

You don't need to kill every man (or Uruk...) in any unit to destroy it, you just need to break it's morale. This is usually achived when the unit's cohesion breaks up and the individual blokes get confused and/or decided that, actually, bugger patriotism, not being knobbled by some bastard with a pointy stick is more important... And that's usually all about breaking the formation up. Before gunpowder, close formation fighting by infantry - even with polearms - ended up as more of a rugby scrum than an exchange of pointy sticks.

The Roman gladius, for example, was designed primarily as stabbing weapon1, used to skewer blokes on the ground after you won your shoving match and pushed 'em over. (Shield Charge + Improved Trip anyone?)

Most infantry - and most especially polearm troops - are heavily reliant on their formation. In general, mounted > infantry - unless the infantry have polearms or bows. In the latter case, it's a toss up whether the archers (or gunners in later years) break up the cavalry charge before the cavalry hits them and smears them all over the landscape.

If polearm infantry are ready to brace for the charge, then running headlong into a forest of pointy sticks tends to bad for the mounted - their formation gets broken up and horses run all over the place etc etc. Catch them anywhere else - or anyone without polearms in close formation or just even in the open, and what you get is run over by 1000-2000 pounds or thereabouts of peeved quadruped with some nasty little sod on top whacking you with a sharp thing. As you can imagine, this has a nasty tendacy to make you fall over and get all stomped on, as well as your mates behind you. So yes, cavalry is more-or-less used to riding over fallen bodies a sucessful charge against infranty will hopefully lead you several ranks in. It's not even so much as killing the front ranks as just flattening and scattering 'em. By the time your momentum is stopped, the damage has already been done.

A cavalry charge against close-packed troops, if successful, is devasatating, since nobody has any way to dodge a horse to the face. And shockingly, this does tend to make one's morale a little, shall we say, a trifle unsteady. And once the unit goes into a rout and concentrates gettin' the hell out of Dodge, the pursuers have a good (if not quite free!) rein to mop up.

The same thing applies to a slightly lesser extent to irregular foot troops, like say for example, a lot of the Celts. The Romans always said, if you survived the first charge - I.e the smash of body on shield wall didn't break it - you won because the charge disorganised the attackers.

And of course elephants sort of do to cavalry what cavalry do to infantry in more or less the same fashion.

Now, historically, having plate armoured troops in such numbers as the Uruks would be roughly equivalent to Germany turning up to WW2 with no tanks lighter than King Tigers or the Galactic Empire replacing all it's TIE Fighters with TIE Defenders...i.e. expensive beyond belief! So there aren't, granted, that many examples of very heavily armoured troops being hit by cavalry charges to compare it to.

(That said, the fact adventurers walk round all day in full plate without dying of heat prostration and exhaustion is about the same level of realism or historical accuracy. And I don't know about you, but while I like some level of realism in my games, I don't want them to be completely realistic, so that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make! So plate-armoured Uruks aren't that much of a stretch suspension of disbelief-wise)

But it's well within the bounds of possibility. Actually, I would guess PJ had them have pikes specificailly so the fact the Rohirrim whomped them was made all the more impressive; and it made Gandalf look good.



As to Gandalf, I figure he just used a spell akin to Righteous Smite, Holy Word or something. (There's a spell in Relics & Rituals called Cloak of Righteousness, for example, which makes you shed lots of light and makes Evil enemies save or go Blind). I figured it wasn't so much just light - as the Uruk-Hai fear neither the sun nor the moon - but more a good old case of "have some Holy to the face, Evil-aligned bastards" and general spawn of Morgoth being vulnerable to that. Sort of one of the big things about Middle-Earth was that whole "Desperate Heroism against Evil tends to beat evil" thing, too.

So once the front ranks were milling around and going "my eyes! The nasty holy light! It burns!" they aren't in formation and their morale is going up the spout before you start. Then they get hit in the face by a demi-god and his umpteen mates on several hundred pounds of smelly equine at a fair clip 'cos they've just pelted down a hill. I dunno about you, but seeing as Orc morale was never exactly solid (except when they were winning, like the bullies they were always portrayed as) I'm not surprised they broke. Heck, I'm fairly sure I'd have decided to bugger off if I had a Maia on a horse smacking me in the face with a +5 Orc-Bane frag-knows-what-else-sword...

Ironically, had the charge been against, say, the Easterlings - who unlike the various Orc soldiers didn't fall apart the second it all went pear-shaped - they might - might - have held a bit better.




1Though it's been proved that the clever buggers had made it sufficently well that it was just about capable of taking someone's head off in a blow or two and that it wasn't much better two-handed than one handed. Just like a Light weapon is in D&D 3.5. So it actually does get that historically accurate as far as it goes.