LOTR: The books v the movies

[m_gobes]

I think the movies got better and better as they went along

[vandorssen]

This is a real prickly pear… On the one hand, I do not believe that Tolkien’s work on the LOTR trilogy could ever be 100% accurately portrayed on film… Oddly, I think it would take something more akin to a television mini-series to portray everything, although the quality certainly would not be as good. In any event, I think Jackson did well by his intentions, and it raised the already high awareness of Tolkien’s works. There are some (as I was reading some previous posts running in a similar vein) who say that none other than Peter Jackson could have done this good of a job with the movies. I do not think that is true, and perhaps those individuals are loosing themselves to the very strong passion of the movies.

 

As far as the differences go, some of what Jackson did had to be done. Unfortunately other differences (many of which have been mentioned already, and therefore I will not repeat them here) were entirely gratuitous and aimed to satisfy the lowest common denominator, and the widest possible audience. A website I have found that nicely illustrates the differences is The Encyclopedia of Arda. Its section on “The Movie Goers’ Guide” is geared more towards the people who have seen the movie, but have not read the books. The listing of differences is not complete as a matter of course, but it does illustrate some of the more blatant and outrageous discrepancies, as well as some of the more minor adjustments (such as when Legolas says the orcs have turned “….northeast. They’re brining the hobbits to Isengard!” By turning northeast, they would have been bringing the hobbits to the black gates of Mordor, not the more southwesterly location of Isengard.).

 

Taken on their own, the movies were very much indeed everything cinema enthusiasts could hope for, and had a very good, if not occasionally disjointed story. However, as attempting to be an accurate portrayal of the books, I believe it falls short of the mark. But as I said, I don’t think that could ever happen.

[Chrissuit33]

I'm not goig to lie. Before i saw the fellowship i only had a small idea of who Tolkien was, and only a little bit of knowledge of middle earth. When i left the theatre that night i went straight to the nearest bookstore and bought The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit for good measure. If Peter Jackson had not done as good a job as he did I wouldn't even be here now to learn all that this community has taught me. If his intention was to bring peole into this world than he did a better job than anyone has done before. ( but Tolkiens books are still better, of course)

[Greywolf]

My earlier statement still stands but I would like to delve into the plot ridden characterisation of the main characters and the considerable changes to the plot to tighten this characterization. While in the book, we can know that Aragorn thinks of Arwen ... but in a movie we have to show it, also we don't have that nice story in the appendix of Return of the King, or even all the sub-lines that explain Arwen's choice and the consequences upon her; giving up her immortal life for a mortal one - thank goodness Peter Jackson left in that explanation of Beren (probably mispelled ... doing this quickly).

 

As for the second two movies, one of the major complaints I heard about the first movie was the lack of action, upon where myself and my brother said, "no s#$t sherlock" the first movie is the quest theme more than any other accross the boards. Though Frodo's story is still in this theme, the other characters move to a battle and then a war. So the action was uped in the other two movies to make up for in a sense from the first one. As for the shield bit, I thought seriously that the elven battle moves where awesome. It showed fearless combat, doing the impossible and not being human. Why fearless, they are immortal ... they don't know what death means, and that is why Haldir's death was so IMPORTANT. It showed that, maybe not to the casual viewer, but those that no. Elves have no concept of death, so this moment was important especially the Point Of View shot of his fallen comrades with glazed eyes and the unfocusing as he fell, the slow motion was necessary too. Also its a trend to have a death of a known character for sympathy, movie one was Boromir ... that was easy. But now what? The final movie the whole going away in a ship is a departure (like death) so all we need is a character to die in the second movie. By strengthening the sense of comradeship and bringing the elves to Helm's Deep (while aggravating to cannon-searching audiences) was able to bring in more interested facets to the emotions of the people in a hopeless situation. And that is what we have, a quest for hope ... the entire series ... is all about hope (thank you Arwen and Aragorn for pounding this into our heads) when the great Elrond and even Gandalf's (our maiar!) hope starts to fail .. there is still hope.

 

 

As for the nazgul fear issue, I think I remember pieces of it being in there ... like Faramir and everybody running like chickens when they show up in Osgiliath in TTT. As for Faramir, well his character needed more theatrical development - his being overshadowed by Boromir in his father's eyes had to seriously be driven into the normal audience's skulls, and his temptation actually both re-emphasized the power of the ring, but strengthened his actual character position. For every great story there must be a fall (paraphrased from Tolkien) As much as people like to see a hero, they like to see them fail (paraphrased from the movie Spiderman). We love Boromir, his death his touching ... why ... more so because he did fall under the power of the ring and his sacrafice was an attonment for his sins. He tried to kill Frodo and Take the ring, instead he Saved Merry and Pippen and Gave his life. From traitor to hero in less than half an hour.

 

Actually the trend in movies and television has been increasingly less dialogue and more action ... increasingly more action. Watch a film and when people are talking and delivering important information ... they are always doing something else, some action to maintain the audiences attention on the screen.

 

Finally the fear on Eowyn's face ... the warrior that does not fear is doomed, fear is a healthy thing. To think that no doubts run through a mortal's mind in front of overwhelming odds while they are about to ride into a phalanx (a necessity as there is no other way to get to the enemy) kinda puts a palor of the pale to the face. Lets say that the warrior is brave not because he does not fear ... but because he does not allow his fear to control his actions. A great author once wrote, "You can take away their hope, their aspirations but as long as man breathes the one thing that never leaves is fear." Eowyn's greatest fear is to be in a cage ... so A: we have stated that she does have the emotion of fear. B: We also see she is strong enough to go into battle despite any fear. So her character is nicely portrayed. Though I did want to see her give the Wraithking a "clean death, a warrior's death" (Gladiator, 2000).

[Dark0ne]

To go to the cinema expecting a direct translation from book to film would have been delusional thinking at the least (drug induced, perhaps?) - I went to the cinema to see a good film, and thats what I got. In most respects I didn't want it to be a conversion of the book - films ruin the imagination and I cannot picture my Pippin from reading the books compared to the film Pippin - now when I read, all I see are the film characters. Sorta kills it a little.

 

Concluding: Good job Peter Jackson for some well done movies, and a good replacement for the pile of crap that was Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions (and of course the unmentionable series). Whats happened to the unmentionable series anyway, I was sure I'd have to start an anti-unmentionable Propaganda machine by now..ah well, can't complain.

[dunmer_jediknight]

I for one did the poll as "me no know". Because I liked both the movies and the books equally. The movies because it was done by a fan and with the way movies are done today it was amazing to see that it got done at all much less as THREE FOUR-HOUR MOVIES !! But was I the only one who hated the fact that they didn't do the battle of the shire? And from what i read in cinafex( the special effects bible) jackson did't even film that part so don't expect it in the extended version.And how many of you were ready to kill those people who started to gripe when the thrid movie didn't end with the wedding (like any modern movie would). And for obvious reasons I loved the books, those books have brought a smile to my face when there was nothing to smile about. And the books will always have a place not only in my hart but on my book-shelf.(hmmm....LOTR books in the morrowind game....hmmm....bonus in....hmmm)I for one was introduce to the books when i was 6 and i have been a fan since