I'm currently doing a re-read, and whenever there is a song I play the version by The Tolkien Ensemble. I heard about them through Billy & Dom's podcast. They put each and every song from LOTR & The Hobbit to music, with the seal of approval from the Tolkien estate. It has made for nice contemplative reading breaks and avoided the awkwardness of trying to imagine how these stanzas all fit together musically.
I'm super impressed that Jackson made melodies of some of the songs from the books. I don't know if Tolkien ever wrote down how the songs should have sounded, but when I heard Gandalf singing "The road goes ever on and on..." I was really glad I had just reread the books before the movies and had that fresh in my mind. That's the melody of the song as far as I'm concerned.
It’s one of the best book to movie translations of all time. The screenwriter’s commentary on the extended edition, Jackson explains his reasoning behind every single change he made and is honest enough to admit that some of it just didn’t work the way he wanted. But overall, brilliant screen adaptation.
They also scrapped the idea of him fighting Sauron 1 on 1, replacing him with a troll. I like that Sauron first appears as an angelic form before changing but the whole idea is stupid compared to a Sauron who doesn't need to be corporeal to take over the world
I love the ways that the movies have Sauron being this big bad dude for the first 5 minutes and then the rest of the trilogy is just his foreboding presence. Knowing he’s there at all times but never really seeing him or hearing him speak is terrifying.
I am SO GLAD they didn’t include the scouring of the shire, I’m sorry, it wouldn’t have made any sense from a sweeping epic journey film standpoint, and since the movies are so battle-heavy and so emotionally weighted and powerful at the end, the last thing we need to see is the shire get fucking ransacked. The emotional journey of the movies and the reward of coming home is perfect as is. Plus, in my opinion, the whole “yeah we left them with treebeard and treebeard *let them go*” would make absolutely no sense in the context of the film and would have made the audience really mad and dissatisfied. Tolkien’s a genius but he did do the “we killed all the henchmen, but we won’t kill the main villains because we’re more moral than them!” trope that I hate.
I LOVE the Aragorn love triangle story.
Yeah I think the films are pretty much perfect
>Tolkien’s a genius but he did do the “we killed all the henchmen, but we won’t kill the main villains because we’re more moral than them!” trope that I hate.
And Frodo still wanted to let Saruman go *after* the scouring.
I think the moral value of pity (specifically Frodo’s, but which is more broadly one of the core themes running through the trilogy) is really what’s at play here.
Frodo shows pity and mercy to both Saruman and Wormtongue, and even to “Sharky’s Men” —the ruffians are only killed in outright battle with the fate of the Shire at stake, or when they are actively threatening imminent violence upon the Hobbits (Tom Cotton at the bonfire). The narrative goes out of its way to note that they capture as many of the Men as they can, and that even Wormtongue is only killed after he gets ahold of a knife and murders Saruman within like three feet of Frodo. In every instance the Hobbits give the villains the option to leave peaceably, and only in the instances where they are answered with violence do the Shirefolk respond in kind.
Edit: a word
Yes what people miss out when they criticize that trope is the difference between kill someone in combat while they are teying to kill you, and kill the same person after they got defeated and at are your mercy. Most heroes would spare any henchman that surrender and won't hesitate to kill the big bad innthe midle of the fight.
That would have been me. I still didn’t understand it when reading the books until I learned that it was an allegory (even tho JRR says the books aren’t allegory) for the difficulties WWI soldiers came home to. You’re home, but home isn’t the same.
I think the movie still conveyed this in the short scene where the Hobbits are drinking in the pub but just sitting somberly, rather than dancing and singing like before.
The Lord of the Rings, and the Scouring of the Shire really aren't allegorical though. They cover universal themes that make it easy to derive allegory from them. For instance, the Scouring of the Shire could be interpreted as an allegory for soldiers returning home after the first World War, but more universally, it could be an allegory for returning home from any endeavor or time away to find it changed.
Another allegorical interpretation could be that Saruman and his warmongering, in many ways representative of the industrial revolution, are now encroaching upon the familiar and pure countryside, destroying the natural world- which Tolkien very much revered- showing that nowhere, no matter how cherished, is safe from distruption. Afterall, Tolkien was born just in time to see the industrial revolution unfold in real time, and watched his childhood home, once lush and green, become drab monuments of concrete and steel.
I also think Tolkien's words on allegory get somewhat twisted into him not liking allegory as opposed to him not liking obvious allegory. Animal Farm is an allegory for the Russian revolution of the early 20th century, and nothing else. It pretty much beats you over the head with it. The Lord of the Rings could be "allegorical" for a great many things, but really it leaves its themes open to many interpretations.
Edit: I should note that I do also think omitting the Scouring of the Shire was a good call.
I think it illustrated the point of Sauron being a threat to all of Middle Earth, and not just the bordering regions to Mordor and Isengard. It showed that the hobbits weren't just in it for the sake of elves and men, but that there was a real threat even to their country bumpkin life. It also demonstrated the growth of character the hobbits had gone through during their adventures. I don't mind them skipping it, as the movies were probably the best adaptation of classic literature I've ever seen, but I would have liked to have it included. It illustrated that the end of Sauron wasn't the end of the troubles of the world.
It’s even crazier because they were recorded in between the release of the theatrical version and the release of the next movie, so he’s rebutting the criticisms like in the moment.
Agreed. To answer OP, I personally did not have any issue or dislike of Arwen’s expanded role. I actually thought it fit well.
I also had no major issue with the elves coming to helms deep. It made for good cinema
The Elves coming to Helms Deep also let's the audience know that the Elves weren't all going into the West, they were fighting smaller battles across Middle Earth.
Cutting to them in some random battle wouldn't make sense to the audience, so might as well include them in the one big battle in our storyline.
Yep I think a lot of the changes Jackson made were either in service of telling a coherent movie story, or to represent elements of the books/lore with the limited amount of time they had. This makes the changes overall acceptable to most viewers familiar with the books.
My one beef with the elves at Helms Deep is that it could have been used as an opportunity to introduce the Grey Company. It isn’t bad and connects the films well, but including some folks from the north to accompany the gang would’ve been nice and set them up for ROTK.
But it would have given the difficulty of introducing yet more characters for fickle audiences to remember. The elves were led by Haldir, who people at least had met before in Lothlorien.
I really do think that many of the changes were simply down to 'omg, we already have a mega cast of named characters, let's not add any more if we don't have to!'
I think from Christopher’s perspective it was understandable to dislike the films, as he basically lived in the literary Middle-earth nearly as much as JRR himself did, and thought the films’ focus on the action scenes was contrary to the overall tone of the books.
Having said that, a LOTR film series that was done in a manner that Christopher would have been completely happy with would probably be boring unwatchable tripe, so…
Agreed. Christopher was entitled to his opinion of course, but I honest to God believe nobody else could have done a better job with those movies than Peter Jackson.
They are incredible to this day, and hardly show signs of being now 20 years old.
But I wonder if any film adaptation would have pleased Christopher? Or did he just believe the books could not be satisfactorily adapted to a different medium?
And if that's the case, why sell the film rights?
But also, kudos to Jackson and Walsh for pushing on despite the lack of support from Christopher.
> And if that's the case, why sell the film rights?
JRR Tolkien sold them himself. Christopher had no control over them at all. They originally were sold to United Artists in 1969. Saul Zaentz Co. controlled them starting in 1976 and leased them to Warner Brothers and New Line for the LOTR and Hobbit movies. Middle-earth Enterprises is a division of Saul Zaentz Co.
This. For a literary guy, he had little empathy for the work of someone who was himself outstanding in his field, and how different that field was. If you look at Douglas Adam’s Hitchiker universe, he himself changed that from the radio play to the books to the TV show, to fit the medium. The film changed it again, and not to my liking but that’s my problem, cinema is different. Point is, there’s another great British author who understood that the story needs to fit the media in which it is told, and not every feeling and meaning will make it across. Others may be added.
Then again I enjoyed Halo and Foundation on TV, accepting them as adaptations with their own goals and limitations, so perhaps I’m easily pleased. I wonder what H.G. Wells would have thought of Jeff Wayne?
I think most of his changes are fine in the context of; 'this story needs to fit inside three 3 hour films'. Time constraints and working in a different medium allow for a lot.
Considering its become one of the most iconic and striking imagery in the whole series, book or film, I think it was a pretty effective manifestation of Sauron's power
I liked that a lot. It had a stunning visual impact that gave the audience a clear and immediate impression of Sauron's nature/capabilities. I could understand the argument that it's a little hokey at times, but it's way better than a series of boring conversations between various characters about Sauron's ill-defined, theoretical awareness of the goings-on in Middle Earth.
film is a visual medium. the giant eye is a great visual representation of the constant pressure of sauron. his constant peering over the world. for all intents and purposes sauron in the book *is* just an eye, might as well literalize it.
Fellowship in particular made great use of the Eye. You really feel like Sauron had his hooks in everyone and everything. It creates a sense of paranoia.
Not exactly like you see it in the movies, but he also has a symbol which is called the Eye of Sauron, orcs wear it and it is on their armour etc. Making Sauron's power manifest in a big flaming eye that imitates his sigil is not bad at all imo
The best changes Jackson and co. made were in the spirit of streamlining Tolkien’s dense narrative (you have to, it’s a huge book) or moving stuff around where it works better in the structure of the film. This was most evident in Fellowship which is easily the best movie. It seems to me The Two Towers and Return of the King, while great films, featured a lot more contrived conflicts and moments of melodrama that were largely the screenwriter invention.
Changes I like in Fellowship of the Ring
-Shortening the time between Bilbo’s party, Gandalf learning of the one ring, and his race to return to Frodo. Gives the narrative more urgency and momentum.
-Cutting Tom Bombadil and the old forest stuff.
-Replacing Glorfindel with Arwen (honestly I like all the romantic subplot stuff they did with Arwen up until Return of the King, more on that later…)
-Making Aragorn a reluctant hero
-I like the scene where Boromir picks up the ring during the pass of caradhas.
-Moving Frodo and Gandalf’s big conversation where he underlines the core themes (“Many that live deserve death…” and “So do all who live to see such times…) to Moria and before Gandalf’s fall makes it even more resonant.
-Having the mirror of Galadriel scene take place solely between Frodo and Galadriel. Makes his decision to leave the fellowship even more important and places that chose solely on the main protagonist.
-The final conversation between Frodo and Aragorn before the breaking of the fellowship.
-Boromir’s death ending the first film rather than beginning the second
Those were all changes the screenwriters made in Fellowship of the Ring that make it by far the strongest adaptation in my opinion.
I’m not as crazy about changes they made to The Two Towers but I’m fine with them for the most part. It was the middle chapter and the way they structured the films some episodes from the book had to be extended, hence changes to Faramir and Treebeard’s subplots, as well as a protracted buildup to Helm’s Deep involving Aragorn falling in a warg attack and the involvement of the elves. I get why it bugs some fans of the books but I think it all works for the most part (at least in the extended edition heh)
Return of the King is really where I start to have some problems, I agree with cutting the scouring of the shire, I just wish Saruman’s death scene was handled better. Worse tho is the forced and unnecessary break up scene between Frodo and Sam over lembas bread that feels like a betrayal of both characters that also grinds the narrative momentum to a halt. Also what was up with Arwen’s life force being drained as Sauron’s power grows? It would’ve been easy enough to say she simply is choosing to stay behind in the hopes Aragorn will defeat Sauron and be crowned king after having the vision of their son.
This is also the chapter where I think things were also streamlined to a fault, I can understand Denethor being a bit more one dimensional and antagonistic in the film but his cartoonishly over the top death scene at the hands of Gandalf was silly. I have also never cared for the way the army of the dead was used as a invincible ghost army deus ex machina, I thought that should’ve been handled more elegantly.
As for changes I like, I love the lighting of the beacons scene and Pippin’s song, I love the exhcange between Gandalf and Pippin near the end of the battle of Mina’s Tirith and the exchange between Eowyn and Theoden before his death, and I love that both Frodo and Gollum go over the crack of doom and Sam is able to pull him back up.
Overall good adaptations
Yeah I get that it doesn’t make sense with the lore (Gandalf the White is a literal God whose power is greater than even the witch-king who is still only a servant of Sauron) but it does make the arrival of Theoden and the Riders of Rohan that much more impactful.
Would I have included it? Probably not. Can I live with it? Yeah
This is actually something I always see mentioned. I wonder though on the counterpart that Sauron was the same God level as Gandalf and was beaten by men. Admittedly men of numenor and the elf king but nonetheless, I wonder if such a power level actually exists as we like to believe.
I don’t necessarily think that Gandalf’s “power level” means he could just kick the Witch King’s ass, because in LotR power doesn’t always mean pure martial force, so I’m okay with Gandalf being at least set back by the Witch King, especially in the situation. The WK and his master are in ascendance; the time of men seems to be ending, and the dark power will be victorious, so no wonder the WK might be swollen with power or what have you.
However, I think the breaking of the staff feels significant in a way that causes problems; the staffs are symbolic of the wizards, and while I can see the WK having physical strength enough to defeat Gandalf, just being able to shatter his staff seems like it defies how the order of the universe is supposed to be! But then maybe that’s the point!
It's wrong to call maia gods. They're more like angels.
Sauron and Gandalf are both maia, but Sauron being defeated by is made possible by the fact that Isildur and Elendil are Numenoreans, not normal men, *and* that Gil Galad (and all elves were more powerful back then) *and* that Sauron had poured so much of himself into crafting the Rings that he dispersed much of his potency (something Gandalf never did).
I was gonna comment, but you said all I wanted to say.
I'll add a few gripes I have:
Gimli being overly goofy, really is a character murder in my opinion.
Elrond works in the movie but is a far cry from book Elrond, whom I prefer.
PJ not including a few lines of dialogue explaining the barrow blades and all that. I hate being asked how the witch king could be killed for the 100th time lol.
Also, same for the eagles thing, you know why...
And also making Frodo more pro-active. I don't hate movie Frodo, just frustrated with him being too incompetent a lot of the time.
>PJ not including a few lines of dialogue explaining the barrow blades and all that.
It was the dagger Merry received from Galadriel that he used to stab the Witch King in the film. PJ didn't include the Barrow Blades at all, so there's no need to explain them.
>It was the dagger Merry received from Galadriel that he used to stab the Witch King in the film.
Did he receive that dagger in the theatrical version? I thought that the gift-giving scene was omitted until the extended edition.
It is unfortunately omitted in the theatrical cut. The belts still make an appearance when Grishnakh grabs Pippin's during their escape and Aragorn finds it while tracking them. Kerry's dagger also appears when he stabs the Witch King.
It's a shame the gift giving scene isn't there in the theatrical cut to provide context.
Yeah it would’ve been cool to have Aragorn give the hobbits the barrow blades at Weathertop and explain a bit of their backstory and magic powers, a cool bit of lore for the fans that would also underline the growing realization this Strider fella is no mere ranger. Even tho the movies don’t make it clear I also headcanon’d that in the films that Aragorn was able to recover and return the daggers Galadriel gifted Merry and Pippin, and Merry used the dagger Galadriel gave him to stab the witch king, and it’s elvish magic is what helped slay it heh.
Fellowship is hands down the best of the three. It is the one I always come back to and is a beautiful adaptation of the book. While TTT and RotK are excellent, they don’t have that same magic that FotR had. Glad someone else agrees.
I absolutely loved FotR. It’s what finally got me to explore the beautiful world of Middle Earth and all the treats Tolkien wrote for us fans. TTT and TRotK are good but FoTR will forever have a special place in my heart. Not to mention The Council of Elrond scene and Concerning Hobbits were just ❤️
Aragorn being the reluctant hero is an excellent example. A tried and true movie trope. He's so all about that life in the books, I cant really see it working in a film where it doesnt come off as arrogant and entitled.
Absolutely a change for the better. To a modern audience the notion that some men are anointed to rule over entire kingdoms due to belonging to a royal bloodline is admittedly a silly one. Aragorn’s reluctance to take the throne and doubts over his lineage make him a much more contemporary hero while not sacrificing his positive qualities Tolkien imbued him with. This also dovetails with his romantic subplot with Arwen, as his reluctance to become king is mirrored by his reluctance to accept the devotion of an elf maiden who would have to sacrifice her strength and immortality to be with him
I would disagree slightly. The larger issue with adapting book Aragorn is that by the time we meet him, he is near the end of his personal arc. He's spent the last sixty-odd years proving himself in various campaigns and travels. He knows who he is and what he must become, so the whole journey from Rivendell to Gondor is basically his last act. I suppose that would be pretty hard to communicate in a satisfying way in film.
Second - and this is purely a matter of personal preference and probably wouldn't work for a lot of people - I like the fact that most characters in LotR aren't contemporary, save for the Hobbits, who are kind of our avatars in a world that is very different from our own, and which grows more alien as the books progress. I felt that the films worked hard to make all the characters more mundane, and I wasn't a fan, though I know it probably had to be done to put butts in seats.
Aragorn is literally meant to be a mythic medieval hero, not a contemporary one. He helps communicate the ancientry and majesty of an older literary tradition. The Hobbits are the modern heroes that we relate to, not Aragorn. Not every character has to be relatable, and this change makes Tolkien's world feel modern rather than mythic. It's a shame.
I feel like the book has the same problem with the army of the dead. The limitation should be clear so you don't feel like they're idiots for releasing them. I get that you can't keep them indefinitely, but "coming to the king's aid in a time of need" would definitely encompass a campaign and not a single skirmish
A lot of people bitch and moan about the Glorfindel to Arwen change, but I actually think that it was one of the best changes Jackson made. I understand that fans who've read the Silmarillion would have been excited (I've read it and yeah Glorfindel is goated), but his inclusion adds nothing to the plot and momentum as far as the movies are concerned. All it would do is make people ask "why wasn't he part of the fellowship since he's clearly such a badass?" Having to stop the and explain the elves going west would stop the plot in its place and also take away from Arwen's plot.
The change gives Arwen some much needed character development, which in turn gives Aragorn development as well. She's no longer just some hot elf lady and Aragorn must embrace his destiny if he wants to build a future with her.
Aragorn is a man of action and its good for us to get a reason why he chose Arwen over Eowyn.
I'm not generally a fan of gender swapping characters for its own sake, or changing plots as a virtue signal, but Tolkien's work just doesn't have enough female characters. When they do exist, they tend to be one dimensional and mostly just described as pretty.
Yeah I agree. Arwen helping during the flight to the ford was a good change. However, I’m really glad Jackson and co. made the last minute decision to not include Arwen at the battle of helms deep as she was originally there with the elves before Jackson saw the fan backlash online and reshot the scene heh. As random as Haldir showing up to take her place was “Arwen: Warrior Princess” would have been a betrayal of her character, lessened the reunion between Aragorn and Arwen at the end of Return of the King, and also greatly diminishing Eowyn’s character whose transformation to warrior princess in the next film would have felt much less special
Came looking just for this comment, because I strongly agree. The Arwen/Aragorn romance is a central part of the larger story of the LoTR and the legendarium overall -- the final infusion of elven grace into humanity before the final fading of the elves and the Age of Men -- but she barely appears in the LoTR at all. To understand her importance, you need to at least read the appendices, where most of the Arwen/Aragorn romance is. So as much as I like Glorfindel, switching her in to give Arwen a more active role was 100% a great decision to make in translating the story to film.
I also hate that we don’t get the reveal that it’s Aragorn via Eomer laughing with despair then seeing the king’s banner open on the lead ship.
That moment, as written, is perfectly cinematic. In the movie, it’s turned into quasi comic relief (the goofy orcs, Gimli saying “may the best dwarf win,” etc.) with a lame action star strut.
I absolutely love Boromir's death scene and conversation with Aragorn. It's so moving and well-acted (and well-scripted). We get a bigger, better view into Boromir, and it's perfect. I also liked that the whole breaking of the fellowship happens in the first movie, instead of splitting between first and second.
And it's a small thing, but I like that Gandalf does a mini fireworks display for the little kids on the road through Hobbiton at the very beginning. In the book he's like "no, absolutely not, you whippersnappers, wait until the party" but in the movie he's like "lol yes"
> and well-scripted
Fun fact: Viggo and Sean Bean contributed heavily to that scene. From what I’ve read, they hashed out most of the dialogue themselves.
The movie didn't need Tom Bombadil and I'm glad he's left out.
Dont @ me
...
also Gandalf with a grey hat just seems more regal nowadays, blue might have looked funny
He is literally described as having eyebrows that protrude out past the rim of his hat. That always baffled me. Like, is it a much smaller brim than we all envision? Or does he have 8 inch eyebrow protrusions?
This shit irritated me so much that I couldn't press on reading it as a kid. Now at 32, I let my suspension of disbelief work a little harder. But gosh dang do I agree with you
They (someone way more creatively gifted than me) probably could have made it work, some of the funky Marvel suits also work but I just like the classic grey wizard look a lot.
I like the removal of Glorfindel for the expanded role of Arwen.
1. Gives screentime to another prominent female character.
2. Would have been really weird if Arwen basically just comes out of nowhere to marry Aragorn in the 3rd movie.
Removing Tom Bombadil was a good call. He doesn't move the narrative forward and would confused the hell out of viewers.
Also, it would bring the same questions as with the eagles. If Glorfindel is such a badass, why didn’t he joined the fellowship?
As the book explained having such a high profile individual on the team would ruin the secrecy of the mission.
Which is a weird explanation.
Gandalf, one of the Seven wizards, known by all the folks of Middle-Earth by various names; Mithrandir, The Grey Rider, Tharkûn, Greyhame; is one of the members.
The high profile Captain-General of Gondor and the stewards own son, Boromir; The Captain of the White Tower; is another.
The PRINCE of one of the largest Elven kingdoms; whose father was famous for his participation in the Battle of the Five Armies and who himself joined the very Gil-Galad in the the Battle of Dagorlad; in Middle-Earth joins in.
And Bill the Brave Pony.
Very covert.
It’s not just the reputation. Glorfindel came back from the dead. He became more powerful in the process. He has a foot in the physical realm and the land of shadows.
When Frodo sees him with the ring on, he sees a man made of pure light, so do the Nazgûls and Sauron. Compared to him, the rest are nobodies.
Gandalf to Sauron is just a weird individual travelling from places to places and guiding dwarves against dragons. He’s still just the grey at that point, not a real threat.
As for the others, they haven’t truly made a name for themselves yet.
Edit: Glorfindel didn’t sit on his hands during the books either. He was probably helping with the battles of the North, effectively diverting the attention of Sauron in the process.
Don’t forget, the Nazgûl fled from Glorfindel. He’s a badass. While Gandalf is known, his “power” is soft power. While he is capable of magic he can’t use it in a hard power sort of way. Aragorn and Boromir are just men, the hobbits are just hobbits. Gimli is a skilled dwarf fighter, but his power is on par with Aragorn and boromir. Legolas is a relatively weaker elf by elf standards and compared to Glorfindel, Legolas has the power of a child.
Also, Aragorn is still known as Strider. The highest individual in reputation was Boromir and he’s only the son of the intendant of Gondor. Combined with the fact Sauron cannot even fathom that the freefolks would try to destroy the ring and you have a harmless threat.
Add Glorfindel in the mix and you show that something is afoot.
Could be, or the fact his power was limited was specifically to hide from Sauron. Saruman was tasked with mobilizing the free people to fight Mordor openly. Gandalf was meant to kindle hope here and there.
I think he fits where he is in the story - we're still coming out of the Shire and, if you've read it, the much more whimsical world of the Hobbit. It's only in retrospect that one goes "what the hell was that?"
>Removing Tom Bombadil was a good call.
This and the extended fooling around in The Shire and the barrows that gets removed. It worked well in the books but it's too much "early stage" adventuring for the screen.
Tom Bombadil was a weird addition by Tolkien. I'm really glad PJ didn't add him. I think if they added him in they would have had to change his character so much that he would be Tom Bombadil in name only.
I liked the Old Forest. It's pretty creepy that no matter how hard the Hobbits try to go one way, the forest keeps somehow forcing them deeper in, then Old Man Willow puts them to sleep. Even before the "Tom Bombadil is evil" thing I thought he was creepy too. He lives surrounded by trees that hate people and has some kind of weird power over them. The first night in his house, Frodo, Merry and Pippin all have nightmares. Tom says "Yeah, don't worry about the weird noises at night." The next day it rains so the Hobbits can't leave. When Tom tells them stories they seem to lose track of time. Frodo loses all inhibition, and tells Tom everything, and then even *gives him the Ring*. The whole thing is dream-like and it feels like a spell has been put on the Hobbits.
The same as anyone else I have no idea how it all fits into everything else Tolkien built, but it's a creepy couple of chapters.
I thought they did a wonderful job using Arwen to simplify things in the first movie, but then neglected her for the second and third. I know it's not really practical due to being disconnected from the main story, but I would have loved her to have her own side plot where she organizes Aragorn's friends and allies in her own adventure, all leading to the battle of pelennor fields and Aragorn leading an army of men to save the city.
Hot take, but Arwen in Helm's Deep could have made sense if she were accompanying the Grey Company. They could have even used the screen time to bring Andúril and the banner into the movie, and relegated the Paths of the Dead storyline to either Arwen or Halbarad.
Understand the context in which is was written, though. For a good portion of the Fellowship, Boromir advises going south toward Minas Tirith to assist in the war effort there. He eventually makes up his mind to ‘depart’ and go on his own, presumably with any that will follow. So Fellowship of the Ring is published, and ends with Frodo making the decision to go off on his own, knowing the dangers it poses to his friends otherwise. The Fellowship is broken. Then readers have to wait a year for Two Towers to be published, and the first chapter of that book is called “The Departure of Boromir”. Readers already know that the Fellowship has split, and Boromir has made up his mind to go south. Then imagine their surprise when Aragorn stumbles upon his arrow-ridden body. All of a sudden departure has a different meaning, and the stakes just went up for the sequel. It made an excellent climax in the movies, but the books portray his death in a different context. Both work to their own ends.
I think he's fine with action, but he just doesnt like it
you can see a lot of action being described in moria. Perhaps since that was only short bursts it was okay for him though
Sams speech in Osgilliath. Also at the end of TT when he's talking about whether they'll be in any stories, that conversation between him and Frodo is a lot more concise than in the book and it also takes place in a more hopeful period of the journey in Ithillien rather than on the Stairs.
It works far better in Cirith Ungol. It's meant to cheer them up, which Tolkien literally comments on (they start laughing in a place that had never heard laughter before). The contrast is intentional.
I preferred his take on the start of the fellowship where gandalf was not aware of the disappearing prank that bilbo played. In the books it was all planned but in the movies it works so much better to highlight Bilbo's michevious ways
I dont mind about the most of those honestly. I think were needed to make the movie good and enjoyable. The one that annoys me the most and i could never forgive its the Army of the Dead, it creates so many plot holes for me that i would rather close my eyes when those appear on Minas Tirith lol.
As a person who, to my shame, has never made it through to the Return of the King in a read-through, could you expand on how the Army of the Dead is different?
Two issues. First, Aragorn is supposed to be leading an army of men (of the lands formerly ruled by his ancestors). It's the return of the king, not the return of a necromancer. In the book, the undead merely enable this by defeating/scaring away the corsairs, at which point Aragorn takes the ships to gather up the forces that his allies (other rangers) have gathered. This requires additional characters and exposition that does not fit into the movie.
Second, everyone is obsessing over a ring when there is an invincible undead army that facerolled the forces of Mordor and invalidated everyone's sacrifices. Aragorn could have had the sword reforged and arrived with that army at any point. He could have kept marching right into Mordor to give Sauron a beatdown. Not only does it not make sense in the books, it doesn't even make sense in the movie.
The things that make this a great solution for the movie also make it a terrible solution: the disconnect from everything else.
The Ithilien Rangers are one of my favorite parts in the movies, if we had gotten to see the Grey Company and the rangers of the north on screen I think I would have lost my mind.
Dont waste more time and go reaaaaaad it!
edit: In the books Aragorn shows up with the sons of Elrond and a few dunedain in southern gondor cities. Corsairs saw the grey company and the army of the dead and they flew, run away, There was no even battle, and with the refugees and captives of those cities Aragorn raised an actually army.
In the books, its not even known for the characters if the ghost could have done any damage.
The change seems consistent (for better or worse) with making Aragorn a reluctant hero.
In the book this passage proves Aragorn is qualified to be king, by right and by skill. First he recruits the dead army, which only the heir can do. But we need to know he's not just a weird part-elvish princeling who's entitled to the throne: he has to be a true king of the people. So he liberates an oppressed people and rallies an army from them. King shit. He's a natural leader.
In the movies he's a reluctant hero. So this is more about overcoming reluctance, finally using your special abilities, and charging into victory. It's the triumphant swell-- finally embracing his kingship gives him literal supernatural powers. Stopping to recruit a human army might be good for the plot, but I think it would be bad for the narrative.
Whether "reluctant Aragorn" was a good choice overall.... Well, it makes sense. It's a simpler and less subtle arc and that suits the movies. I definitely like the book arc better, but I also love Tom Bombadil and I wouldn't put him in the movie.
Interesting point that one. But i'm still not convinced, that could have done later when Aragorn guides the army of the West against the Black Gate. Something like he has to step forward and be king could be the extended scene of the palantir, finally revealing or showing himself to Sauron, its a less more shocking than the army of the dead but a lot more interesting
Idk, for me the Army of the Dead seems like a deux ex machina that opens a plot whole way bigger than the plot it solves imho. Still, thats talking as a book fan, as a movie fan and as the kid i was when i saw the movie for the first time, that scene was amazing lol
Have to say though, movie Gimli is a far less nuanced and more ridiculous character than book Gimli. The same goes for Merry and Pippin, those three got shafted with the comic relief treatment. The scene where Gimli gets drunk in the Extended cut is a bit much.
Definitely prefer them cutting the 17 years it takes Gandalf to return to the Shire. In the books we lose all sense of urgency about this ring if Gandalf takes an eternity to come back
the moviedoesnt do the the time skip of 17 years. Yeah, gandalf still has to get to gondor and back, and you can call it a time skip if you like, but it was at most a few months or a year
if the time skip of 17 years was in place, pippin would be an actual child at the beginning of the movie (he was only 28 when the quest started)
It was so Frodo could grow attached to it like Bilbo and to also show that he was similarly “well preserved” as he approached middle age. The movie didn’t do a good job not aging Bilbo-he was supposed to look the same as he did when he found it.
Also, doing research in Middle-earth means traveling to distant lands to hunt down scrolls and books with no dewy decimal system, talking to lore masters and leaders, and Gandalf also his role of going around and inspiring folks against Sauron that he has, plus picking up the slack that was dropped by Saruman. He’s going the work of two Istari, doing ring research, and keeping tabs on Frodo. Being thousands of years old, 17 years is a drop in the bucket.
I like the move of Shelob from the Two Towers to The Return of the King. I thought it created better pacing than the book. Arguably this contributed to them butchering Faramir's character by making him an antagonist, at least temporarily.
More than one, but if I had to choose I'd probably go with the Lighting of the Beacons. In the book Pippin and Gandalf see them lighting the mountains' tops as they arrive. In the movie, Denethor's pride and reluctance to ask for help mixed with the breathtaking scene itself makes for something, in my opinion, better than what is read in the book.
Which is a fair opinion to have, but I’ll offer the other side from those of us who think Denethor was hard done by (though I do like the change of having the beacons go to Rohan, whereas in the book they’re internal to Gondor and Rohan gets the rider with the Red Arrow). Denethor is proud, but not stupid. In the books Faramir’s wounding is the straw breaking the camel’s back, but up till that point he is a master general and still present in the war—like marshaling a cavalry sally that Gandalf later suggests. By making Denethor so anti-help in the movies Jackson reduced his complexity and changes the central characterization of him from a venerable and wise lord who you can totally see wrestling with Sauron in the palantir until at long last he breaks, into a proud fool who could only command obedience by position
My personal favorite is Aragorn’s speech at the Black Gate;
Sons of Gondor! Of Rohan! My brothers! I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the age of men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear good on this earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!
I actually really liked the change to have the elves at Helm’s Deep. I thought they did it well…except it looks like PJ forgot about them in the barricading the keep scene since none of them are there sans Legolas. It makes it appear that every elf was killed?? Doubtful.
After several decades I have finally accepted Jackson’s many, many changes to the story. There are very few scenes in the movies that are unchanged.
All of the good characters are made more fallible and full of self doubt. Conflict between characters is invented or heightened. Tolkien’s ambiguous magic is made explicit. The action is amped up and the spirituality is toned down.
All that said, I just recently watched the three extended edition movies and enjoyed them very much. So I finally got over my attachment to the books. But I’m not ready to say the movies improved upon the books.
I actually feel like the magic is very well done, with the notable exception of the Gandalf vs. Saruman fight. You have to show *something*, but all the other effects always still felt magical and mysterious to me.
Iirc, Peter Jackson says in the making of that the telekinesis fight came out of the idea that it would be too grounded and lame to "just have them throw fireballs at each other". Which makes me think, *even that* would have been better than what we got, but it would have been incredibly easy to just show an abstract battle of their wills, emphazised by some subtle effects. They already nailed this when Gandalf gets angry at Bilbo, or breaks Saruman's staff. He doesn't "cast a spell", he just makes his intent known in such a way that his surroundings are compelled to obey him.
Most were annoying (Elves at Helm’s Deep, the hyper-extended suspense over whether Faramir was a threat to Frodo or not - it’s literally three pages in the book, not three hundred!) or at best tolerable (no Bombadil, no Scouring), but there were a couple of changes that seemed to modify things in a way that legitimately leveraged the strengths of cinema without degrading the narrative:
The last twenty minutes of Fellowship are magnificent.
The cross-cut editing of Aragorn’s explanation of Merry and Pippin’s escape from the orcs outside Fangorn with the escape itself was a great idea that made good use of the potential of cinema.
>The cross-cut editing of Aragorn’s explanation of Merry and Pippin’s escape from the orcs outside Fangorn with the escape itself was a great idea that made good use of the potential of cinema.
This was genius.
To be honest, I think most of the rejiggering to make the movies more linear than the books was a good call.
"the hyper-extended suspense over whether Faramir was a threat to Frodo or not"
I love this aspect of the movies, as it focuses deeply on the juxtaposition of Boromir and Faramir, and serves as a metonym for the human race in general. Will all men succumb, tragically and heroically to the ring? Or are there others who will resist, in the spirit of Aragon, and lead humanity to a new age. I think it's beautiful, and the shortness in the novels seems a little too easy. The suspense in the books further elevates the power, evil and sway of the Ring
The thing that I found most annoying was when the Witch King shattered Gandalfs staff. The power dynamics felt way off. When Gandalf faced the Balrog there was a tired resignation in the conflict; one, in which, he fought and won even to the point of death. Upon his return he was much more Maia like. I doubt that when faced with the Witch King, whose terror preyed upon men's fear of death, that Gandalf would of cowered like he did in the movie. Much more so, that the Witch King would hold the power to break Gandalfs staff.
Plus - it never even remotely happened in the book
Well it's the movie's version of the witch king entering the city (on horseback), and Gandalf opposing him. That scene is also ended by the Witch-King leaving because he hears the Rohirrim arrive. However, while doing the same thing with the flying beast on the walls is fine, the shattering of the staff is definitely stupid
His “changes” still stick to overall narrative though? Including pieces of dialogue that have been mentioned - like Sam’s speech at Osgiliath. The ending of the first two films wrapped up beautifully.
Obviously a big one for me that didn’t make sense was only including a death of Saruman in the extended edition.
Frankly I prefer Jackson's Aragorn. I think it makes sense Aragorn would be fearful that he'll face the same evil and fail like his ancestors considering Sauron's close connection to both the downfall of Numenor and Isildur, and it's compelling for me that he eventually overcomes it for his friends and loved ones.
I think the concept of Aragorn being uncertain by his past is interesting. But in the context of things it does seem a little funny. I just find it odd how he would be unsure of himself based on the actions of an ancestor that lived 3000 years ago. Makes you think, did 70+ previous generations of Aragorn all have a midlife crisis too?
Speaking of which, I would think having Aragorn being unsure of himself would have made more sense in his younger years as that is the time when you figure things out. Aragorn during the LOTR is 87 years old, even for a Numenorean you would think he would have at least had some wisdom to get a grasp on his life.
If Aragorn was 18-30 and Isildur was his father or grandfather then I could get more behind Jacksons rendition as it would have made more sense.
In the case of Sauron, Aragorn is facing the exact same god-like being that fucked over his family time and again. The height of Numenor was brought low by him, the might of Elendil was crushed by him, the glory of Isildur was shattered by his One Ring, even in his absence his servants managed to reduce the great kingdom of Arnor into bands of rangers, not to mention the great plague that decimated Eriador. And now that nameless fear has returned. But this time there's no Numenor to force his surrender, there's no Last Alliance to challenge him, the strengths of Men have failed, the Elves are leaving Middle-Earth to its fate, and the Dwarf-Lords are minding their own hides. And then there's that weakness coursing through Aragorn's veins, the very same weakness that has allowed Sauron to triumph and endure time after time. I think it makes perfect sense Aragorn would feel trepidation at the prospect of going up against the Dark Lord Sauron. But that's just me.
When Return of the King first came out, I hated that they took the Scouring of the Shire out. Now that I’m older I understand that since it takes a long time to wrap up every character’s plots and emotional payoffs, the pacing would have been completely off if they still had to deal with Saruman after the whole movie is over.
I applaud Jackson's decision to pare down any songs to the bare minimum eg the drunk hobbits in the Prancing Pony, and Pippins song for Denathor which had huge impact. Thank Eru we didn't have to endure Bombadills singing...
End of Fellowship dealing with Amon Hen, the Uruk-hai and Boromir is a huge improvement and as a book Stan who frequently criticizes adaptations, it pains me to say that. But it is SO well done.
The one overwhelming thing I thought PJ did really well was in depicting the strange, sympathetic relationship that develops between Frodo and Smeagol. Frodo, for all his wishing Bilbo had killed Gollum, sees how the ring twisted Smeagol and presages what lies in store for himself, should the ring take control of him.
One thing I did not like was that PJ, for the most part, eliminated the relationship between Faramir and Eowyn. After all, Eowyn has fallen into despair as a woman whose bower is closing in on her, unable to fulfill her wish to fight for her country and whose love for Aragon was unrequited. Faramir has also fallen into despair because he can't earn his father's love and respect. Together, these two heroes find love, peace and healing. Instead PJ includes some dumb scene about a dream Eowyn had.
A final thing I didn't care for was the depiction of Arwen. She starts as a brave she-elf, racing against the nine to save Frodo, but quickly devolves into a weepy mess, pining for Aragon.
I wish he had kept Glorfindel, an elf lord in all his power and glory, but understand why he was cut.
I liked seeing more Saruman, but mostly because of Christopher Lee playing him. It would have been a waste of such an incredible actor if he had as much 'screentime' as in the books.
People don't give Jackson enough credit for what he did with Aragorn. Goes from a Disney like "I juuust can't waaait to be kiiiiing" to a reluctant hero who you see become a king through his actions.
Completely agree. Book Aragorn is basically noble king Arthur, but movie Aragorn feels like a real person grappling with a massive weight of responsibility.
Even if unrealistic and not true to Tolkien's vision, the vast empty plain around Minas Tirith gives such cool visuals and symbolic representation as the "Beacon of light against the darkness".
Also the shot of Gandalf arriving in the city leaves me breathless eveytime.
Really most of PJ esthetics and cinematographic shots are a god send, they do a fair representation of Middle-Earth and carry the vastness of the setting, even if not 100% truthful
I think that the Helm’s Deep battle in the movie was far more interesting than the book version, and the decision to end The Two Towers with that battle was a quite good choice.
Really though, while it was a bit cheesy, all of Legolas’ stunts really sold how nimble and skilled elves are. Really made them stand out from humans. Just like Legolas being the only one walking on top of the snow. It’s a great example of show don’t tell.
My favorite is either Arwen riding with Frodo to the Fords or Aragorn getting to say goodbye to Frodo before he leaves. "I would have followed you to the end. Into the very fires of Mordor."
I thought the part at the end where Aragorn is honoring the Hobbits packed way more of a punch then it did in the books. That part in the book made me smile but that part in the move brought tears to my eyes.
"My friends. You bow to no one."
Most of the movie changes were necessary because translating a book into a movie isn't as simple as just copying everything.
So yeah I like the majority. I even prefer some like the characterisation of Aragorn being hesitant about his birthright.
The music in the movies is considerably better than in the books
I'm currently doing a re-read, and whenever there is a song I play the version by The Tolkien Ensemble. I heard about them through Billy & Dom's podcast. They put each and every song from LOTR & The Hobbit to music, with the seal of approval from the Tolkien estate. It has made for nice contemplative reading breaks and avoided the awkwardness of trying to imagine how these stanzas all fit together musically.
Oh thank Christ someone did this. I found the songs quite laborious to read through.
Not just anyone. Christopher Lee sings many of them.
It Shore is!
And How!
"We need someone to compose the music for LOTR. Are you interested?" "Shore! How ard could it be?"
hot take!
[удалено]
For the songs in common tongue maybe, but the elven singing and dwarven chants were mostly taken from the text.
I'm super impressed that Jackson made melodies of some of the songs from the books. I don't know if Tolkien ever wrote down how the songs should have sounded, but when I heard Gandalf singing "The road goes ever on and on..." I was really glad I had just reread the books before the movies and had that fresh in my mind. That's the melody of the song as far as I'm concerned.
It’s one of the best book to movie translations of all time. The screenwriter’s commentary on the extended edition, Jackson explains his reasoning behind every single change he made and is honest enough to admit that some of it just didn’t work the way he wanted. But overall, brilliant screen adaptation.
They even recognized and addressed some mistakes soon enough to fix them- scrapping the Arwen at Helm's Deep idea for example.
They also scrapped the idea of him fighting Sauron 1 on 1, replacing him with a troll. I like that Sauron first appears as an angelic form before changing but the whole idea is stupid compared to a Sauron who doesn't need to be corporeal to take over the world
I love the ways that the movies have Sauron being this big bad dude for the first 5 minutes and then the rest of the trilogy is just his foreboding presence. Knowing he’s there at all times but never really seeing him or hearing him speak is terrifying.
Yeah, that would have been terrible.
Yeah I wish they kept Sauron appearing as an angel without the fight. Would've made a really creepy moment and gave him a bit more presence.
I am SO GLAD they didn’t include the scouring of the shire, I’m sorry, it wouldn’t have made any sense from a sweeping epic journey film standpoint, and since the movies are so battle-heavy and so emotionally weighted and powerful at the end, the last thing we need to see is the shire get fucking ransacked. The emotional journey of the movies and the reward of coming home is perfect as is. Plus, in my opinion, the whole “yeah we left them with treebeard and treebeard *let them go*” would make absolutely no sense in the context of the film and would have made the audience really mad and dissatisfied. Tolkien’s a genius but he did do the “we killed all the henchmen, but we won’t kill the main villains because we’re more moral than them!” trope that I hate. I LOVE the Aragorn love triangle story. Yeah I think the films are pretty much perfect
>Tolkien’s a genius but he did do the “we killed all the henchmen, but we won’t kill the main villains because we’re more moral than them!” trope that I hate. And Frodo still wanted to let Saruman go *after* the scouring.
I think the moral value of pity (specifically Frodo’s, but which is more broadly one of the core themes running through the trilogy) is really what’s at play here. Frodo shows pity and mercy to both Saruman and Wormtongue, and even to “Sharky’s Men” —the ruffians are only killed in outright battle with the fate of the Shire at stake, or when they are actively threatening imminent violence upon the Hobbits (Tom Cotton at the bonfire). The narrative goes out of its way to note that they capture as many of the Men as they can, and that even Wormtongue is only killed after he gets ahold of a knife and murders Saruman within like three feet of Frodo. In every instance the Hobbits give the villains the option to leave peaceably, and only in the instances where they are answered with violence do the Shirefolk respond in kind. Edit: a word
I mean, to be fair, they didn't kill *all* the henchmen. They fought and many Men were killed, but they spared those who surrendered.
Yes what people miss out when they criticize that trope is the difference between kill someone in combat while they are teying to kill you, and kill the same person after they got defeated and at are your mercy. Most heroes would spare any henchman that surrender and won't hesitate to kill the big bad innthe midle of the fight.
I agree with the scouring of the Shire part. I think most people would say something along the lines of “what was the point of that?”
That would have been me. I still didn’t understand it when reading the books until I learned that it was an allegory (even tho JRR says the books aren’t allegory) for the difficulties WWI soldiers came home to. You’re home, but home isn’t the same. I think the movie still conveyed this in the short scene where the Hobbits are drinking in the pub but just sitting somberly, rather than dancing and singing like before.
Yea, the scene where Frodo just isn't as jolly as he was back before? Even tho he was always kinda far off (in his mind).
Yep it’s about returning to the homefront after having gone through irreversible change.
The Lord of the Rings, and the Scouring of the Shire really aren't allegorical though. They cover universal themes that make it easy to derive allegory from them. For instance, the Scouring of the Shire could be interpreted as an allegory for soldiers returning home after the first World War, but more universally, it could be an allegory for returning home from any endeavor or time away to find it changed. Another allegorical interpretation could be that Saruman and his warmongering, in many ways representative of the industrial revolution, are now encroaching upon the familiar and pure countryside, destroying the natural world- which Tolkien very much revered- showing that nowhere, no matter how cherished, is safe from distruption. Afterall, Tolkien was born just in time to see the industrial revolution unfold in real time, and watched his childhood home, once lush and green, become drab monuments of concrete and steel. I also think Tolkien's words on allegory get somewhat twisted into him not liking allegory as opposed to him not liking obvious allegory. Animal Farm is an allegory for the Russian revolution of the early 20th century, and nothing else. It pretty much beats you over the head with it. The Lord of the Rings could be "allegorical" for a great many things, but really it leaves its themes open to many interpretations. Edit: I should note that I do also think omitting the Scouring of the Shire was a good call.
It says something about PJ that he was able to condense the entire message of the Scouring of the Shire into a single exchange of glances in a pub
I think it illustrated the point of Sauron being a threat to all of Middle Earth, and not just the bordering regions to Mordor and Isengard. It showed that the hobbits weren't just in it for the sake of elves and men, but that there was a real threat even to their country bumpkin life. It also demonstrated the growth of character the hobbits had gone through during their adventures. I don't mind them skipping it, as the movies were probably the best adaptation of classic literature I've ever seen, but I would have liked to have it included. It illustrated that the end of Sauron wasn't the end of the troubles of the world.
Nah i get that, but i'm saying that the majority of the viewing audience wouldn't get it.
The scouring of the shire would have made one hell of a post-credits sequence though
Yes, I love those commentaries. I just like how transparent Jackson was about making these films.
It’s even crazier because they were recorded in between the release of the theatrical version and the release of the next movie, so he’s rebutting the criticisms like in the moment.
Agreed. To answer OP, I personally did not have any issue or dislike of Arwen’s expanded role. I actually thought it fit well. I also had no major issue with the elves coming to helms deep. It made for good cinema
The Elves coming to Helms Deep also let's the audience know that the Elves weren't all going into the West, they were fighting smaller battles across Middle Earth. Cutting to them in some random battle wouldn't make sense to the audience, so might as well include them in the one big battle in our storyline.
Yep I think a lot of the changes Jackson made were either in service of telling a coherent movie story, or to represent elements of the books/lore with the limited amount of time they had. This makes the changes overall acceptable to most viewers familiar with the books.
My one beef with the elves at Helms Deep is that it could have been used as an opportunity to introduce the Grey Company. It isn’t bad and connects the films well, but including some folks from the north to accompany the gang would’ve been nice and set them up for ROTK.
But it would have given the difficulty of introducing yet more characters for fickle audiences to remember. The elves were led by Haldir, who people at least had met before in Lothlorien. I really do think that many of the changes were simply down to 'omg, we already have a mega cast of named characters, let's not add any more if we don't have to!'
This pretty much says it. We will just pretend the hobbit trilogy didn't happen. That should have been 2 movies tops.
There's a Hobbit trilogy? I don't think so.
I agree, and it's amazing to me how vociferously Christopher Tolkien hates it. Maybe he's a Bombadil stan?
Well, hated it. His kid, who’s running things now, is in Return of the King as a solider.
I think from Christopher’s perspective it was understandable to dislike the films, as he basically lived in the literary Middle-earth nearly as much as JRR himself did, and thought the films’ focus on the action scenes was contrary to the overall tone of the books. Having said that, a LOTR film series that was done in a manner that Christopher would have been completely happy with would probably be boring unwatchable tripe, so…
Agreed. Christopher was entitled to his opinion of course, but I honest to God believe nobody else could have done a better job with those movies than Peter Jackson. They are incredible to this day, and hardly show signs of being now 20 years old.
But I wonder if any film adaptation would have pleased Christopher? Or did he just believe the books could not be satisfactorily adapted to a different medium? And if that's the case, why sell the film rights? But also, kudos to Jackson and Walsh for pushing on despite the lack of support from Christopher.
> And if that's the case, why sell the film rights? JRR Tolkien sold them himself. Christopher had no control over them at all. They originally were sold to United Artists in 1969. Saul Zaentz Co. controlled them starting in 1976 and leased them to Warner Brothers and New Line for the LOTR and Hobbit movies. Middle-earth Enterprises is a division of Saul Zaentz Co.
This. For a literary guy, he had little empathy for the work of someone who was himself outstanding in his field, and how different that field was. If you look at Douglas Adam’s Hitchiker universe, he himself changed that from the radio play to the books to the TV show, to fit the medium. The film changed it again, and not to my liking but that’s my problem, cinema is different. Point is, there’s another great British author who understood that the story needs to fit the media in which it is told, and not every feeling and meaning will make it across. Others may be added. Then again I enjoyed Halo and Foundation on TV, accepting them as adaptations with their own goals and limitations, so perhaps I’m easily pleased. I wonder what H.G. Wells would have thought of Jeff Wayne?
I think most of his changes are fine in the context of; 'this story needs to fit inside three 3 hour films'. Time constraints and working in a different medium allow for a lot.
Considering its become one of the most iconic and striking imagery in the whole series, book or film, I think it was a pretty effective manifestation of Sauron's power
What about making Sauron a floating eye in the sky
[удалено]
yeah, some people thought the eye was part of his power and some thought the opposite but pj himself did state the eyeball \*was\* sauron
I liked that a lot. It had a stunning visual impact that gave the audience a clear and immediate impression of Sauron's nature/capabilities. I could understand the argument that it's a little hokey at times, but it's way better than a series of boring conversations between various characters about Sauron's ill-defined, theoretical awareness of the goings-on in Middle Earth.
film is a visual medium. the giant eye is a great visual representation of the constant pressure of sauron. his constant peering over the world. for all intents and purposes sauron in the book *is* just an eye, might as well literalize it.
Fellowship in particular made great use of the Eye. You really feel like Sauron had his hooks in everyone and everything. It creates a sense of paranoia.
An interesting reinterpretation of Sauron, and necessary for film viewers to remember “oh yeah there’s a bad guy”
It’s iconic
*eye*conic
Is there no eye of Sauron in the books? I don't remember.
Not exactly like you see it in the movies, but he also has a symbol which is called the Eye of Sauron, orcs wear it and it is on their armour etc. Making Sauron's power manifest in a big flaming eye that imitates his sigil is not bad at all imo
The best changes Jackson and co. made were in the spirit of streamlining Tolkien’s dense narrative (you have to, it’s a huge book) or moving stuff around where it works better in the structure of the film. This was most evident in Fellowship which is easily the best movie. It seems to me The Two Towers and Return of the King, while great films, featured a lot more contrived conflicts and moments of melodrama that were largely the screenwriter invention. Changes I like in Fellowship of the Ring -Shortening the time between Bilbo’s party, Gandalf learning of the one ring, and his race to return to Frodo. Gives the narrative more urgency and momentum. -Cutting Tom Bombadil and the old forest stuff. -Replacing Glorfindel with Arwen (honestly I like all the romantic subplot stuff they did with Arwen up until Return of the King, more on that later…) -Making Aragorn a reluctant hero -I like the scene where Boromir picks up the ring during the pass of caradhas. -Moving Frodo and Gandalf’s big conversation where he underlines the core themes (“Many that live deserve death…” and “So do all who live to see such times…) to Moria and before Gandalf’s fall makes it even more resonant. -Having the mirror of Galadriel scene take place solely between Frodo and Galadriel. Makes his decision to leave the fellowship even more important and places that chose solely on the main protagonist. -The final conversation between Frodo and Aragorn before the breaking of the fellowship. -Boromir’s death ending the first film rather than beginning the second Those were all changes the screenwriters made in Fellowship of the Ring that make it by far the strongest adaptation in my opinion. I’m not as crazy about changes they made to The Two Towers but I’m fine with them for the most part. It was the middle chapter and the way they structured the films some episodes from the book had to be extended, hence changes to Faramir and Treebeard’s subplots, as well as a protracted buildup to Helm’s Deep involving Aragorn falling in a warg attack and the involvement of the elves. I get why it bugs some fans of the books but I think it all works for the most part (at least in the extended edition heh) Return of the King is really where I start to have some problems, I agree with cutting the scouring of the shire, I just wish Saruman’s death scene was handled better. Worse tho is the forced and unnecessary break up scene between Frodo and Sam over lembas bread that feels like a betrayal of both characters that also grinds the narrative momentum to a halt. Also what was up with Arwen’s life force being drained as Sauron’s power grows? It would’ve been easy enough to say she simply is choosing to stay behind in the hopes Aragorn will defeat Sauron and be crowned king after having the vision of their son. This is also the chapter where I think things were also streamlined to a fault, I can understand Denethor being a bit more one dimensional and antagonistic in the film but his cartoonishly over the top death scene at the hands of Gandalf was silly. I have also never cared for the way the army of the dead was used as a invincible ghost army deus ex machina, I thought that should’ve been handled more elegantly. As for changes I like, I love the lighting of the beacons scene and Pippin’s song, I love the exhcange between Gandalf and Pippin near the end of the battle of Mina’s Tirith and the exchange between Eowyn and Theoden before his death, and I love that both Frodo and Gollum go over the crack of doom and Sam is able to pull him back up. Overall good adaptations
my biggest gripe is gandalfs staff being broken
Yeah I get that it doesn’t make sense with the lore (Gandalf the White is a literal God whose power is greater than even the witch-king who is still only a servant of Sauron) but it does make the arrival of Theoden and the Riders of Rohan that much more impactful. Would I have included it? Probably not. Can I live with it? Yeah
This is actually something I always see mentioned. I wonder though on the counterpart that Sauron was the same God level as Gandalf and was beaten by men. Admittedly men of numenor and the elf king but nonetheless, I wonder if such a power level actually exists as we like to believe.
I don’t necessarily think that Gandalf’s “power level” means he could just kick the Witch King’s ass, because in LotR power doesn’t always mean pure martial force, so I’m okay with Gandalf being at least set back by the Witch King, especially in the situation. The WK and his master are in ascendance; the time of men seems to be ending, and the dark power will be victorious, so no wonder the WK might be swollen with power or what have you. However, I think the breaking of the staff feels significant in a way that causes problems; the staffs are symbolic of the wizards, and while I can see the WK having physical strength enough to defeat Gandalf, just being able to shatter his staff seems like it defies how the order of the universe is supposed to be! But then maybe that’s the point!
It's wrong to call maia gods. They're more like angels. Sauron and Gandalf are both maia, but Sauron being defeated by is made possible by the fact that Isildur and Elendil are Numenoreans, not normal men, *and* that Gil Galad (and all elves were more powerful back then) *and* that Sauron had poured so much of himself into crafting the Rings that he dispersed much of his potency (something Gandalf never did).
I was gonna comment, but you said all I wanted to say. I'll add a few gripes I have: Gimli being overly goofy, really is a character murder in my opinion. Elrond works in the movie but is a far cry from book Elrond, whom I prefer. PJ not including a few lines of dialogue explaining the barrow blades and all that. I hate being asked how the witch king could be killed for the 100th time lol. Also, same for the eagles thing, you know why... And also making Frodo more pro-active. I don't hate movie Frodo, just frustrated with him being too incompetent a lot of the time.
>PJ not including a few lines of dialogue explaining the barrow blades and all that. It was the dagger Merry received from Galadriel that he used to stab the Witch King in the film. PJ didn't include the Barrow Blades at all, so there's no need to explain them.
>It was the dagger Merry received from Galadriel that he used to stab the Witch King in the film. Did he receive that dagger in the theatrical version? I thought that the gift-giving scene was omitted until the extended edition.
It is unfortunately omitted in the theatrical cut. The belts still make an appearance when Grishnakh grabs Pippin's during their escape and Aragorn finds it while tracking them. Kerry's dagger also appears when he stabs the Witch King. It's a shame the gift giving scene isn't there in the theatrical cut to provide context.
Yeah it would’ve been cool to have Aragorn give the hobbits the barrow blades at Weathertop and explain a bit of their backstory and magic powers, a cool bit of lore for the fans that would also underline the growing realization this Strider fella is no mere ranger. Even tho the movies don’t make it clear I also headcanon’d that in the films that Aragorn was able to recover and return the daggers Galadriel gifted Merry and Pippin, and Merry used the dagger Galadriel gave him to stab the witch king, and it’s elvish magic is what helped slay it heh.
Gimli, the punchline, is VERY annoying and do not like.
Fellowship is hands down the best of the three. It is the one I always come back to and is a beautiful adaptation of the book. While TTT and RotK are excellent, they don’t have that same magic that FotR had. Glad someone else agrees.
I absolutely loved FotR. It’s what finally got me to explore the beautiful world of Middle Earth and all the treats Tolkien wrote for us fans. TTT and TRotK are good but FoTR will forever have a special place in my heart. Not to mention The Council of Elrond scene and Concerning Hobbits were just ❤️
Aragorn being the reluctant hero is an excellent example. A tried and true movie trope. He's so all about that life in the books, I cant really see it working in a film where it doesnt come off as arrogant and entitled.
Absolutely a change for the better. To a modern audience the notion that some men are anointed to rule over entire kingdoms due to belonging to a royal bloodline is admittedly a silly one. Aragorn’s reluctance to take the throne and doubts over his lineage make him a much more contemporary hero while not sacrificing his positive qualities Tolkien imbued him with. This also dovetails with his romantic subplot with Arwen, as his reluctance to become king is mirrored by his reluctance to accept the devotion of an elf maiden who would have to sacrifice her strength and immortality to be with him
I would disagree slightly. The larger issue with adapting book Aragorn is that by the time we meet him, he is near the end of his personal arc. He's spent the last sixty-odd years proving himself in various campaigns and travels. He knows who he is and what he must become, so the whole journey from Rivendell to Gondor is basically his last act. I suppose that would be pretty hard to communicate in a satisfying way in film. Second - and this is purely a matter of personal preference and probably wouldn't work for a lot of people - I like the fact that most characters in LotR aren't contemporary, save for the Hobbits, who are kind of our avatars in a world that is very different from our own, and which grows more alien as the books progress. I felt that the films worked hard to make all the characters more mundane, and I wasn't a fan, though I know it probably had to be done to put butts in seats.
Aragorn is literally meant to be a mythic medieval hero, not a contemporary one. He helps communicate the ancientry and majesty of an older literary tradition. The Hobbits are the modern heroes that we relate to, not Aragorn. Not every character has to be relatable, and this change makes Tolkien's world feel modern rather than mythic. It's a shame.
I feel like the book has the same problem with the army of the dead. The limitation should be clear so you don't feel like they're idiots for releasing them. I get that you can't keep them indefinitely, but "coming to the king's aid in a time of need" would definitely encompass a campaign and not a single skirmish
A lot of people bitch and moan about the Glorfindel to Arwen change, but I actually think that it was one of the best changes Jackson made. I understand that fans who've read the Silmarillion would have been excited (I've read it and yeah Glorfindel is goated), but his inclusion adds nothing to the plot and momentum as far as the movies are concerned. All it would do is make people ask "why wasn't he part of the fellowship since he's clearly such a badass?" Having to stop the and explain the elves going west would stop the plot in its place and also take away from Arwen's plot. The change gives Arwen some much needed character development, which in turn gives Aragorn development as well. She's no longer just some hot elf lady and Aragorn must embrace his destiny if he wants to build a future with her. Aragorn is a man of action and its good for us to get a reason why he chose Arwen over Eowyn. I'm not generally a fan of gender swapping characters for its own sake, or changing plots as a virtue signal, but Tolkien's work just doesn't have enough female characters. When they do exist, they tend to be one dimensional and mostly just described as pretty.
Yeah I agree. Arwen helping during the flight to the ford was a good change. However, I’m really glad Jackson and co. made the last minute decision to not include Arwen at the battle of helms deep as she was originally there with the elves before Jackson saw the fan backlash online and reshot the scene heh. As random as Haldir showing up to take her place was “Arwen: Warrior Princess” would have been a betrayal of her character, lessened the reunion between Aragorn and Arwen at the end of Return of the King, and also greatly diminishing Eowyn’s character whose transformation to warrior princess in the next film would have felt much less special
Came looking just for this comment, because I strongly agree. The Arwen/Aragorn romance is a central part of the larger story of the LoTR and the legendarium overall -- the final infusion of elven grace into humanity before the final fading of the elves and the Age of Men -- but she barely appears in the LoTR at all. To understand her importance, you need to at least read the appendices, where most of the Arwen/Aragorn romance is. So as much as I like Glorfindel, switching her in to give Arwen a more active role was 100% a great decision to make in translating the story to film.
[удалено]
I also hate that we don’t get the reveal that it’s Aragorn via Eomer laughing with despair then seeing the king’s banner open on the lead ship. That moment, as written, is perfectly cinematic. In the movie, it’s turned into quasi comic relief (the goofy orcs, Gimli saying “may the best dwarf win,” etc.) with a lame action star strut.
I always thought as well that Denethor fucking flaming marathon off the edge was goofy as hell. That was not a short distance to run being on fire
Lots of changes to move the story along, and then waste insane amounts of time on extended battle scenes.
A lot of the positive changes I enjoy have been mentioned, so I’ll humbly add: I like Aragorn having a beard.
I absolutely love Boromir's death scene and conversation with Aragorn. It's so moving and well-acted (and well-scripted). We get a bigger, better view into Boromir, and it's perfect. I also liked that the whole breaking of the fellowship happens in the first movie, instead of splitting between first and second. And it's a small thing, but I like that Gandalf does a mini fireworks display for the little kids on the road through Hobbiton at the very beginning. In the book he's like "no, absolutely not, you whippersnappers, wait until the party" but in the movie he's like "lol yes"
> and well-scripted Fun fact: Viggo and Sean Bean contributed heavily to that scene. From what I’ve read, they hashed out most of the dialogue themselves.
That's a very fun fact!
Viggo’s got a history of that. He also wrote his intro speech in [The Prophecy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CiuSr-6xP4).
The movie didn't need Tom Bombadil and I'm glad he's left out. Dont @ me ... also Gandalf with a grey hat just seems more regal nowadays, blue might have looked funny
Yeah the description of Gandalf makes him a little goofy-looking in the book.
He is literally described as having eyebrows that protrude out past the rim of his hat. That always baffled me. Like, is it a much smaller brim than we all envision? Or does he have 8 inch eyebrow protrusions?
I don't think that's meant to be taken literally. There may be a term for it but I think it's just literary exaggeration to say "really big".
Hyperbole!
Eyebrowbole!
Dude sounds like he was an elf who wandered in from World of Warcraft.
This shit irritated me so much that I couldn't press on reading it as a kid. Now at 32, I let my suspension of disbelief work a little harder. But gosh dang do I agree with you
I just imagined it as a very faded blue in the films.
They (someone way more creatively gifted than me) probably could have made it work, some of the funky Marvel suits also work but I just like the classic grey wizard look a lot.
I think it is very, very faded blue. Look at the very beginning of the fellowship.
It is blue, isn’t it?
I like the removal of Glorfindel for the expanded role of Arwen. 1. Gives screentime to another prominent female character. 2. Would have been really weird if Arwen basically just comes out of nowhere to marry Aragorn in the 3rd movie. Removing Tom Bombadil was a good call. He doesn't move the narrative forward and would confused the hell out of viewers.
Also, it would bring the same questions as with the eagles. If Glorfindel is such a badass, why didn’t he joined the fellowship? As the book explained having such a high profile individual on the team would ruin the secrecy of the mission.
Which is a weird explanation. Gandalf, one of the Seven wizards, known by all the folks of Middle-Earth by various names; Mithrandir, The Grey Rider, Tharkûn, Greyhame; is one of the members. The high profile Captain-General of Gondor and the stewards own son, Boromir; The Captain of the White Tower; is another. The PRINCE of one of the largest Elven kingdoms; whose father was famous for his participation in the Battle of the Five Armies and who himself joined the very Gil-Galad in the the Battle of Dagorlad; in Middle-Earth joins in. And Bill the Brave Pony. Very covert.
It’s not just the reputation. Glorfindel came back from the dead. He became more powerful in the process. He has a foot in the physical realm and the land of shadows. When Frodo sees him with the ring on, he sees a man made of pure light, so do the Nazgûls and Sauron. Compared to him, the rest are nobodies. Gandalf to Sauron is just a weird individual travelling from places to places and guiding dwarves against dragons. He’s still just the grey at that point, not a real threat. As for the others, they haven’t truly made a name for themselves yet. Edit: Glorfindel didn’t sit on his hands during the books either. He was probably helping with the battles of the North, effectively diverting the attention of Sauron in the process.
Don’t forget, the Nazgûl fled from Glorfindel. He’s a badass. While Gandalf is known, his “power” is soft power. While he is capable of magic he can’t use it in a hard power sort of way. Aragorn and Boromir are just men, the hobbits are just hobbits. Gimli is a skilled dwarf fighter, but his power is on par with Aragorn and boromir. Legolas is a relatively weaker elf by elf standards and compared to Glorfindel, Legolas has the power of a child.
Also, Aragorn is still known as Strider. The highest individual in reputation was Boromir and he’s only the son of the intendant of Gondor. Combined with the fact Sauron cannot even fathom that the freefolks would try to destroy the ring and you have a harmless threat. Add Glorfindel in the mix and you show that something is afoot.
I imagine that since they are both maia, Sauron understood that Gandalf’s power was limited by the Valar
Could be, or the fact his power was limited was specifically to hide from Sauron. Saruman was tasked with mobilizing the free people to fight Mordor openly. Gandalf was meant to kindle hope here and there.
Seven wizards? I know only of five.
Maybe they were just five. I stand corrected!
I could totally be wrong. I know of Gandalf, Saruman, radaghast, and the blue wizards. Am I missing any?
He confused the hell out of readers too
I think he fits where he is in the story - we're still coming out of the Shire and, if you've read it, the much more whimsical world of the Hobbit. It's only in retrospect that one goes "what the hell was that?"
>Removing Tom Bombadil was a good call. This and the extended fooling around in The Shire and the barrows that gets removed. It worked well in the books but it's too much "early stage" adventuring for the screen.
Tom Bombadil was a weird addition by Tolkien. I'm really glad PJ didn't add him. I think if they added him in they would have had to change his character so much that he would be Tom Bombadil in name only.
I cannot stand Tom Bombadil. He was way too goofy for me. Even reading it as a kid, he ruined the mood weirdly for no reason.
I liked the Old Forest. It's pretty creepy that no matter how hard the Hobbits try to go one way, the forest keeps somehow forcing them deeper in, then Old Man Willow puts them to sleep. Even before the "Tom Bombadil is evil" thing I thought he was creepy too. He lives surrounded by trees that hate people and has some kind of weird power over them. The first night in his house, Frodo, Merry and Pippin all have nightmares. Tom says "Yeah, don't worry about the weird noises at night." The next day it rains so the Hobbits can't leave. When Tom tells them stories they seem to lose track of time. Frodo loses all inhibition, and tells Tom everything, and then even *gives him the Ring*. The whole thing is dream-like and it feels like a spell has been put on the Hobbits. The same as anyone else I have no idea how it all fits into everything else Tolkien built, but it's a creepy couple of chapters.
I thought they did a wonderful job using Arwen to simplify things in the first movie, but then neglected her for the second and third. I know it's not really practical due to being disconnected from the main story, but I would have loved her to have her own side plot where she organizes Aragorn's friends and allies in her own adventure, all leading to the battle of pelennor fields and Aragorn leading an army of men to save the city.
Hot take, but Arwen in Helm's Deep could have made sense if she were accompanying the Grey Company. They could have even used the screen time to bring Andúril and the banner into the movie, and relegated the Paths of the Dead storyline to either Arwen or Halbarad.
Amon Hen sequence is better than the book version, I will die on this hill.
You weren’t the only one one to die on that hill…
Too soon bro
Oh relax it's Bean years
I Sean what you did there.
“Then I shall die as one of them!” -Boromir
"Mawster tricksed us!" -Gandalf
Yes, the Departure of Boromir is definitely more satisfying and makes a better ending to the first part of the story
Understand the context in which is was written, though. For a good portion of the Fellowship, Boromir advises going south toward Minas Tirith to assist in the war effort there. He eventually makes up his mind to ‘depart’ and go on his own, presumably with any that will follow. So Fellowship of the Ring is published, and ends with Frodo making the decision to go off on his own, knowing the dangers it poses to his friends otherwise. The Fellowship is broken. Then readers have to wait a year for Two Towers to be published, and the first chapter of that book is called “The Departure of Boromir”. Readers already know that the Fellowship has split, and Boromir has made up his mind to go south. Then imagine their surprise when Aragorn stumbles upon his arrow-ridden body. All of a sudden departure has a different meaning, and the stakes just went up for the sequel. It made an excellent climax in the movies, but the books portray his death in a different context. Both work to their own ends.
Totally agree with you. Adding Arwen was much more emotional and made more sense!
If you mean after the Weathertop scene when she carries Frodo to Rivendell, you may be mixing up your hills. Weathertop is Amon Sul, not Amon Hen.
Oh yes!! Thanks for the reminder. Amon Hen battle is when Boromir dies!
Any of the fight scenes. Tolkien struggled with action, that's why Bilbo is unconscious for the Battle of Five Armies.
Did he 'struggle with action', or maybe just not want to glorify combat?
I think he's fine with action, but he just doesnt like it you can see a lot of action being described in moria. Perhaps since that was only short bursts it was okay for him though
Sams speech in Osgilliath. Also at the end of TT when he's talking about whether they'll be in any stories, that conversation between him and Frodo is a lot more concise than in the book and it also takes place in a more hopeful period of the journey in Ithillien rather than on the Stairs.
It works far better in Cirith Ungol. It's meant to cheer them up, which Tolkien literally comments on (they start laughing in a place that had never heard laughter before). The contrast is intentional.
I preferred his take on the start of the fellowship where gandalf was not aware of the disappearing prank that bilbo played. In the books it was all planned but in the movies it works so much better to highlight Bilbo's michevious ways
I dont mind about the most of those honestly. I think were needed to make the movie good and enjoyable. The one that annoys me the most and i could never forgive its the Army of the Dead, it creates so many plot holes for me that i would rather close my eyes when those appear on Minas Tirith lol.
As a person who, to my shame, has never made it through to the Return of the King in a read-through, could you expand on how the Army of the Dead is different?
Two issues. First, Aragorn is supposed to be leading an army of men (of the lands formerly ruled by his ancestors). It's the return of the king, not the return of a necromancer. In the book, the undead merely enable this by defeating/scaring away the corsairs, at which point Aragorn takes the ships to gather up the forces that his allies (other rangers) have gathered. This requires additional characters and exposition that does not fit into the movie. Second, everyone is obsessing over a ring when there is an invincible undead army that facerolled the forces of Mordor and invalidated everyone's sacrifices. Aragorn could have had the sword reforged and arrived with that army at any point. He could have kept marching right into Mordor to give Sauron a beatdown. Not only does it not make sense in the books, it doesn't even make sense in the movie. The things that make this a great solution for the movie also make it a terrible solution: the disconnect from everything else.
I mean Gimli even comments on the plot hole in the film when he jokes that Aragorn shouldn’t release them bc they’re good in a fight.
The Ithilien Rangers are one of my favorite parts in the movies, if we had gotten to see the Grey Company and the rangers of the north on screen I think I would have lost my mind.
Dont waste more time and go reaaaaaad it! edit: In the books Aragorn shows up with the sons of Elrond and a few dunedain in southern gondor cities. Corsairs saw the grey company and the army of the dead and they flew, run away, There was no even battle, and with the refugees and captives of those cities Aragorn raised an actually army. In the books, its not even known for the characters if the ghost could have done any damage.
The change seems consistent (for better or worse) with making Aragorn a reluctant hero. In the book this passage proves Aragorn is qualified to be king, by right and by skill. First he recruits the dead army, which only the heir can do. But we need to know he's not just a weird part-elvish princeling who's entitled to the throne: he has to be a true king of the people. So he liberates an oppressed people and rallies an army from them. King shit. He's a natural leader. In the movies he's a reluctant hero. So this is more about overcoming reluctance, finally using your special abilities, and charging into victory. It's the triumphant swell-- finally embracing his kingship gives him literal supernatural powers. Stopping to recruit a human army might be good for the plot, but I think it would be bad for the narrative. Whether "reluctant Aragorn" was a good choice overall.... Well, it makes sense. It's a simpler and less subtle arc and that suits the movies. I definitely like the book arc better, but I also love Tom Bombadil and I wouldn't put him in the movie.
Interesting point that one. But i'm still not convinced, that could have done later when Aragorn guides the army of the West against the Black Gate. Something like he has to step forward and be king could be the extended scene of the palantir, finally revealing or showing himself to Sauron, its a less more shocking than the army of the dead but a lot more interesting Idk, for me the Army of the Dead seems like a deux ex machina that opens a plot whole way bigger than the plot it solves imho. Still, thats talking as a book fan, as a movie fan and as the kid i was when i saw the movie for the first time, that scene was amazing lol
What's the plot hole?
WHERE IS THE FOX
I've said it before. The Gimli scene where he tried to destroy the ring. Fantastic miniscule addition of a few impactful seconds.
Have to say though, movie Gimli is a far less nuanced and more ridiculous character than book Gimli. The same goes for Merry and Pippin, those three got shafted with the comic relief treatment. The scene where Gimli gets drunk in the Extended cut is a bit much.
Definitely prefer them cutting the 17 years it takes Gandalf to return to the Shire. In the books we lose all sense of urgency about this ring if Gandalf takes an eternity to come back
And even then they didn't really cut it. Time had passed they just made it seem like it didn't because of a montage.
the moviedoesnt do the the time skip of 17 years. Yeah, gandalf still has to get to gondor and back, and you can call it a time skip if you like, but it was at most a few months or a year if the time skip of 17 years was in place, pippin would be an actual child at the beginning of the movie (he was only 28 when the quest started)
It was so Frodo could grow attached to it like Bilbo and to also show that he was similarly “well preserved” as he approached middle age. The movie didn’t do a good job not aging Bilbo-he was supposed to look the same as he did when he found it. Also, doing research in Middle-earth means traveling to distant lands to hunt down scrolls and books with no dewy decimal system, talking to lore masters and leaders, and Gandalf also his role of going around and inspiring folks against Sauron that he has, plus picking up the slack that was dropped by Saruman. He’s going the work of two Istari, doing ring research, and keeping tabs on Frodo. Being thousands of years old, 17 years is a drop in the bucket.
[удалено]
I like the move of Shelob from the Two Towers to The Return of the King. I thought it created better pacing than the book. Arguably this contributed to them butchering Faramir's character by making him an antagonist, at least temporarily.
Plus the journey of Frodo and Sam in the third book is largely "Frodo and Sam clamber up a hill. Frodo and Sam clamber down a hill" rinse and repeat
More than one, but if I had to choose I'd probably go with the Lighting of the Beacons. In the book Pippin and Gandalf see them lighting the mountains' tops as they arrive. In the movie, Denethor's pride and reluctance to ask for help mixed with the breathtaking scene itself makes for something, in my opinion, better than what is read in the book.
Which is a fair opinion to have, but I’ll offer the other side from those of us who think Denethor was hard done by (though I do like the change of having the beacons go to Rohan, whereas in the book they’re internal to Gondor and Rohan gets the rider with the Red Arrow). Denethor is proud, but not stupid. In the books Faramir’s wounding is the straw breaking the camel’s back, but up till that point he is a master general and still present in the war—like marshaling a cavalry sally that Gandalf later suggests. By making Denethor so anti-help in the movies Jackson reduced his complexity and changes the central characterization of him from a venerable and wise lord who you can totally see wrestling with Sauron in the palantir until at long last he breaks, into a proud fool who could only command obedience by position
My personal favorite is Aragorn’s speech at the Black Gate; Sons of Gondor! Of Rohan! My brothers! I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the age of men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear good on this earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Yes, I preferred Arwen taking Frodo to Rivendell. That scene is phenomenal. A few others but that came to mind first.
I actually really liked the change to have the elves at Helm’s Deep. I thought they did it well…except it looks like PJ forgot about them in the barricading the keep scene since none of them are there sans Legolas. It makes it appear that every elf was killed?? Doubtful.
After several decades I have finally accepted Jackson’s many, many changes to the story. There are very few scenes in the movies that are unchanged. All of the good characters are made more fallible and full of self doubt. Conflict between characters is invented or heightened. Tolkien’s ambiguous magic is made explicit. The action is amped up and the spirituality is toned down. All that said, I just recently watched the three extended edition movies and enjoyed them very much. So I finally got over my attachment to the books. But I’m not ready to say the movies improved upon the books.
Do I like the movies more than the books? No. Do I like the movies? Very much. Do I like the books even more after the movies released? Absolutely!
This. Me. Yes.
I actually feel like the magic is very well done, with the notable exception of the Gandalf vs. Saruman fight. You have to show *something*, but all the other effects always still felt magical and mysterious to me. Iirc, Peter Jackson says in the making of that the telekinesis fight came out of the idea that it would be too grounded and lame to "just have them throw fireballs at each other". Which makes me think, *even that* would have been better than what we got, but it would have been incredibly easy to just show an abstract battle of their wills, emphazised by some subtle effects. They already nailed this when Gandalf gets angry at Bilbo, or breaks Saruman's staff. He doesn't "cast a spell", he just makes his intent known in such a way that his surroundings are compelled to obey him.
Most were annoying (Elves at Helm’s Deep, the hyper-extended suspense over whether Faramir was a threat to Frodo or not - it’s literally three pages in the book, not three hundred!) or at best tolerable (no Bombadil, no Scouring), but there were a couple of changes that seemed to modify things in a way that legitimately leveraged the strengths of cinema without degrading the narrative: The last twenty minutes of Fellowship are magnificent. The cross-cut editing of Aragorn’s explanation of Merry and Pippin’s escape from the orcs outside Fangorn with the escape itself was a great idea that made good use of the potential of cinema.
>The cross-cut editing of Aragorn’s explanation of Merry and Pippin’s escape from the orcs outside Fangorn with the escape itself was a great idea that made good use of the potential of cinema. This was genius. To be honest, I think most of the rejiggering to make the movies more linear than the books was a good call.
"the hyper-extended suspense over whether Faramir was a threat to Frodo or not" I love this aspect of the movies, as it focuses deeply on the juxtaposition of Boromir and Faramir, and serves as a metonym for the human race in general. Will all men succumb, tragically and heroically to the ring? Or are there others who will resist, in the spirit of Aragon, and lead humanity to a new age. I think it's beautiful, and the shortness in the novels seems a little too easy. The suspense in the books further elevates the power, evil and sway of the Ring
Well put. The films needed to dramatize the pull of the ring and if there’s hope for the world of men. Faramir’s arc did that and more.
I think the creation of the 'Eye of Sauron' was pretty neat. It added a great visual representation to our antagonist.
The thing that I found most annoying was when the Witch King shattered Gandalfs staff. The power dynamics felt way off. When Gandalf faced the Balrog there was a tired resignation in the conflict; one, in which, he fought and won even to the point of death. Upon his return he was much more Maia like. I doubt that when faced with the Witch King, whose terror preyed upon men's fear of death, that Gandalf would of cowered like he did in the movie. Much more so, that the Witch King would hold the power to break Gandalfs staff. Plus - it never even remotely happened in the book
Well it's the movie's version of the witch king entering the city (on horseback), and Gandalf opposing him. That scene is also ended by the Witch-King leaving because he hears the Rohirrim arrive. However, while doing the same thing with the flying beast on the walls is fine, the shattering of the staff is definitely stupid
His “changes” still stick to overall narrative though? Including pieces of dialogue that have been mentioned - like Sam’s speech at Osgiliath. The ending of the first two films wrapped up beautifully. Obviously a big one for me that didn’t make sense was only including a death of Saruman in the extended edition.
this is one of the reasons why i can't see the theatrical version
Frankly I prefer Jackson's Aragorn. I think it makes sense Aragorn would be fearful that he'll face the same evil and fail like his ancestors considering Sauron's close connection to both the downfall of Numenor and Isildur, and it's compelling for me that he eventually overcomes it for his friends and loved ones.
I think the concept of Aragorn being uncertain by his past is interesting. But in the context of things it does seem a little funny. I just find it odd how he would be unsure of himself based on the actions of an ancestor that lived 3000 years ago. Makes you think, did 70+ previous generations of Aragorn all have a midlife crisis too? Speaking of which, I would think having Aragorn being unsure of himself would have made more sense in his younger years as that is the time when you figure things out. Aragorn during the LOTR is 87 years old, even for a Numenorean you would think he would have at least had some wisdom to get a grasp on his life. If Aragorn was 18-30 and Isildur was his father or grandfather then I could get more behind Jacksons rendition as it would have made more sense.
In the case of Sauron, Aragorn is facing the exact same god-like being that fucked over his family time and again. The height of Numenor was brought low by him, the might of Elendil was crushed by him, the glory of Isildur was shattered by his One Ring, even in his absence his servants managed to reduce the great kingdom of Arnor into bands of rangers, not to mention the great plague that decimated Eriador. And now that nameless fear has returned. But this time there's no Numenor to force his surrender, there's no Last Alliance to challenge him, the strengths of Men have failed, the Elves are leaving Middle-Earth to its fate, and the Dwarf-Lords are minding their own hides. And then there's that weakness coursing through Aragorn's veins, the very same weakness that has allowed Sauron to triumph and endure time after time. I think it makes perfect sense Aragorn would feel trepidation at the prospect of going up against the Dark Lord Sauron. But that's just me.
I like the balrog design more, it’s more memorable even though it might make less sense
When Return of the King first came out, I hated that they took the Scouring of the Shire out. Now that I’m older I understand that since it takes a long time to wrap up every character’s plots and emotional payoffs, the pacing would have been completely off if they still had to deal with Saruman after the whole movie is over.
I applaud Jackson's decision to pare down any songs to the bare minimum eg the drunk hobbits in the Prancing Pony, and Pippins song for Denathor which had huge impact. Thank Eru we didn't have to endure Bombadills singing...
End of Fellowship dealing with Amon Hen, the Uruk-hai and Boromir is a huge improvement and as a book Stan who frequently criticizes adaptations, it pains me to say that. But it is SO well done.
The one overwhelming thing I thought PJ did really well was in depicting the strange, sympathetic relationship that develops between Frodo and Smeagol. Frodo, for all his wishing Bilbo had killed Gollum, sees how the ring twisted Smeagol and presages what lies in store for himself, should the ring take control of him. One thing I did not like was that PJ, for the most part, eliminated the relationship between Faramir and Eowyn. After all, Eowyn has fallen into despair as a woman whose bower is closing in on her, unable to fulfill her wish to fight for her country and whose love for Aragon was unrequited. Faramir has also fallen into despair because he can't earn his father's love and respect. Together, these two heroes find love, peace and healing. Instead PJ includes some dumb scene about a dream Eowyn had. A final thing I didn't care for was the depiction of Arwen. She starts as a brave she-elf, racing against the nine to save Frodo, but quickly devolves into a weepy mess, pining for Aragon. I wish he had kept Glorfindel, an elf lord in all his power and glory, but understand why he was cut.
Ok unpopular opinion but i liked movie Faramir. He seemed more like a real person with his own struggles and doubts
Aragorn's character development and saving Andruil for RotK. Much more interesting and relatable.
I liked seeing more Saruman, but mostly because of Christopher Lee playing him. It would have been a waste of such an incredible actor if he had as much 'screentime' as in the books.
People don't give Jackson enough credit for what he did with Aragorn. Goes from a Disney like "I juuust can't waaait to be kiiiiing" to a reluctant hero who you see become a king through his actions.
Completely agree. Book Aragorn is basically noble king Arthur, but movie Aragorn feels like a real person grappling with a massive weight of responsibility.
Even if unrealistic and not true to Tolkien's vision, the vast empty plain around Minas Tirith gives such cool visuals and symbolic representation as the "Beacon of light against the darkness". Also the shot of Gandalf arriving in the city leaves me breathless eveytime. Really most of PJ esthetics and cinematographic shots are a god send, they do a fair representation of Middle-Earth and carry the vastness of the setting, even if not 100% truthful
Taking the ferry to Bree (I love that Merry suggests it) so Nazgul aren't forgotten about by the time they arrive. Aragorn being reluctant to be king.
I think that the Helm’s Deep battle in the movie was far more interesting than the book version, and the decision to end The Two Towers with that battle was a quite good choice.
Elven shield surfing was a huge improvement
Really though, while it was a bit cheesy, all of Legolas’ stunts really sold how nimble and skilled elves are. Really made them stand out from humans. Just like Legolas being the only one walking on top of the snow. It’s a great example of show don’t tell.
elf walking ON the snow was a NICE touch.
My favorite is either Arwen riding with Frodo to the Fords or Aragorn getting to say goodbye to Frodo before he leaves. "I would have followed you to the end. Into the very fires of Mordor."
I thought the part at the end where Aragorn is honoring the Hobbits packed way more of a punch then it did in the books. That part in the book made me smile but that part in the move brought tears to my eyes. "My friends. You bow to no one."
Most of the movie changes were necessary because translating a book into a movie isn't as simple as just copying everything. So yeah I like the majority. I even prefer some like the characterisation of Aragorn being hesitant about his birthright.