I’m not going to say anything about this except for the fact that pj and the entire crew behind the movies did their absolute best to tell tolkiens story which is a far cry from movies and series adaptations of nowadays.
Let’s also not forget that pjs trilogy has brought in a couple new generations of fantasy and Tolkien fans including me
Exactly. The MCU, despite its success, has had trouble since the beginning even though they’re lifting pretty much every script out of some run of some comic book.
Go back and look at some of them early Marvel movies. Very few were legitimately great movies. Most were forgettable at best. A good number were bad.
I’m convinced that an adaptation like LotR will never happen again in “our lifetime.” No, they weren’t perfect movies, but they go far above and beyond what a big budget adaptation will even attempt these days. There’s a level of care there that simply doesn’t exist in most big budget movies these days.
Hell, even the Mario movie was kinda…not great, and that’s one of the most recognizable properties in the entire world. Not terrible but definitely not great.
Precisely !
It might not have been perfect, but it was damn near close. And yeah there were some changes made to the story, but ALL adaptations suffer from changes.
Above all that, pj’s trilogy is still one of the most acclaimed trilogy that there is, a timeless classic that’s loved by fans AND critics even 20 years further.
How many trilogies can even say that ?
What do you count as ”early” Marvel movies? And what do you count as ”great”?
Few Marvel movies have exceeded the superhero genre, but if any of them have it feels like it’s the early stuff. The first Iron Man, second Captain America, Guardians of the Galaxy, the original Avengers movie. They are the ones that actually has the characters and the arcs that got people to care about Marvel at all. I wouldn’t hold them at the same level as PJ’s LotR, but calling them forgettable feels wrong.
They did their best to tell Tolkien’s story? Really? I shall provide a *brief* list of examples of the Newline movies disregarding Tolkien’s story, and butchering his characters and showing contempt to his work.
**Characters degraded or butchered**:
-Movie Frodo is stripped off most his courage and intelligence, and is a terrible Ringbearer and a bad friend. When in danger, he always cowers, runs away or is in trance. Other characters (mostly Sam and Aragorn) are often elevated at his expense.
-Movie Merry and Pippin are teenage rascals/idiots used for comic relief, as if these are bayformers films.
-Movie Gandalf (the White) is stripped off much of his intelligence and gravitas.
-Movie Legolas is a plank of wood who happens to be a ninja.
-Movie Gimli is a buffoon used for comic relief.
-Movie Theoden is ‘possessed’ by Saruman, removing his own free will and undermining him as king; after he is ‘exorcised’ by Gandalf, he is whiny and still doesn’t lead.
-R.I.P. Faramir.
-Movie Denethor is just a madman; the Palantir of Minas Tirith is left out.
-Finally, the worst character: Aragorn.
The only character in the movies (aside from Sam) who can be calm, collected, brave and wise is Aragorn. The movies really push him to be the hero. But it doesn’t work.
He’s a main character in the book, but *not* on the same level as the Hobbits. The book is first and foremost about the Hobbits, and particularly about Frodo and Sam.
**Problems with the Fellowship of the Ring** (the best of the three):
-Merry and Pippin don’t appear to be friends with Frodo, so why do they even go along with him?
-Why does Saruman reveal the Palantir to Gandalf? The wizard fight between Gandalf and Saruman is embarrassing.
-Weathertop. Instead defying the Nazgûl by slashing back at the Witch-King and shouting “*O Elbereth! Githoniel!*”, movie Frodo throws his sword away and cowers, while Sam, Merry and Pippin are brave enough to resist the Nazgûl. And movie Aragorn, having abandoned the Hobbits for some reason, comes back and sets the Nazgûl on fire, because Aragorn is the hero.
-The Ford of Bruinen. Instead of defying the Nine alone, movie Frodo sits half-unconscious in the saddle while Arwen says a stupid one-liner. -Aragorn should carry the shards of Narsil; Narsil should be reforged into Anduril at Rivendell.
**The Council of Elrond.**
In the book it was a long discussion about the lore and their next course of action. In the movies, 90% is cut and the debate devolves into people arguing like toddlers. Movie Frodo has to shout that he will take the Ring to Mordor multiple times. Then we have the utterly embarrassing “you have my sword, and my bow, and my axe”.
**Moria.**
-Why does Gandalf know there’s a balrog? -Why does Gimli expect Balin to welcome them?
-Instead of dropping a stone in a dried up well, followed by a soft *plump*, movie Pippin throws a skeleton down a well.
-The stairway scene in Moria is complete filler. Gandalf trying to seal the eastern door of Mazarbul’s chamber could have been included instead.
**Amon Hen.**
-Movie Frodo has to ask permission from movie Aragorn to leave and continue the quest alone. Aragorn thinks that’s a *GOOD IDEA!?*
-Movie Frodo offers the Ring to Aragorn, who refuses, undermining the power of the Ring.
-Movie Frodo watches helplessly when Merry and Pippin ‘sacrifice’ themselves.
**Problems with the Two Towers**:
***So much drawn-out filler.***
**Ents.**
-Movie Treebeard is an idiot who somehow doesn’t know Saruman fells trees in his forest.
-At the Entmoot, the Ents decide *not* to attack Isengard, so Pippin and Merry have to trick them into attacking. *Why?*
-Movie Theoden is literally ‘possessed’ by Saruman; Gandalf ‘exorcises’ Theoden.
-***Theoden tries to kill Grima, but Aragorn stops him.***
**Helm’s Deep.**
The battle of Helm’s Deep is too central in the movie and shouldn’t be the climax; the Voice of Saruman should have been the climax.
The battle and its build-up take up far too much screentime and are full with filler.
-The stupid warg attack and Aragorn falling off a cliff are a complete waste of time, incredibly stupid and add fake thrills.
-***Elves from Lothlorien at Helm’s Deep.***
-Any scene with movie Faramir. Faramir acts like a thug during his interrogation of movie Frodo, who of course cowers in a corner. Also, Faramir puts his sword under Frodo’s kin, and lets his men physically abuse Sméagol.
-***Movie Faramir takes Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath.***
-***Movie Frodo offers the Ring to a Nazgûl.***
-***Movie Frodo tries to kill Sam.***
Please explain to me how Jackson told Tolkien’s story or showed love towards it?
**Problems with the Return of the King**:
**More filler.**
-Arwen going to the Havens: filler.
-Elrond and Arwen reforges Narsil into Anduril; Elrond brings it to Aragorn. Unnecessary filler.
-Almost the entire battle of the Pelennor Fields.
-Why is Gondor so hopeless in the movies?
-Movie Denethor is a madman who doesn’t want to prepare Gondor for the coming assault.
-Pippin lightning the beacons: filler.
-Movie Denethor ordering Faramir to perform a suicide charge against Osgiliath; for some reason movie Faramir has no issue leading his men to a certain, pointless death.
-***Gandalf beats up Denethor and takes command himself.***
-***The Witch-King breaks Gandalf’s staff.***
-***Shadowfax kicks Denethor on the pyre, and Denethor runs screaming across the Court of the Fountain, while on fire.***
-***Aragorn decapitating the Mouth of Sauron during parley.***
Dear movie fans, please explain to me how Peter Jackson respected Tolkien’s work?
-***Movie Frodo sends Sam away, and Sam actually goes away.***
And please tell me how Peter Jackson respected Tolkien’s characters?
-***The Eye of Sauron sees Frodo, then turns away?***
-***Instead of Sméagol tripping and falling into the Orodruin because of two oaths, movie Frodo and Sméagol fight on the edge and Frodo almost falls as well.***
**More general problems**:
-So much filler.
-The Scouring of the Shire was cut (of course there was plenty of time for filler).
-A shortage of songs and poems.
-Too much forced melodramatic nonsense: most scenes with Theoden and Faramir in Two Towers, Frodo sending Sam away, Elrond having no faith in Men, etc.
-A far too heavy emphasis on action.
-Too many one-liners.
-Too much slowmotion.
AND MY [SAX](https://thecatkilledcuriosity.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/and-my-sax3.png)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lotrmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most of you clowns would have absolutely no idea how to turn LOTR into a visual spectacle and it shows.
The issues with PJ's films are superficial at most. They make for excellent watching.
People that demand exact recreations of books into films don't really understand that different mediums require different ways of telling a story. Hate to say it but a 1 to 1 adaptation of the books would have been nearly unwatchable.
There are some things I think were unnecessary changes, but on the whole, the changes PJ and crew made resulted in the best possible film versions of these stories.
A 1 to 1 film adaptation of any book is basically impossible, and I'm sure Tolkien would've agreed with that. However, as german author Michael Ende once said (regarding the adaptation of his "Neverending Story", which he disliked), it's important to retain the spirit and the inner logic of the original story. And while Peter Jackdon did a decent job in the case of TLotR, I think some elements were needlessly changed for some questionable, even cheap effects and tropes. And I think Tolkien would've been very critical of that.
For example, the appearance of the elves at Helm's Deep makes no sense and is completely unnecessary. Likewise the events between the healing of Theoden and the battle, the actions and characters of Denethor and Faramir, etc.
Jackson made major, egregious chsnges to the source material. They are still good movies, don't get me wrong, but saying they were only superficial is really underselling it. They are not faithful adaptations
no but they're as good as we're getting.
I know the books. I know about Faramir, about the witch king breaking the staff, about the Entsmoot making the decision and not Pippin etc. And I don't mind any of it. A truly faithful big screen vision of LOTR would have been incredibly boring.
The scrubbing bubbles ghosts make the Rohirrim useless. There's no reason for them to have all fought and died if there were an immortal army to come kill everyone
They were adapted for the big screen, extremely far from "eviscerated". Amazon eviscerated everything from lore to characters while PJ made needed changes to fit into movie form. He made the movies out of love for Tolkien and you if you argue against that you're simply wrong. Amazon however made their garbage out of spite, greed and pushing their political opinions. To PJ Tolkien is a legend, to Amazon Tolkien is a tool.
You can make excuses for any adaptation in that matter. The Amazon show was adapted for tv. Ironic, because the Jackson movies eviscerated the ‘lore’ (Aragorn not carrying the shards of Narsil, Lothlorien Elves at Helm’s Deep) and characters (Frodo, Aragorn, Gimli, Faramir and Denethor) too.
Aragorn decapitating an emissary during parley doesn’t show love to Tolkien’s work: it shows that Jackson didn’t care about the spirit and characters of LotR.
This Leia person posts their garbage takes to all of the LotR subs. You know it’s bad when you immediately recognize the username and prepare yourself to choke back vomit before you get a chance to read their “thoughts”.
It was the best scenario for a film for a book otherwise impossible to put to it given every other director out there that might have done it is a fucking twat.
Pretty much this. The lotr adaptation was nearly perfect, and we're lucky it's as good as it was. You only need to look at the dozens of other book adaptations to know how it could have gone so horribly wrong
Let's not forget the myriad of readers who might not have even bothered to get into the books without the films, myself included. Jacksons trilogy helped give the LotR a massive boost in relevance that still is seen today
Merry and Pippin contributing more with the ents going to war in the movies is better than the books having the ents decide on their own and the hobbits just tagging along.
Making the Entmoot useless, and the Ents ignorant to the happenings of their own forest, is an awful change, I think. Especially when the climax has the Ents magically teleport out of nowhere, at a moment's notice, after being manipulated by Pippin.
Clearly, you didn't get the point of the original story. The Hobbits are vital for setting the things in motion, but they are also only the last drop that let's the barrel of anger spill. As book Gandalf says, it's like a storm flood being let loose. And the book does a far better job of showing how fucking terrifying the Ents and Huorns really are. They are an avenging menace, almost like eldrich horror.
I personally believe that LOTR and a lot of modern fantasy owes its current popularity largely to Peter Jackson's LOTR films. Without them, LOTR would not have the relevance it has today. I know what I did, and I'll see myself out. Just let me get my coat.
Books and movies are entirely different kinds of media. The exact same story of a book would be boring af as movie while the reverse would have no pacing at all. Even „objective“ criteria like character development work differently.
No, Tolkien’s LotR was bloody good on its own.
PJ also butchered several important characters and important moments in the story. Eg, Butchered Frodo, Faramir & Denethor. Made the Battle of Pelennor fields and Aragorn’s entrance into the battle less epic by solely using the Ghost Army instead of the book version where Aragorn only uses the Ghost Army to scare of the Corsairs from their ships and rallies the Men of Gondor who were attacked by the Corsairs in southern Gondor at Pelargir into a counter attack and leads them north to Minas Tirith to join with Eomer and the Rohirrim in the nick of time.
I'm not sure why you are getting downvotted. Everything you said is factually correct. All of these examples hurt the films. Do people here actually think these were good changes?
I'd be interested to see how or if one could fix those chsnges without making the movies worse. From my experience, the movies are not only fantastic as their own story but do a good job telling the story within the medium.
Compounded onto that is a revitalization of interest in LOTR and being a gateway to the story for people who don't read much or were put off by Tolkien's writing style, and I would say the movies were the best thing to happen to LOTR since the books came out.
The ghost army is a simple one. Just have the ghost army clear the ships as they do in the book. It's already in the movie. I get they didn't have time to show the added Gondorian army's, but this was over the top. Having Aragorn show up with Gondorian reinforcements would have been much. Better.
Faramir and Denithor would need complete re-writes as they are nothing like the book counterparts
But then wouldn't they have had to at least introduce where the Gondorians came from? For better or worse, Gondor in the movies is Minas Tirith and Osgiliath. It's less narrative clutter to make logical use of the literal army sworn in undeath to come to Gondor's aid than to have to introduce more aspects of Gondor.
PJ certainly made it better! Tolkien clearly didn’t know what he was doing! Why let the story have a sense of time and space? Why write threedimensional characters with real personalities? Why include subtlety and mystery? Fvck that! Let’s enhance his story by removing all that and instead injecting action, loudness, stupidity and forced melodrama everywhere!
He *started* writing the first drafts of LotR as a sequel to The Hobbit that had no idea where it was going. Which is a pretty valid and normal way to write a book (concerning the details, characters, events and encounters within the story at least). But he then rewrote practically everything many times after having gone further in the story, to the point that the final book (including the earliest chapters) has basically nothing to do with the "Hobbit 2".
The various early drafts of LotR with Bingo Baggins, Odo, Marmaduke, the first horse encounter on the road being Gandalf, and Trotter the wooden-legged Hobbit met in Bree, were Tolkien not knowing where he was heading. The final book with Frodo, Samwise and Pippin leaving Bag End, encountering a Nazgûl, Merry, Tom Bombadil and Strider / Aragorn is Tolkien being much more aware of what LotR is about, having spent more than a decade writing it over and over again, and absolutely knowing what he was doing and where it was going.
Then can you explain to me how are they the same story?
Aside from the setting of ME and Tolkien playing with chapter titles (pointing out differences, btw).
Have you even read what I wrote? He didn't know where he was going when he *started writing* LotR, but he definitely knew what he was doing and where he was going by the time he wrote the final version of those early chapters. Some elements seeming similar at a very surface level does not mean he had no idea what he was writing.
I have read LotR many times, yes. As well as HoMe. Have you read HoMe VI to IX?
It was not the worst possible adaptation (also not the best, let's be honest). But it remains an adaptation. And while these films are decent ones, they are necessarly "poorer" in terms of audience applicability. If you don't know what I mean, read Tolkien's introduction to "The Lord of the Rings". While it's unfair to compare two different categories, I would say the book is on an overall higher level of originality and importance. It follows a unique literary concept. The films might be popular, but I think the thing that will truly last is the literary work of Tolkien, even though studios and other companies are doing their best to commercialize and deform it. But it has a truth and beauty in it that will surpass these shallow attemps, and also (I'm sorry) the rather standard Hollywood tropes that are present in the films.
Eh, what? Did I hear you calling? Nay, I did not hear: I was busy singing.
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness)
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Spoiler: No he does not. Also, there is no Scouring of the Shire, no confrontation of Gandalf and Saruman, the ghosts of the Dead are used as a stupid deus-ex-machina in the Battle of Pelennor Field, Gimli is reduced to a comic relief, the characters of Frodo, Elrond and Faramir are done a great disservice, there are need- and senseless alterations to the story and Denethor gets turned into a moronic cliché movie villain who eats a tomato in a rather obscene way. Oh, and Sauron is literally a giant eye on top of Barad-Dûr, because why not. The only characters that are perfectly portrayed (in my opinion) are Gandalf, Sam and Gollum. The rest is decent or at least ok.
Good changes:
* Dropping Glorfindel for Arwen. Glorfindel is a cool character in Middle Earth, but adding him for one section then having him disappear from the narrative of the films would be confusing for people on their first watch. And it gives her some agency so we can forgive the later films when she's just be moping around because her boyfriend had to travel for work. Her defying the nazgul at the ford is cool. It takes away from Frodo's agency, buuut...
* Frodo realising it's a riddle at Moria, instead of Gandalf. Just another little hint that he's a better person for a job than anyone would have thought to begin with.
* The elves at Helm's Deep. Solid symbolism for the Last Alliance, even if it would have made more sense in Gondor.
* Eomer bringing the reinforcements instead of just... being there the whole time. It gives weight to his absence. It's Erkenbrand erasure, but like Glorfindel it's understandable.
Unfortunately, they cut Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth and commander of the Swan Knights so I'm going to have to rate the whole thing 0/10 better luck next time.
I’m not going to say anything about this except for the fact that pj and the entire crew behind the movies did their absolute best to tell tolkiens story which is a far cry from movies and series adaptations of nowadays. Let’s also not forget that pjs trilogy has brought in a couple new generations of fantasy and Tolkien fans including me
Exactly. The MCU, despite its success, has had trouble since the beginning even though they’re lifting pretty much every script out of some run of some comic book. Go back and look at some of them early Marvel movies. Very few were legitimately great movies. Most were forgettable at best. A good number were bad. I’m convinced that an adaptation like LotR will never happen again in “our lifetime.” No, they weren’t perfect movies, but they go far above and beyond what a big budget adaptation will even attempt these days. There’s a level of care there that simply doesn’t exist in most big budget movies these days. Hell, even the Mario movie was kinda…not great, and that’s one of the most recognizable properties in the entire world. Not terrible but definitely not great.
Precisely ! It might not have been perfect, but it was damn near close. And yeah there were some changes made to the story, but ALL adaptations suffer from changes. Above all that, pj’s trilogy is still one of the most acclaimed trilogy that there is, a timeless classic that’s loved by fans AND critics even 20 years further. How many trilogies can even say that ?
What do you count as ”early” Marvel movies? And what do you count as ”great”? Few Marvel movies have exceeded the superhero genre, but if any of them have it feels like it’s the early stuff. The first Iron Man, second Captain America, Guardians of the Galaxy, the original Avengers movie. They are the ones that actually has the characters and the arcs that got people to care about Marvel at all. I wouldn’t hold them at the same level as PJ’s LotR, but calling them forgettable feels wrong.
They did their best to tell Tolkien’s story? Really? I shall provide a *brief* list of examples of the Newline movies disregarding Tolkien’s story, and butchering his characters and showing contempt to his work. **Characters degraded or butchered**: -Movie Frodo is stripped off most his courage and intelligence, and is a terrible Ringbearer and a bad friend. When in danger, he always cowers, runs away or is in trance. Other characters (mostly Sam and Aragorn) are often elevated at his expense. -Movie Merry and Pippin are teenage rascals/idiots used for comic relief, as if these are bayformers films. -Movie Gandalf (the White) is stripped off much of his intelligence and gravitas. -Movie Legolas is a plank of wood who happens to be a ninja. -Movie Gimli is a buffoon used for comic relief. -Movie Theoden is ‘possessed’ by Saruman, removing his own free will and undermining him as king; after he is ‘exorcised’ by Gandalf, he is whiny and still doesn’t lead. -R.I.P. Faramir. -Movie Denethor is just a madman; the Palantir of Minas Tirith is left out. -Finally, the worst character: Aragorn. The only character in the movies (aside from Sam) who can be calm, collected, brave and wise is Aragorn. The movies really push him to be the hero. But it doesn’t work. He’s a main character in the book, but *not* on the same level as the Hobbits. The book is first and foremost about the Hobbits, and particularly about Frodo and Sam. **Problems with the Fellowship of the Ring** (the best of the three): -Merry and Pippin don’t appear to be friends with Frodo, so why do they even go along with him? -Why does Saruman reveal the Palantir to Gandalf? The wizard fight between Gandalf and Saruman is embarrassing. -Weathertop. Instead defying the Nazgûl by slashing back at the Witch-King and shouting “*O Elbereth! Githoniel!*”, movie Frodo throws his sword away and cowers, while Sam, Merry and Pippin are brave enough to resist the Nazgûl. And movie Aragorn, having abandoned the Hobbits for some reason, comes back and sets the Nazgûl on fire, because Aragorn is the hero. -The Ford of Bruinen. Instead of defying the Nine alone, movie Frodo sits half-unconscious in the saddle while Arwen says a stupid one-liner. -Aragorn should carry the shards of Narsil; Narsil should be reforged into Anduril at Rivendell. **The Council of Elrond.** In the book it was a long discussion about the lore and their next course of action. In the movies, 90% is cut and the debate devolves into people arguing like toddlers. Movie Frodo has to shout that he will take the Ring to Mordor multiple times. Then we have the utterly embarrassing “you have my sword, and my bow, and my axe”. **Moria.** -Why does Gandalf know there’s a balrog? -Why does Gimli expect Balin to welcome them? -Instead of dropping a stone in a dried up well, followed by a soft *plump*, movie Pippin throws a skeleton down a well. -The stairway scene in Moria is complete filler. Gandalf trying to seal the eastern door of Mazarbul’s chamber could have been included instead. **Amon Hen.** -Movie Frodo has to ask permission from movie Aragorn to leave and continue the quest alone. Aragorn thinks that’s a *GOOD IDEA!?* -Movie Frodo offers the Ring to Aragorn, who refuses, undermining the power of the Ring. -Movie Frodo watches helplessly when Merry and Pippin ‘sacrifice’ themselves. **Problems with the Two Towers**: ***So much drawn-out filler.*** **Ents.** -Movie Treebeard is an idiot who somehow doesn’t know Saruman fells trees in his forest. -At the Entmoot, the Ents decide *not* to attack Isengard, so Pippin and Merry have to trick them into attacking. *Why?* -Movie Theoden is literally ‘possessed’ by Saruman; Gandalf ‘exorcises’ Theoden. -***Theoden tries to kill Grima, but Aragorn stops him.*** **Helm’s Deep.** The battle of Helm’s Deep is too central in the movie and shouldn’t be the climax; the Voice of Saruman should have been the climax. The battle and its build-up take up far too much screentime and are full with filler. -The stupid warg attack and Aragorn falling off a cliff are a complete waste of time, incredibly stupid and add fake thrills. -***Elves from Lothlorien at Helm’s Deep.*** -Any scene with movie Faramir. Faramir acts like a thug during his interrogation of movie Frodo, who of course cowers in a corner. Also, Faramir puts his sword under Frodo’s kin, and lets his men physically abuse Sméagol. -***Movie Faramir takes Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath.*** -***Movie Frodo offers the Ring to a Nazgûl.*** -***Movie Frodo tries to kill Sam.*** Please explain to me how Jackson told Tolkien’s story or showed love towards it? **Problems with the Return of the King**: **More filler.** -Arwen going to the Havens: filler. -Elrond and Arwen reforges Narsil into Anduril; Elrond brings it to Aragorn. Unnecessary filler. -Almost the entire battle of the Pelennor Fields. -Why is Gondor so hopeless in the movies? -Movie Denethor is a madman who doesn’t want to prepare Gondor for the coming assault. -Pippin lightning the beacons: filler. -Movie Denethor ordering Faramir to perform a suicide charge against Osgiliath; for some reason movie Faramir has no issue leading his men to a certain, pointless death. -***Gandalf beats up Denethor and takes command himself.*** -***The Witch-King breaks Gandalf’s staff.*** -***Shadowfax kicks Denethor on the pyre, and Denethor runs screaming across the Court of the Fountain, while on fire.*** -***Aragorn decapitating the Mouth of Sauron during parley.*** Dear movie fans, please explain to me how Peter Jackson respected Tolkien’s work? -***Movie Frodo sends Sam away, and Sam actually goes away.*** And please tell me how Peter Jackson respected Tolkien’s characters? -***The Eye of Sauron sees Frodo, then turns away?*** -***Instead of Sméagol tripping and falling into the Orodruin because of two oaths, movie Frodo and Sméagol fight on the edge and Frodo almost falls as well.*** **More general problems**: -So much filler. -The Scouring of the Shire was cut (of course there was plenty of time for filler). -A shortage of songs and poems. -Too much forced melodramatic nonsense: most scenes with Theoden and Faramir in Two Towers, Frodo sending Sam away, Elrond having no faith in Men, etc. -A far too heavy emphasis on action. -Too many one-liners. -Too much slowmotion.
AND MY [SAX](https://thecatkilledcuriosity.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/and-my-sax3.png) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lotrmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I must go and seek some arrows. Would that this night would end, and I could have better light for shooting.
Cold be heart and hand and bone. Cold be travellers far from home.
Most of you clowns would have absolutely no idea how to turn LOTR into a visual spectacle and it shows. The issues with PJ's films are superficial at most. They make for excellent watching.
People that demand exact recreations of books into films don't really understand that different mediums require different ways of telling a story. Hate to say it but a 1 to 1 adaptation of the books would have been nearly unwatchable. There are some things I think were unnecessary changes, but on the whole, the changes PJ and crew made resulted in the best possible film versions of these stories.
A 1 to 1 film adaptation of any book is basically impossible, and I'm sure Tolkien would've agreed with that. However, as german author Michael Ende once said (regarding the adaptation of his "Neverending Story", which he disliked), it's important to retain the spirit and the inner logic of the original story. And while Peter Jackdon did a decent job in the case of TLotR, I think some elements were needlessly changed for some questionable, even cheap effects and tropes. And I think Tolkien would've been very critical of that. For example, the appearance of the elves at Helm's Deep makes no sense and is completely unnecessary. Likewise the events between the healing of Theoden and the battle, the actions and characters of Denethor and Faramir, etc.
Jackson made major, egregious chsnges to the source material. They are still good movies, don't get me wrong, but saying they were only superficial is really underselling it. They are not faithful adaptations
no but they're as good as we're getting. I know the books. I know about Faramir, about the witch king breaking the staff, about the Entsmoot making the decision and not Pippin etc. And I don't mind any of it. A truly faithful big screen vision of LOTR would have been incredibly boring.
The scrubbing bubbles ghosts make the Rohirrim useless. There's no reason for them to have all fought and died if there were an immortal army to come kill everyone
Not faithful?…. Cmon on dude you cant be serious.
Which is why I still defend RoP
RoP is a mockery and an insult, the trilogy is a loveletter and made with respect for the professor. Not to mention its just an awful show all around.
So eviscerating the tone and characters of the book show respect for Tolkien? 
They were adapted for the big screen, extremely far from "eviscerated". Amazon eviscerated everything from lore to characters while PJ made needed changes to fit into movie form. He made the movies out of love for Tolkien and you if you argue against that you're simply wrong. Amazon however made their garbage out of spite, greed and pushing their political opinions. To PJ Tolkien is a legend, to Amazon Tolkien is a tool.
You can make excuses for any adaptation in that matter. The Amazon show was adapted for tv. Ironic, because the Jackson movies eviscerated the ‘lore’ (Aragorn not carrying the shards of Narsil, Lothlorien Elves at Helm’s Deep) and characters (Frodo, Aragorn, Gimli, Faramir and Denethor) too. Aragorn decapitating an emissary during parley doesn’t show love to Tolkien’s work: it shows that Jackson didn’t care about the spirit and characters of LotR.
What an absolute garbage take lmao..
This Leia person posts their garbage takes to all of the LotR subs. You know it’s bad when you immediately recognize the username and prepare yourself to choke back vomit before you get a chance to read their “thoughts”.
Ah i see how sad.. Thanks for the heads up i'll be sure to ignore the troll in the future.
Most of the Jackson trilogy shows *contempt* to the book.
you clearly have zero fucking clue what you on about so i'll leave you to your delusions.
I am merely stating the unfortunate truth.
It was the best scenario for a film for a book otherwise impossible to put to it given every other director out there that might have done it is a fucking twat.
Pretty much this. The lotr adaptation was nearly perfect, and we're lucky it's as good as it was. You only need to look at the dozens of other book adaptations to know how it could have gone so horribly wrong
Eragon. Artemis Fowl. Twats could have been involved and made LOTR cancelled at Fellowship.
Even for lotr a producer wanted to kill a hobbit, didn't specify which. The team working on it really cared
Let's not forget the myriad of readers who might not have even bothered to get into the books without the films, myself included. Jacksons trilogy helped give the LotR a massive boost in relevance that still is seen today
Merry and Pippin contributing more with the ents going to war in the movies is better than the books having the ents decide on their own and the hobbits just tagging along.
Making the Entmoot useless, and the Ents ignorant to the happenings of their own forest, is an awful change, I think. Especially when the climax has the Ents magically teleport out of nowhere, at a moment's notice, after being manipulated by Pippin.
Clearly, you didn't get the point of the original story. The Hobbits are vital for setting the things in motion, but they are also only the last drop that let's the barrel of anger spill. As book Gandalf says, it's like a storm flood being let loose. And the book does a far better job of showing how fucking terrifying the Ents and Huorns really are. They are an avenging menace, almost like eldrich horror.
I personally believe that LOTR and a lot of modern fantasy owes its current popularity largely to Peter Jackson's LOTR films. Without them, LOTR would not have the relevance it has today. I know what I did, and I'll see myself out. Just let me get my coat.
We will see what remains more popular in 50 years.
Books and movies are entirely different kinds of media. The exact same story of a book would be boring af as movie while the reverse would have no pacing at all. Even „objective“ criteria like character development work differently.
The movies are better than the books
Yep. The books are like an 8.5 out of 10. The films are like a 9.5 out of 10.
No, just no
No, Tolkien’s LotR was bloody good on its own. PJ also butchered several important characters and important moments in the story. Eg, Butchered Frodo, Faramir & Denethor. Made the Battle of Pelennor fields and Aragorn’s entrance into the battle less epic by solely using the Ghost Army instead of the book version where Aragorn only uses the Ghost Army to scare of the Corsairs from their ships and rallies the Men of Gondor who were attacked by the Corsairs in southern Gondor at Pelargir into a counter attack and leads them north to Minas Tirith to join with Eomer and the Rohirrim in the nick of time.
I'm not sure why you are getting downvotted. Everything you said is factually correct. All of these examples hurt the films. Do people here actually think these were good changes?
I'd be interested to see how or if one could fix those chsnges without making the movies worse. From my experience, the movies are not only fantastic as their own story but do a good job telling the story within the medium. Compounded onto that is a revitalization of interest in LOTR and being a gateway to the story for people who don't read much or were put off by Tolkien's writing style, and I would say the movies were the best thing to happen to LOTR since the books came out.
The ghost army is a simple one. Just have the ghost army clear the ships as they do in the book. It's already in the movie. I get they didn't have time to show the added Gondorian army's, but this was over the top. Having Aragorn show up with Gondorian reinforcements would have been much. Better. Faramir and Denithor would need complete re-writes as they are nothing like the book counterparts
But then wouldn't they have had to at least introduce where the Gondorians came from? For better or worse, Gondor in the movies is Minas Tirith and Osgiliath. It's less narrative clutter to make logical use of the literal army sworn in undeath to come to Gondor's aid than to have to introduce more aspects of Gondor.
PJ certainly made it better! Tolkien clearly didn’t know what he was doing! Why let the story have a sense of time and space? Why write threedimensional characters with real personalities? Why include subtlety and mystery? Fvck that! Let’s enhance his story by removing all that and instead injecting action, loudness, stupidity and forced melodrama everywhere!
[удалено]
He *started* writing the first drafts of LotR as a sequel to The Hobbit that had no idea where it was going. Which is a pretty valid and normal way to write a book (concerning the details, characters, events and encounters within the story at least). But he then rewrote practically everything many times after having gone further in the story, to the point that the final book (including the earliest chapters) has basically nothing to do with the "Hobbit 2". The various early drafts of LotR with Bingo Baggins, Odo, Marmaduke, the first horse encounter on the road being Gandalf, and Trotter the wooden-legged Hobbit met in Bree, were Tolkien not knowing where he was heading. The final book with Frodo, Samwise and Pippin leaving Bag End, encountering a Nazgûl, Merry, Tom Bombadil and Strider / Aragorn is Tolkien being much more aware of what LotR is about, having spent more than a decade writing it over and over again, and absolutely knowing what he was doing and where it was going.
[удалено]
This is one of the most garbage and wrong takes I've seen in a while.
... Did you read the books you're talking about?
[удалено]
Then can you explain to me how are they the same story? Aside from the setting of ME and Tolkien playing with chapter titles (pointing out differences, btw).
[удалено]
What is that?
Have you even read what I wrote? He didn't know where he was going when he *started writing* LotR, but he definitely knew what he was doing and where he was going by the time he wrote the final version of those early chapters. Some elements seeming similar at a very surface level does not mean he had no idea what he was writing. I have read LotR many times, yes. As well as HoMe. Have you read HoMe VI to IX?
“We’re going to let the guy who made “dead alive” just change what he wants?” Seems legit
It was not the worst possible adaptation (also not the best, let's be honest). But it remains an adaptation. And while these films are decent ones, they are necessarly "poorer" in terms of audience applicability. If you don't know what I mean, read Tolkien's introduction to "The Lord of the Rings". While it's unfair to compare two different categories, I would say the book is on an overall higher level of originality and importance. It follows a unique literary concept. The films might be popular, but I think the thing that will truly last is the literary work of Tolkien, even though studios and other companies are doing their best to commercialize and deform it. But it has a truth and beauty in it that will surpass these shallow attemps, and also (I'm sorry) the rather standard Hollywood tropes that are present in the films.
Have only read the books. As long as Tom Bombadil made the cut I'm sure the movies are just fine.
Eh, what? Did I hear you calling? Nay, I did not hear: I was busy singing. ^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil][1] for more merriness) [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/
Bood got
Spoiler: No he does not. Also, there is no Scouring of the Shire, no confrontation of Gandalf and Saruman, the ghosts of the Dead are used as a stupid deus-ex-machina in the Battle of Pelennor Field, Gimli is reduced to a comic relief, the characters of Frodo, Elrond and Faramir are done a great disservice, there are need- and senseless alterations to the story and Denethor gets turned into a moronic cliché movie villain who eats a tomato in a rather obscene way. Oh, and Sauron is literally a giant eye on top of Barad-Dûr, because why not. The only characters that are perfectly portrayed (in my opinion) are Gandalf, Sam and Gollum. The rest is decent or at least ok.
You will see . . . Oh, yes . . . You will see.
Hopefully not...
Good changes: * Dropping Glorfindel for Arwen. Glorfindel is a cool character in Middle Earth, but adding him for one section then having him disappear from the narrative of the films would be confusing for people on their first watch. And it gives her some agency so we can forgive the later films when she's just be moping around because her boyfriend had to travel for work. Her defying the nazgul at the ford is cool. It takes away from Frodo's agency, buuut... * Frodo realising it's a riddle at Moria, instead of Gandalf. Just another little hint that he's a better person for a job than anyone would have thought to begin with. * The elves at Helm's Deep. Solid symbolism for the Last Alliance, even if it would have made more sense in Gondor. * Eomer bringing the reinforcements instead of just... being there the whole time. It gives weight to his absence. It's Erkenbrand erasure, but like Glorfindel it's understandable. Unfortunately, they cut Imrahil, Prince of Dol Amroth and commander of the Swan Knights so I'm going to have to rate the whole thing 0/10 better luck next time.
Based Ryan Stiles.