Lord of the Rings

[Skyblade]

That's right, everybody, the Blu-Ray version is out, so we all get to run to stores and spend more money on the best fantasy movies of all time.

Having recently watched the Extended Editions again, however, I wanted to bring up one of my few disappointments with the movies, specifically, with Return of the King, and the battle of Pelennor Fields.

If there was a section of these movies I feel wasn't done justice, it was this battle. While I understand the need of truly utilizing the army of the dead (in the books, they were used merely to rout the Corsairs of Umbrar, and even that we never actually get to see, and it was implied that it was mainly the fear they inspired which let Aragorn claim the black ships), I feel that their use in the great battle is rather anticlimactic. The huge army, stronger than any force fielded in Middle Earth before, is wiped out, basically, by magic.

This is a stark contrast to the books, which instead heavily utilized allies of Gondor which do not even get mentions in the movies, even in the extended editions. By eliminating the fleets of the Corsair ships, Aragorn was able to take the military pressure off of the coastal cities of Gondor and Aragorn's people, the Rangers of the North. These were the forces brought by Aragorn in the black ships to Gondor during the battle of Pelennor. The other set of allies who do not appear are the forces of Dol Amroth, the Knights of the Silver Swan. A princedom of Gondor, Dol Amroth's knights were heavily used in the assaults out of Gondor, pushing the enemy back before they could lay siege to the higher levels of the city, as they did in the movies. And finally, due to the timing of the arrival of the army of the dead, Eomer's charge is cut entirely. In the books, when he found his sister collapsed, believing her to be dead, he leads an utterly insane berserker charge of the Rohirrim into the forces of Mordor, and is only saved from utter distruction by the arrival of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli.

I just think that the movie's version is a lot less fulfilling. The tactics and coordination of the forces is cut completely, and the battle is won more through magic than sacrifice and courage.

[Loony BoB]

The books will always be immensely better than the movies. I don't think there was any way they could have realistically done the books true movement of events without extending the movies to about six three-hour features.

[Del Murder]

That's true BoB, but they did devote a lot of time to the stupid undead army when they really didn't need to.

[Loony BoB]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with the sentiment of the thread. I've read the books about ten times, I've seen the last movie maybe three times. And when you take consideration to the amount of time spent reading vs. watching, it's pretty clear which I would rather spend my time on. To be fair, the movies were good stories, but mostly because they were LotR, not because of the amazing scripting or how they went about things. It's actually pretty hard to create a bad LotR movie if you're showing it to a bunch of people who haven't read the books. To please the fans of the books, though, is something else. I don't care so much about the undead as I care that they completely ignored the scouring of the shire.

[Miriel]

I'm right there with you. I felt that Return of the King was absolutely the weakest link in the trilogy. My biggest points of contention was the opening sequence which Peter Jackson admitted didn't belong in that movie, but he liked it so much he stuck it in anyway. The Pelennor Fields battle. And the depiction of Denethor.

The scenes with the battle didn't just fail on an adaptation level, it was just bad filmmaking. There was no weight or power behind the battles. As a viewer, I was completely underwhelmed and totally lacking in investment. And it's always a bad sign when people start giggling during the middle of it because the green soapy army of the dead was just so laughable. Awful execution, awful CGI right there. The worst failure was probably how they handled the character of Denethor. At first I blamed the actor for the horribly cheesy over-the-top portrayal of a mad king. But I've been watching Fringe and the actor, John Noble is phenomenal! He can play vulnerable with such poignancy and subtlety and when he needs to be powerful and intimidating, he can do it with force and gravity. So now I place all the blame on the direction and the screenwriting. The film Denethor was in your face CURRRAAAAZZY without any meaning or depth behind it. Having him catch on fire and run run run all the way to the cliff is another example of the cheesiness that Peter Jackson can't resist at times. He was robbed of all the things that made Denethor an interesting character. The intelligence, the pride, his loss of hope, and his despair. If given the chances, I think John Noble could have put out a much more subtle and powerful performance because he does it all the time on Fringe.

It's always been interesting to me that when Peter Jackson nails it, he gets it so right. Like, there are tons of examples in the movies that are perfection and can't be improved upon if you tried. But then when he gets it wrong, he gets it SO wrong.

[Psychotic]

One of my favourite scenes in RotK is when the beacons are lit, and Aragorn comes sprinting in, yelling "Gondor calls for aid!" ... "And Rohan will answer!" and you see them all preparing to head off for war as Eomer rouses them up, while it clearly weighs heavy on Theoden's mind as he knows what lies ahead. And good god, the ride of the Rohirrim itself, that never fails to stir my heart and set it pounding. How utterly fantastic it was.

...then the deus ex machina ghosts show up, and the sacrifice of the Rohirrim, their charge headlong into the world's ending was worth precisely nothing and made no difference whatsoever. :|

[Dreddz]

You can fix this problem by simply not reading. That's what I do :)

[Cuchulainn]

That's true BoB, but they did devote a lot of time to the stupid undead army when they really didn't need to.

I think the amount of time they decided to devote to Arwen in the movie was far more annoying.She was barely more than a sentence but the movie decided that editing out the greatest elf in Middle Earth (Glorfindel) to include her was best. I was also less than impressed with the lack of Imrahil & the Swan Knights not to mention poor Fatty Bulger getting nothing. I understand Bombadil's exclusion however much I loved him.

Sacrifices need to be made from page to screen, i get that & was able to get over most of the changes to enjoy the movies for what they were...

OMG WHO'S THAT ON THE HILL TO SAVE THE DAY!! ERKENBRAND!!! Wait what? What are YOU doing there? WHERE THE smurf IS ERKENBRAND JACKSON YOU :bou::bou::bou::bou:! etc etc

EDIT: I agree with Mirial about Denethor. The Character was sooo much more complex than just the mad Steward he was portrayed. He was arguably the most intelligent man in the books. He seen right through Gandald's intentions & motives and knew everything before it happened. His will was so strong he was the ONLY man not to be corrupted to evil by the palantir, but instead made paranoid, suspicious & dreadful. In the movie he's was just a mad bastard...

[charliepanayi]

To be honest I think despite the flaws (the closing stretch of ROTK for instance), the extended cuts of the LOTR trilogy are as good an adaptation as could have been hoped for really.

[Miriel]

To be honest I think despite the flaws (the closing stretch of ROTK for instance), the extended cut of the LOTR trilogy are as good an adaptation as could have been hoped for really.

I loved the scenes at the end and I thought they were beautifully done. Especially in the extended cut, but my god. The editing was awful. What the hell was up the parade of fade to whites? It was bizarre. I remember watching it in the theater for the first time and people were laughing by the 3rd fade out. I felt such 2nd hand embarrassment for Peter Jackson at the time and it totally took me out of the moment. Each scene at the end was lovely but there had to have been a better way to stitch them all together to form a more coherent epilogue type ending.

I know that each film had a different set of editors, but I think the editors for Return of the King were clearly the worst.

Despite all the criticisms I had of the films, I love them as though they were my own babies. LOVE. I only criticize because I know they could have done better because they HAVE done better. If you can nail it right 50 different times, then you can nail it right 100 times. No excuses for shoddy work when it's paired next to excellent work!

[Del Murder]

I wouldn't want you to be my baseball manager...

'If you were able to hit a home run in your last at bat then you should be able to hit one in EVERY at bat!'

[Miriel]

I wouldn't want you to be my baseball manager...

'If you were able to hit a home run in your last at bat then you should be able to hit one in EVERY at bat!'

I'm pretty sure we've had a conversation about this. HOME RUN EVERY TIME OR GTFO!

[Cuchulainn]

Baseball references. The sure fire way of alienating everyone who is not american from the conversation.

[Laddy]

Baseball references. The sure fire way of alienating everyone who is not american from the conversation.

I agree. Baseball sucks.

Eh, I know a lot of of scenes are cut out (the destruction of the ring was changed and the scour of the Shire was completely left out) but I <3 them anyways.

[fire_of_avalon]

Leaving out the final chapters regarding the corruption of the Shire and their roles as saviors redeeming the land and the people really, really bothers me. I felt that one of the most important metaphors of the series is the fact that exposure to evil is never as isolated as it seems to be. Evil has a way of reaching past the people fighting our wars, our personal guards to the places we live.

And that we all have to work to keep that evil from touching us ever again, because it is so pervasive.

Anyway, perhaps I'm wrong. But it bothered me that was left out. And all the Arwen stuff bothers me. Even in the legendarium Arwen bothers me. It was meant to be Eowyn. :|

[charliepanayi]

The trouble with the Scouring stuff is you'd be essentially tagging on an extra subplot after the main villain has been vanquished and the big climax at Mount Doom, and that just doesn't really work in a film.

And as Miriel says, the editing at the end of ROTK is terrible - just do a jump cut to the next scene Peter, what's with all the fade outs!

[Loony BoB]

Leaving out the final chapters regarding the corruption of the Shire and their roles as saviors redeeming the land and the people really, really bothers me. I felt that one of the most important metaphors of the series is the fact that exposure to evil is never as isolated as it seems to be. Evil has a way of reaching past the people fighting our wars, our personal guards to the places we live.

And that we all have to work to keep that evil from touching us ever again, because it is so pervasive.

Anyway, perhaps I'm wrong. But it bothered me that was left out. And all the Arwen stuff bothers me. Even in the legendarium Arwen bothers me. It was meant to be Eowyn. :|
Not to mention Glorfindel. Arwen is EVERYONE.

[Slothy]

Am I the only one who liked the movies more than the books? I honestly tried to give the books a good go, and made it most of the way through Two Towers before I stopped reading them. Maybe I'd enjoy them more now than I did when I was reading them 8-9 years ago, but to be honest, there was something about Tolkien's writing that just made it hard for me to get into them.

That said, even not knowing a whole lot about the differences in story between the book and movie aside from what I've read on wikipedia before and in this thread, I will say that I had many of the same issues with the end of Return of the King. I wouldn't say it was my least favourite, but it wasn't as good as Two Towers by a long shot.

[charliepanayi]

I really like the books but I can see why many people don't, Tolkien's prose is so dry you could mop up spills with it.

It's hard for me to say which film I like best of the three - I kind of consider the trilogy as one very long film split into three parts. If pressed I'd say The Two Towers maybe. Either way, it's one of the very small group of great movie trilogies in my opinion.

[Cuchulainn]

I think it's pretty much known that Tolkein was no professional writer. He took not classes nor obeyed the traditional rules of prose and format. To some that is a reason to stay away, however to mkost it just adds weight to the story. He multitude of characters would normally be something a writer avoids but as Tolkein had a whole world mapped out, traditional story-telling was of no importance to him. There was no love interest, no traditional ending and no attempt to hide the fact that there were more things going on than what he wrote. To me the books are the greatesty works of fantasy fiction ever written, and half of the reason I feel this was is BECAUSE it's not written the way all others were.

[Loony BoB]

Fellowship for me is easily the best.

[placere]

It's the best, it's true :)

[Peegee]

The books are illegible and the pacing is woefully incompetent. I don't understand how anybody likes them. But instead of incessantly ranting I will say that I think the movies are beautiful and the pacing is much more appealing - I understand a few things from talking to my brothers (who have both somehow read all 3 books):

- the fight sequences take a page
- most of the book describes politics and environment
- i fell asleep listening to them

When I spoke to Zach! about this, he sort of agreed with me - I don't think LOTR as it is written translates into a screenplay, which is probably why the animated movie was a billion hours (2) long and still failed to complete (they ran out of budget).

[Chris]

The extended versions are in my opinion the greatest fantasy movies ever made. I haven't read any of the books, so I have nothing to compare them to except the theatrical versions. The amount of dedication, hard work and love put into these movies, will never be matched, and if you have watched all of the extras, you'll know what I mean.

It is impossible to make an exact movie adaptation of a book. The Harry Potter books are my all-time favorite books, but that doesn't mean I cannot enjoy the movies as an added, visual, bonus. The first three movies were almost perfect adaptations of the books, and even though I still love those that followed, they were seriously... with the exception of the Deathly Hallows Part I, which was a return to form.

[Bastian]

Am I the only one who liked the movies more than the books?.
Nope. Me too.

I was going to read the books before Fellowship (the movie) came out, but didn't get around to it. So right after seeing Fellowship, I picked up the books... and found Fellowship (the book) to be absolute torture. I would force myself through a few pages and put it down and come back a few months later and so on. I JUST managed to finish it before Two Towers (the movie) came out. I'd intended to read Two Towers before seeing it... but had only just finished reading Fellowship, so didn't accomplish that goal. I did, however immediately start in on reading Two Towers after seeing the movie and then finished up with Return of the King way before seeing that one.

The thing is, I can appreciate the books for what they are: a great story, the predecesor to a whole genre of literature and film and videogames that probably would have otherwise never existed... but they're so damn boring. At least Fellowship is. And Two Towers was a bit painful as well.

If they were written today, an editor would have forced so many changes, many of which the films fixed. The beginning, for example: Tedious in the books. Fixed up quite nicely in the movies. I agree with almost ALL of Peter/Fran/Phillipa's changes, espeically insofar as an adaption to a completely different medium (film). (I would have liked Tom Bombadil to be in the movie though :*( )

Anyway, I've only read TLotR once (but have read The Hobbit three times, I think) and I've watched the movies... good lord... twice each in the cinema, and then at least four times each on DVD (because I wanted to listen to ALL three sets of commentaries for each).

I'm disapointed that the bluray version doesn't have any features the DVD Extended Versions don't. I'm not going to bother with the blurays until my DVDs no longer work.

[Skyblade]

Also, don't we lose a lot of Denethor's character in the movies? I mean, he is given as a crazy overlord dude, but we don't get any of the actual reason for his fall or his decisions, and their were many.

There is nothing at all done to reinforce the importance that Osgiliath holds, and, worse still, no mention made at all of the Palantir of Minas Tirith, which was the single biggest contribution to Denethor's insanity. Since Sauron controlled the Palantir network (up until Aragorn managed to seize control away from him before the battle of the Black Gate), Denethor could only see things which Sauron wanted him to see. Sauron couldn't lie with it (Palantiri were elder tools beyond even his power to make or manipulate that much), but he could dictate what aspects of the truth that Denethor could see, and he did. For example, Sauron showed Denethor the black ships coming, implying them as reinforcements for him, despite the fact that they were now carrying allies of Gondor. Sauron showed him enemies everywhere and hid his views of his allies (hence the whole "Rohan has betrayed me" bit), driving Denethor into despair and insanity. Yet we only get very vague hints to this massive plot device.

I also dislike the lack of the Scouring of the Shire. It drastically changed the message of the films compared to the books. In the books, that section is a clear indication that though a great evil was defeated, more still remains, and that there is more work to do, that the battle against evil was a continual one. While the movies held the much simpler implication that destroying the Ring was the elimination of all evil everywhere.


Still, I have to give the movies credit. They did a wonderful job of converting the books to a new media while keeping the feel the same. I have my gripes, but I am very glad those movies were made, and I am waiting for the Hobbit with eager anticipation.

As a side note, I think the relegation of Gimli into the role of comic relief in the later movies will have a positive effect on the Hobbit. The Hobbit, being a kid's book, had much lighter characters than those in Lord of the Rings, and the dwarves will be a little easier to accept in their lighter roles than if Gimli had been a supreme ultra-tough warrior the entire time.

[Breine]

I adore the books, but also think the movies are great. As charliepanayi said, the extended cuts are probably the best adaptations that could have been hoped for.

Movies based on books will never ever be the same as the books. Ever. Loads of detail gets lost with every adaptation happening out there.
- some adaptations are worse than the original text, some are better. To me, the feat of creating and developing the world of Lord of the Rings for the screen as was done, is alone enough to be amazed at in my opinion. Books and movies are simply just totally different media, and what works in one doesn't necessarily work in the other. At all. The movies are just movies and an adaptation, and the books will always be the books. It's when people mix the two of them instead of looking at the independently that they become disappointed.

[Pheesh]

"There's only one 'Return' and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi."

[charliepanayi]

"There's only one 'Return' and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi."

You're forgetting of the Mack.

[champagne supernova]

I think it's pretty much known that Tolkein was no professional writer. He took not classes nor obeyed the traditional rules of prose and format.

Tolkien was a Professor of English at about 28. At Oxford, he was part of the Inklings, a literary discussion group that included C.S Lewis. As I don't think they had writing classes back in the day, he probably had a pedigree as good as the best.

However, he was an expert in the old stories from back in the day, like Beowulf and all the Old English epic stories. Lord of the Rings is basically very similar in nature to those stories, which is probably why it didn't follow the rules of contemporary literature.

And The Wheel of Time has many more characters. It probably rivals War & Peace in that regard.

Anyway, there probably will be another Ultimate edition of the trilogy released in a couple years. I agree that Glorfindel is bad-ass and think Bombadil should have been included to. As for the Scouring of the Shire, it was more a winding up of several untied plot elements, such as Saruman and the destruction Sam glimpsed of the Shire. I could live without it. Denethor was badly misconstrued.

But overall, the movies were fairly awesome.

[Del Murder]

Just had a marathon of the LoTR movies this weekend. It was awesome, but I forgot how long the extended editions are. When you start a movie at 9pm you don't expect to still be watching it at 1am!

[Bred Pit]

That was great movie and the releasing of the all parts of the movie
in short intervals, i think increase papularity of the movie.

[Big D]

There is nothing at all done to reinforce the importance that Osgiliath holds, and, worse still, no mention made at all of the Palantir of Minas Tirith, which was the single biggest contribution to Denethor's insanity.The Palantir features briefly, but prominently, in the extended Return of the King.

The extended cut of The Two Towers ranks as one of my favourite movies ever, while the Rohirrim's charge at Pelennor Fields in the finale is probably my single favourite scene.

Sure, there were some reasonably substantial changes between book and film; some things didn't make it to the silver screen which I would rather have seen, but there were some fairly inspired omissions too. Tom Bombadil could easily have been the most frustrating, time-wasting character in cinema history; the excision of Glorfindel and other bit-players cost the films virtually nothing.

[Del Murder]

Bombadil just would not have made sense in the movies. He barely makes sense in the books. I don't think the movies really omitted anything that would have made them better.