Lord of the Rings: Books vs. Movies

Inspired by going to see the second Hobbit film, which was pretty meh as far as i was concerned....

I would say without fear of contradiction that no cinematic adaptation has been met with such heated criticism as Peter Jackson's trilogy. Tolkien has a legion of supporters and the respect and adoration they heap on him is totally deserved. So when Mr. Jackson made some...choices, it was bound to be met with all sorts of opinions. Many of them extre,e, one way or another.

Now I'm no Tolkien expert. I only finished the trilogy for the first time a few months ago. Fellowship kicked my ass so many times where I just couldn't make it to the Council of Elrond. And no, it had nothing to do with Tom Bombadil - he was great. It was the stuff at Bree and the Borrow Downs and all that stuff which bored the hell out of me. But if you make it to the Council of Elrond, it's all uphill from there and onward to the sequels.

But not so if you ask people about the films. Book fans will tend to have these two opinions:
1. ALL the movies suck (BALROGS DO NOT HAVE WINGS!! WHY DIDN'T IT JUST FLY AWAY?!?!?!?!_
2. The extended editions of Fellowship and Two Towers are good. Never speak of film Return of the King.

Now, I like to think that I am a nice middleground kind of guy. While I'm no Tolkien buff, I counter that with a less biased perspective. For example, Durin's Bane was absolutely perfect in the film. It was as awe-inspiring and powerful as befitting one of the greatest servants of Morgoth. Everything about it from the way the legions of goblins and orcs run away in absolute terror, to the way Gandalf shouts that this new foe is beyond any of them, to the swelling of the music when they are fleeting...it was all exquisitely done.

And let's not forget Gandalf's sacrifice. It is heartwrenching in the film with Frodo's screaming no and the way Boromir screams for Aragorn to let the hobbits mourn for pity's sake. Meanwhile, in the novel, all you get is that Frodo and the others cried. It was maybe one or two lines.

Now, with all that being said, there are changes that are unforgivable.

One of them is turning Saruman into Sauron's toady. Saruman is a peer of Sauron existentially speaking and he had his own great cunning and schemes in the work. Moreover, he was an interesting villain. Unlike The Silmarillion, LOTR paints a rather simplistic picture of good and evil. Sauron by this point is devoid of anything resembling goodness and is all about torture and mwahahaha evil just for the lulz. He reigns over an empire of faceless goons. But Saruman? He is a "human" face of wickedness; someone we can look to and say "yes...I can see why he is doing this." Even when he repeatedly rejects his chances for redemption, it's presented in the most pitiable and understandable of ways. Pride is something we all must struggle with and Saruman was mastered by his, to his great loss as he was forever banished from paradise. His end is tragic and the way he's taken out in the films does him no justice, just like everything else in regards to Movie Saruman.

The less said about Sauron the Evil Spotlight of Doom and Denethor the Cartoon Madman the better.

And so my opinion is divided. In some areas, the novels are better and in some areas the films are better. But overall...I'd rather read the books.

The books are the superior.

I think the movies are overrated and I am so smurfing sick of Peter Jackson, but I do like them. I will sit and marathon all of the extended versions and The Appendices through an entire weekend when in the mood.

I couldn't stand the books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

The books are the superior.

I think the movies are overrated and I am so smurfing sick of Peter Jackson, but I do like them. I will sit and marathon all of the extended versions and The Appendices through an entire weekend when in the mood.

---

Shorty speaks the truth.

Also, Return of the King was easily the worst of the movies, largely due to just how much was changed (completely unnecessarily), and how much those changes butchered the story and themes.

I don't think Return of the King was butchered, but I think that it definitely lies in the shadows of the other two movies just because they were so good and that Return of the King suffered badly from third film syndrome. The Fellowship is the wonderful start to the adventure that is so exciting and unbelievable that none of the party really has grasped what it is they've embarked on, The Two Towers is the confrontation of the realism of the situation, a multitude of storylines and a smurfing epic battle. I think that by the time Return of the King was done with, everyone just wanted to watch it to get it over with.

But I also have only read Return of the King once and Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers much more, so I could be misremembering about potential butcherings.

The books and movies were both great. If I were to pick one I'd give the slight nod to the books since they were the originals. I loved the movies though. Peter Jackson did a great job.

They're two totally different things. I love the books and I love the movies.

Here's the thing. There's parts of the book that are so amazing and glorious and beautiful and never made it onto the screen. But then the movies took elements of the book and made them come alive. Like the music. The music is so god damn perfect, I can't even. And the movies are beautiful, more beautiful than I could have ever imagined in my head.

There's obviously parts of the movies that weren't great. Some parts that were cringeworthy. And other parts that I didn't really feel was in the spirit of Tolkien's work. But they're still great movies. I probably wouldn't love the movies as much as I love them if I didn't love the books as much as I do. My love of one kinda passes onto my love of the other because I do think the films, for the most part, did a great job of keeping the spirit of the books.

I don't feel the same about The Hobbit. I don't think it kept the heart or the spirit of the books at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

I don't think Return of the King was butchered, but I think that it definitely lies in the shadows of the other two movies just because they were so good and that Return of the King suffered badly from third film syndrome. The Fellowship is the wonderful start to the adventure that is so exciting and unbelievable that none of the party really has grasped what it is they've embarked on, The Two Towers is the confrontation of the realism of the situation, a multitude of storylines and a smurfing epic battle. I think that by the time Return of the King was done with, everyone just wanted to watch it to get it over with.

But I also have only read Return of the King once and Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers much more, so I could be misremembering about potential butcherings.

---

The main problem with Return of the King can be summed up in one phrase:

The Army of the Dead.

They were not that major a part of the books, and making them such a major part of the movies absolutely destroyed the impact and purpose of a huge number of scenes.

In the book, Aragorn takes the Army of the Dead and uses it to drive away the Corsairs of Umbrar. He then takes the Corsairs' black ships for his own, and uses them to transport his own people, the remnants of the Northern Kingdom of Arnor (which is where the Rangers and the Dunedain come from), as well as the allies of Gondor which lay along the coast and could not supply Gondor with additional troops while being under threat of a naval invasion. Thus, there is an actual battle still to be fought, sacrifice, and meaning in the reinforcements he brings.


Prince Imrahil and his land of Dol Amroth are also completely left out, which again hurts the story. He was not a minor character in Return of the King. It was the Knights of the Silver Swan who guarded Minas Tirith and kept the forces of Mordor from ever climbing to the upper levels.

Heck, it was Imrahil himself who saved Eomer from basically committing suicide. See, Eomer, in the books, found Eowyn collapsed after having killed the Witch King of Angmar before the battle was over. He feared her dead, and basically completely snapped. He gathered the riders of the Rohirrim, and charged out into the battlefield, and just kept going. He tore a huge swath through the forces of Mordor, but at great cost of lives, and wound up with his momentum halted, surrounded by enemies on all sides, and content to just keep on fighting until he was no more. Until Imrahil came into save his ass, and those of his surviving men.


The movie loses all of this. Aragorn arrives with a magic army, and the battle is over. It is so completely underwhelming and anti-climactic.

Plus, it cuts out one of my favorite scenes from the book.



EDIT: Additional, it cuts out almost all of the reasoning behind Denethor's madness. He was not just a crazy guy, there was a lot that happened to make him snap, and we get very, very little of it.

I see your concerns about the magic army and I understand them. I always loved the men under the mountain, but I clearly remember having discussions with folks after the movie ended that went like, "So, at any point, this army of the dead could have just come and wiped out the enemy, right?" It made the whole battle seem kindof... pointless, I guess? I completely agree that it was underwhelming, but I do have a sort spot for it.

As for your other points, it's been far too long since I've read the book, so I will have to defer to your judgement. Perhaps I should read them all again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

I see your concerns about the magic army and I understand them. I always loved the men under the mountain, but I clearly remember having discussions with folks after the movie ended that went like, "So, at any point, this army of the dead could have just come and wiped out the enemy, right?" It made the whole battle seem kindof... pointless, I guess? I completely agree that it was underwhelming, but I do have a sort spot for it.

As for your other points, it's been far too long since I've read the book, so I will have to defer to your judgement. Perhaps I should read them all again!

---

Reading them again can't hurt. :) Also, did you catch my Edit about Denethor?

I agree I like the Army of the Dead in general. And I also like the way they're handled in the movie, up to a point. The Paths of the Dead, the confrontation with the Dead King. Those are fantastic.

Once they overstay their welcome, though, it started to irk me. For one thing, it raises the question of why did they stop. In the books, they're used in one battle, and that's it. Their oaths are fulfilled and they can rest. In the movies, they're used in two distinct battles. So why not simply ask them to take out the rest of the forces of Mordor as well? Would three battles really be pushing things so much farther?

And it does cut a lot of the meaning and sacrifice from the latter half of the battle (and, I'm sorry, the Battle of Pelenor Fields should have had a much greater emotional impact than the Battle of Helm's Deep).

It's not that I don't like the Army of the Dead (and I loved actually getting to see them in action, especially against the Corsairs, a scene which happens "off screen" in the books), I just hate the impact it had on the movie as a whole.

Books. Of course.

Book are nearly always better as is the case here, but the movies are superb. I have little complaints now, all though I use to whine about Glorfindel, Arwen, Bombadil, Gandalf's mother friggin staff being broken, Scouring of the Shire and a lot of minor things. He was given 1 film from the start, and that is all we would have gotten if he didn't push for more. Would I change things? Hell yeah. Is it perfect? No. But it comes closer to nearly all other movie to book adaptions I have ever seen, but Tolkien fans are in another tier when it comes to defense. Only with Tolkien do you see so much movie/book controversy and I kinda see that as a tribute to Tolkien in its self.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Once they overstay their welcome, though, it started to irk me. For one thing, it raises the question of why did they stop. In the books, they're used in one battle, and that's it. Their oaths are fulfilled and they can rest. In the movies, they're used in two distinct battles. So why not simply ask them to take out the rest of the forces of Mordor as well? Would three battles really be pushing things so much farther?

---

I can only answer from my perspective, but I think it was because Tolkien clearly wanted them to not be viewed as a force or an object to wield at the pleasure of their master. They were simply paying a debt in return for their release. I also think that Tolkien was so incredibly affected by war that he would never allow such a thing like an army to be used against their will (whether they were dead or alive matters not) to fight in battle more than necessary. Additionally, Aragorn would never ask for such a thing because he is an honorable soul. That would be my guess.

I see your argument, though. Using them in two battles in the movie did no favors for them, and it does raise questions like, "why not just keep using them?" This is why I get angry when liberties with material are taken, because all it does is raise questions. :argh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Once they overstay their welcome, though, it started to irk me. For one thing, it raises the question of why did they stop. In the books, they're used in one battle, and that's it. Their oaths are fulfilled and they can rest. In the movies, they're used in two distinct battles. So why not simply ask them to take out the rest of the forces of Mordor as well? Would three battles really be pushing things so much farther?

---

I can only answer from my perspective, but I think it was because Tolkien clearly wanted them to not be viewed as a force or an object to wield at the pleasure of their master. They were simply paying a debt in return for their release. I also think that Tolkien was so incredibly affected by war that he would never allow such a thing like an army to be used against their will (whether they were dead or alive matters not) to fight in battle more than necessary. Additionally, Aragorn would never ask for such a thing because he is an honorable soul. That would be my guess.

---

I agree with all of that.

But looking at the movie, I don't see why the turning point is where it is. If they were going to quit after a battle, instead of after the war, why choose that battle?

It actually makes a lot more sense for them to give up after the Corsairs than it does to give up after the Battle of Pellenor Fields. In the movies, they fight the ships, then sit around doing nothing on a boat for several days, until they finally make it back to Gondor to fight.

Once they're at that battle, though, it's an extremely short trip to Mordor, especially in comparison to the boat ride. They could have wiped Mordor clean on that same day. If they were going to fight more than one battle, why would they not stick around an extra hour or two and fight one more? Especially since that would end the war (and, theoretically, could be argued to be a more complete fulfillment of their oaths. Though, as you say, Aragorn would never hold them to that).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover

But not so if you ask people about the films. Book fans will tend to have these two opinions:
1. ALL the movies suck (BALROGS DO NOT HAVE WINGS!! WHY DIDN'T IT JUST FLY AWAY?!?!?!?!_

---

inb4 book fans are idiots.

For your continued learning, the Silmarillion goes a lot further in describing the origins of the spirits that rank higher than Elves and Men. Balrogs, as Maiar level spirits, can take the shape of whatever they want, provided that whatever damage they take in that form can't be magicked away. Even if Balrogs have undamaged wings, there's no guarantee that they can fly, because they just might not have the lift needed to get them off of the ground. Even if he could fly after falling into a giant underground lake, and fighting his way to the top of a mountain against a spirit equal in power (Gandalf is a Maia), where is he going to fly to? Italy?

Further examples of inability to heal: the ruling hand has four fingers; the bat bleeds all over while fleeing Tol-in-Gaurhoth; never seeing Sauron in fair form after the start of the Third Age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

"So, at any point, this army of the dead could have just come and wiped out the enemy, right?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

They could have wiped Mordor clean on that same day. If they were going to fight more than one battle, why would they not stick around an extra hour or two and fight one more?

---

It's stated pretty explicitly in the books that the curse only bound them for one battle. In the books, there's only one they needed to fight in, at Pelargir, which gave them an effective way of transporting Northern reinforcements. There were more defenders at Minas Tirith in the book, so there wasn't much of a need for the Dead Army there. Maybe if they had not removed 90% of the country, things could be different.

The magic is also not strong enough to clean out Mordor. Consider the source of the level of sorcery required to keep these figures in check: a noble/king of Gondor cursing a few thousand men for about a thousand years, the source of which is dead, versus a Maia enslaving an army of living people on his own and maintaining nine Nazgul and their Rings of Power. It does not compare.

In addition, they also had to compress the timelines. What is supposed to happen over the course of a few days is instead, told in the span of less than an hour. No amount of altering the background to give the impression of passing time can change that, and it is a flaw of movies as a form of media. If they wanted to portray it accurately, the actual battle would have been extremely slow, plenty of downtime, no sense of urgency at all. Most wars are not started and ended in the span of a few hours. I don't know how much you liked the Faramir scenes where he's actually shown strategizing attack patterns, but Return would have been littered with them, and the movie would have risked feeling like a History Channel documentary.

--------


One thing about the movies that have bothered me, is that the Middle Earth that's painted in Peter Jackson's vision feels extremely underpopulated. It isn't. Sure one can point out "hey it's a movie," and that it is difficult to fill in that information for the viewer at a glance, but there was a lot more that the crew could have done to fill in some of the blanks.

This gives this impression that the world will end even if Sauron loses, simply because the Elves are going away. Very "this is the final battle" sort of feel. Only some of the Elves are going away. The native Elves of Lorien and Mirkwood have no reason to travel West. because that's not where home is for them. Granted, this makes life a lot easier for the filmmakers, and I am not sure they could have pulled off such an adaptation otherwise. It definitely would have compromised how Arwen was portrayed in the trilogy, and taken a significant amount of emotion from the character and her decision-making process.

If it makes anyone feel better, I actually liked the Appendices more than the actual movies.

As I said in my post, I've read The Sil. It's actually a lot better than LOTR as Elves are no longer a bunch of Mary Sues.

But now you mention it, one thing I reemmber being very confused about from teh films is hearing about how the Elves are leaving. They really give the impression of "Dark Lord's on the move, screw you guys, we're outta here." Maybe that's just because Movie Elrond is Smith and he's kind of a douchebag but it just felt like the Elves were abandoning the Men of Middle-earth to their fate. The Fading of the Elves is detailed a lot better in the books when we hear about how Galadriel and the others are no more than ghosts and phantoms to most people after the One is destroyed.

And another thing that bugged me about the movie, the insistence on saying "The Age of Men is at an end." Clearly they wanted a mostly Us Humans vs. Them Monsters thing. Only Sauron had plenty of Men under his command. If Sauron won, I don't think much would change for them. They certainly wouldn't be the slaves to the new Orc Empire.

"The Age of Men is at hand" is nothing to do with Sauron vs. Middle Earth and everything to do with humans overtaking the Elves in racial dominance of Middle Earth. I don't think I ever felt it had anything to do with Sauron, although perhaps that's just because of how much time I spent reading the books over and over.

The books are far, far, far better than the movies, and that's saying something because the movies were still great, although not "best of all time" or anything. I feel the movies left too much out for my liking, both characters and plot-wise. I do agree with Miriel that much of the aesthetics and (by such a massive distance) the music were so much better in the movies than in my imagination. For the most part, anyway (I wasn't a fan of the look of Elves and Hobbits, but I don't think they could have got them as correct as my imagination feels they should have been without relying on animation, so they did the best they could really).

The books, though, are just incredible. I should read them again someday.

EDIT: Wait, the age of men is at an end? I don't recall that about the movies at all. Whoops. xD

I've seen Return of the King so many times and they only used the dead army in one battle? :confused:

I hate the books. Hate them. I've decided that sometime in 2014 I'm going to give them another go, though, now that I'm older.

Also, part of why I hate RotK is because while the other movies had CGI, the entirety of RotK was leaning on CGI. I hate that. It's boring.

I couldn't stand the books. I made it to a little past the halfway mark of the Two Towers when I last tried to read them and it was so unbelievably boring. The pacing is awful. I really want to like the Lord of the Rings because there's obviously a very well fleshed out and interesting world in there. It's just a shame it's bogged down by a story that's, overall, as dull as that.

I have to give the nod to the movies because, despite whatever changes from the books they may have and the end of Return of the King being entirely too long, I at least enjoy them enough to get through them. That's pretty significant in my books.

Couldn't get into the books. Tolkien's writing bored the hell out of me and I could only make it to chapter two of the Fellowship and that was it. I much prefer the movies and this is the first I heard of anyone having complaints about Return of the King. That's okay, I'll continue to enjoy it as some of the best works of cinema.

Thr books are better and obviously so immensely more imoortant but I enjoy the films a whole lot, especially for what they achieved.

Read through the books three or four times and I do love them, although I shudder to think how many times I've seen the movies. I think I've dedicated more time to the latter so that's your answer.

Tolkien was a great world builder but wasn't a great writer - it's not an easy pick up and read book. Conversely, the Hobbit book is precisely that so it's weird that he could do it with one and not the other, although I suppose The Hobbit was more of a children's thing.

The movies are about more than just the plot. As Miriel touched upon, the music and the visual design are smurfing exemplary. Stylistically the movies are in a league of their own. The Army of the Dead is just a quick shortcut rather than having an extra battle (vs the Corsairs) and then introducing a new set of characters - right near the end of 9 hours of movie, remember - for the Dunedain. Wraps it up in one neat package and I'm okay with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover

"The Age of Men is at an end."

---

Did you mean "at hand?" If Sauron had won, the Age of Men would have ended before it even started. RIP Men 2003-2003.

The Noldorin Elves who stayed after the end of the First Age definitely screwed themselves, when they listened to Sauron. Sure, he was tricking them the whole time, but the moment they put the Rings on, Sauron just dropped his mic and walked off-stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

"The Age of Men is at hand" is nothing to do with Sauron vs. Middle Earth and everything to do with humans overtaking the Elves in racial dominance of Middle Earth. I don't think I ever felt it had anything to do with Sauron, although perhaps that's just because of how much time I spent reading the books over and over.

---

This is correct. The "Age of Men" thing was earned, and it wasn't some great prophecy. It could be compared to a little bit of foresight and reasoning reaching the level of prophecy, but not quite there. This Age was to signify the dominance in population of Men in comparison to Elves, but it would not have happened if Sauron were not defeated; really, it could have been any great non-Sauron enemy, too.

The Age of Men could make more sense in the total mythological context, if Tolkien had ever finished his LotR sequel about the beginning of the Fourth Age. In this extremely incomplete work, the story was to feature King Eldarion dealing with internal politics and a rising threat from further East of Mordor. Orcs never greatly troubled Men again after the defeat of Sauron. Eldarion instead had to deal with those who lived further East, the regions of Rhun and Harad, which had kingdoms of evil Men. From this point on, wars were strictly fought between different populations of Men.

If you treat Tolkien's work as being a legitimate entry into the stories that make up OUR world, these stories were to explain why wars happen between nations now, and all of the Beleriand/Middle Earth stuff happened something like 12000 years ago. Tolkien was aiming for a distinctly English-sourced myth about the creation of the world. "Finding out" about the stuff that happened until present day places it in the same tier as other myth/religion stories, like the Bible's Genesis. This desire doesn't come across very well in the published versions of the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, or LotR, but early drafts of every story had people speaking in old English, traveling to and from England, and exchanging tales and lessons.

Also, Sauron used to be a cat. This is the sort of storytelling permutation that Tolkien thought other people would pick up on and add on to (like actual myths), but then he abandoned his work about the Fourth Age, knowing it couldn't match people's expectations. Politicking and a full fading of magic does not make a very interesting high-fantasy work.

Does nobody remember that the head orc dude was like how men are over and orcs will rule? I'm positive that's in one of the damn movies. And it doesn't make any sense because Men serve Sauron just as much as orcs do.

I recall that line, and although men served him as well, it seems there were a lot more orcs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover

Does nobody remember that the head orc dude was like how men are over and orcs will rule? I'm positive that's in one of the damn movies. And it doesn't make any sense because Men serve Sauron just as much as orcs do.

---

Gothmog says it in the third movie after they take Osgiliath. "The Age of Men is over, the time of the Orc has come." No such statement is ever included in the books. Such a statement would have implied that the Age of Men had started and would end in the near future. It hadn't started, yet.

The Age of Men is specifically a version of the Fourth Age where Sauron loses.

In related prophecies, the way the Witch King would be disposed of ("not by the hand of man") was really emphasized in the movies. Since the movies removed the source of the prediction (Glorfindel), the prediction takes full prophecy form. For some reason, the Witch King seems aware of this fact, too, though in the books, he is only as vulnerable as any other of the Nazgul.

Glorfindel says that the Witch King will not die to a Man/male to make sure that Earnur, King of Gondor, wouldn't get himself killed during a battle in the middle of a war with Angmar. If Earnur had chased after the Witch King to try and kill him, he may have succeeded, but he would have most likely died, the battle of Fornost would not have happened, and Angmar would have survived into the late Third Age.

The movie makers really go to town with references that they, the reader would be aware of, but not the characters themselves should ever be aware of. Both of these are full on mistakes in understanding by the filmmakers. Your response is understandable.

Without the books you wouldn't have any of the movies so I suppose that's the simple answer.

However, I also think that the books were written from a wonderfully fleshed out "World-Building" point but as for overall storytelling and such, they are dense, slow and sometimes hard to stay engaged in.

A quick, obvious defense about movie changes: They are made for time, budget and also, for interpretation. To me, complaining about a movie that makes changes to a storyline, be it to cut time or to make it simpler, is the same logic that people have when they hear a band play a song live and expect it to be exactly like a studio recording. The spirit and overall feel of the song may still be the same but it has to change because it is being created anew and in a slightly different medium or setting.

For the LOTR movies, what is spot in is the feel and spirit. To me, it feels EPIC, it feels magical, the stakes feel real and earned. It's the music certainly and the costumes, the settings, all of it help create a Middle Earth that is alive with possibility.

So, will some characters be cut, even ones that might be somewhat pivotal and their storylines added in to other characters' backstories? Of course, otherwise the movies would each have been 7 or 8 hours long. Rather than introduce a whole other slew of characters, they just use already existing characters (The Dead Army for example) to help get to the next point in the story.

As a filmmaker myself, that's where some of the fun comes in actually and what helps make it an art form. How do we interpret this story for the screen? What makes the most sense thematically, which is much more important in a film than a book which can take chapters and tangents to prove a point since you usually read it in chunks and not all at once, as opposed to a movie?

Movies can overwhelm us with emotions and themes since we can get swept up in the storyline all at once without a break. With a story as overreaching as LOTR, to even get close to some of these feelings is a miracle. To actually follow through and arrive at a conclusion to this journey that feels deep, rich with adventure and romance all in less than 10 hours is nothing less than remarkable.

I think it also helps to look at the LOTR's movies as one long movie as opposed to three films, since they were shot all at once and essentially are meant to be viewed like a long winding journey. The books sometimes, with its strange pacing and structure of splitting the characters up for entire books rather than intertwining the plots, just don't feel nearly as epic. The world that was created and the story WERE, but the execution of it wasn't.

So I guess I'd say, the books were more important, but I enjoyed the movies more.

Take care all.

For LoTR I enjoyed the movies more. The books felt like they dragged on not just with the over descriptions but with the endless tea parties with elves. The Hobbit on the other hand I prefered the book. It was a succinct exciting adventure with intresting tea parties, the things the movie inserts break the pacing for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tavrobel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

"So, at any point, this army of the dead could have just come and wiped out the enemy, right?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

They could have wiped Mordor clean on that same day. If they were going to fight more than one battle, why would they not stick around an extra hour or two and fight one more?

---

It's stated pretty explicitly in the books that the curse only bound them for one battle. In the books, there's only one they needed to fight in, at Pelargir, which gave them an effective way of transporting Northern reinforcements. There were more defenders at Minas Tirith in the book, so there wasn't much of a need for the Dead Army there. Maybe if they had not removed 90% of the country, things could be different.

The magic is also not strong enough to clean out Mordor. Consider the source of the level of sorcery required to keep these figures in check: a noble/king of Gondor cursing a few thousand men for about a thousand years, the source of which is dead, versus a Maia enslaving an army of living people on his own and maintaining nine Nazgul and their Rings of Power. It does not compare.

---

Oh, I know. The problem is that you get none of this, at all, in the movies. There is no indication that there is any limits to the duration, or power, of the curse. The army of the dead is specifically described as "an army more deadly than any that walks the Earth", and is shown mowing over essentially half of Mordor's forces without even pausing. Further, the movie actually implies that the curse could have held them longer, had Aragorn not chosen to release them, as his word is needed to release them and let them be at piece.

And, yeah, I agree that there was a lot more need for the magical cure-all army in the movies, but that's because they did remove all the defenders, allies, and other forces that were present. And, I'm sorry, but those should not have been removed.

Prince Imrahil was NOT a minor character. He's the uncle of Boromir and Faramir, and I believe he's also Eomer's father in law. He was the guy who was in charge of the city with Denethor and Faramir...disqualified (since he was related by blood to Stewards). And the Knights of the Silver Swan were responsible for a number of really important turning points in the battle.

There was no reason to cut any of that, and there was nothing (in the movies) to explain why the Army of the Dead weren't used more than they were. If they were counting on everyone to have seen the books, they failed because they didn't represent the books properly, and if they were forming their own version, they failed to make their story as complete and consistent as it should have been.

Quote:

---

In addition, they also had to compress the timelines. What is supposed to happen over the course of a few days is instead, told in the span of less than an hour. No amount of altering the background to give the impression of passing time can change that, and it is a flaw of movies as a form of media. If they wanted to portray it accurately, the actual battle would have been extremely slow, plenty of downtime, no sense of urgency at all. Most wars are not started and ended in the span of a few hours. I don't know how much you liked the Faramir scenes where he's actually shown strategizing attack patterns, but Return would have been littered with them, and the movie would have risked feeling like a History Channel documentary.

---

I can dream. :D

Quote:

---

One thing about the movies that have bothered me, is that the Middle Earth that's painted in Peter Jackson's vision feels extremely underpopulated. It isn't. Sure one can point out "hey it's a movie," and that it is difficult to fill in that information for the viewer at a glance, but there was a lot more that the crew could have done to fill in some of the blanks.

This gives this impression that the world will end even if Sauron loses, simply because the Elves are going away. Very "this is the final battle" sort of feel. Only some of the Elves are going away. The native Elves of Lorien and Mirkwood have no reason to travel West. because that's not where home is for them. Granted, this makes life a lot easier for the filmmakers, and I am not sure they could have pulled off such an adaptation otherwise. It definitely would have compromised how Arwen was portrayed in the trilogy, and taken a significant amount of emotion from the character and her decision-making process.

If it makes anyone feel better, I actually liked the Appendices more than the actual movies.

---

I think they do a fairly decent job of making the world seem populated, mostly through the second movie. The refugees and towns of Rohan helped to give some much needed depth to the world. We also know that the Southrons and Easterlings are still around (though we do miss Aragorn making peace with them), as are the Dwarves and men. It didn't feel as huge as it could have been, true, but I still think it was ok. Maybe that's one thing that The Hobbit will fix (even though it ruins so many other things).

Oooh, the almighty books. I have read it, it is some really heavy reading stuff, but a great world. I would recommend reading LOTR, before reading "The hobbit", its a breeze if thats done first. But movies and books usually have changes, because of directors portrayal, while in books you can kinda imagine it yourself. But i did notice changes from book to movie, for example:

Frodo was more portrayed braver in "Fellowship of the Ring" and the movies made it more right on the books on his character in "Two Towers" and "Return of the king"
For example:
In the movie, Frodo dropped the sword when he saw the nazguls on weathertop, while in the book he showed courage by fighting them before he got stuck.
Also: In the movie an female elf comes to escort frodo to safety.
In the book, a male elf Glorfindel met Aragorn and let Frodo use his horse, when the nazguls came he rode himself, and the river was due to Gandalf and Elrond who could control it from where they where.

I could go on about many changes from book to movie, but in the end, it still potrays the main story ok. Even if they switch what role some play. The same can be said about The hobbit movie aswell. I personally think its ok movie, and the book is old now, but is still a classic for anybody to read.

I say, entertainment is entertainment. It does stay true to the story, so thats all i need. Aslong as it is fun, then i consider that pretty good.