Lord of the Rings: Books vs. Movies

[Forsaken Lover]

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.

[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.

[escobert]

I couldn't stand the books.

[Skyblade]

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.

[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.

[Del Murder]

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.

[Miriel]

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.

[Skyblade]

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.

[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!

[Skyblade]

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.

[Elskidor]

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.

[Shorty]

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.

[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).

[Tavrobel]

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.

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

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.

[Forsaken Lover]

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.