For those of you that have read The Lord Of The Rings, how accurate has it been translated to film?

Question

Personally, I am not much of a reader, but I am quite curious of how accurate Peter Jackson has translated it into film.

Answer 1

The movies were fairly similar to the books. There were notable omissions...
-Tom Bombadil...but the whole focus on him really does nothing to advance the story. And for Hollywood, things that don't advance a story are usually not in the movie.
-The Scouring of the Shire...an interesting chapter in the last book, but would have caused confusion in the movies. The ring has already been destroyed at this point, which essentially "saves the world", so adding another "climax" to the movie would not have allowed the movie to flow properly. Books can get away with stuff like that...movies not so much.

There were also some notable changes. For example, whereas the movie portrays Boramir dying in the first film, he actually doesn't die until the 2nd book (The Two Towers)...though it is towards the beginning. Arwen is at best a minor character in the books. So when you see Arwen trying to save Frodo, the book character was actually Glorfindel...and it was Gandalf and Elrond who sent the flood of waters. SHe is a very minor character in the actual story...only appearing four times and a romance between Aragorn and Arwen is only hinted at. Arwen doesn't play a role in the books except for the Appendices in which her relationship with Aragorn is described. Eowyn has more of a role than Arwen did...and in "The History of Middle Earth" it is revealed that Aragorn was supposed to marry her. Her role in the books, however, are still minor.

It's been said that the Tolkien family didn't approve of how Jackson made the story. First of all, not all the Tolkien family was bothered by it. J.R.R. Tolkien's grandson was in support of it. J.R.R. Tolkien's son was not. His son was not upset by the screenplays, just the fact that it was made into a movie. He felt that it shouldn't be made into a movie. Of course, that's inconsistent with the fact that there has been another, albeit animated, adaptation. But J.R.R. Tolkien's son was very much like J.R.R. Tolkien himself...in that he didn't really like technology. This is why the stories are very much against machines, etc...and you see those things destroying nature and a simple way of life. It was Tolkien's beliefs and feelings reflecting into his writings.

Any nitpicky fan will tear the movies apart and point out its flaws. But for the most part, the movies are pretty consistent with the books. Nitpicky fans are going to one day have to realize that if everything was done exactly how the book was written, just one movie would last for HOURS. And Jackson already was turned away by one movie company (Miramax) for simply wanting to makee three movies.

Answer 2

The Fellowship was done very well. The Two Towers was done well but was less true to the book. The Return of the King was shockingly badly done and ruined the whole thing for me.

The Fellowship has been cut down by missing out some scenes and characters. You don't get the sense of time either - it was several years between the party at the start and when Frodo set off on the journey. However what is there is mostly very accurate and true to the book.
The Two Towers is still accurate apart from the Wargs (giant wolves) which did not happen in the book and adds nothing to the story. Also Faramir was far nobler in the book and did not take Frodo as a prisoner - the film portrays him as a far weaker willed character for no good reason. Also Treebeard and the Ents decide to attack Isengard without needing to be tricked - they decide that a noble end would be better than safety. And Gamling is a much older man in the books. Apart from this the film is accurate.
The Return of the King basically is an exercise in selling Legolas toys - it bears precious little relation to the books and really ruins the plot and characters. I was disgusted by it and it has ruined my favourite books for me. All the major characters and the plot are different. The Deadmen of Dunharrow do not destroy the entire orc army in the Siege of Minas Tirith, in fact they did not even fight in that battle. Aragorn did not kill the Mouth of Sauron, Gandalf did. Sam and Frodo never had that arguement over the food - that was a pointless addition that marred two really decent characters. Denethor was a far greater and more noble man than the comical weakling the film showed him as. Legolas did not kill a Mumak of Harad, indeed none of these beasts were killed in the battle (if he could kill one of these so easily then why did he not just decapitate the Balrog in the first film? It's F*CKING ridiculous!) Aragorn did not make that appalling speech infront of the Black Gate either. The Eye of Sauron was not a physical object set atop the tower either! It was an image of his projected will. All the deleted scenes were not in the book and make a bad job even worse - especially the one with Saruman's death! No wonder Christopher Lee refused to attend the premier of the Return of the King!
I would have not minded him leaving out large sections of the book - after all there is only so much you can fit in 3 hours, but in a 3 hour film adding over an hour of extra bits that were not in the books and detract from the story is just lame. If I was to watch this again I would use my remote control to skip past the many additions.
All the changes in the Return of the King are designed to make the film more visually spectacular and are at the expense of the plot. Peter Jackson obviously wanted to sell more Legolas and Aragorn toys and sold out to make a bit more money. The fact that the first film is so true to the book makes it obvious that his objectives changed as the films went on and money making became his main concern. You can see how he did this in King King too - the really long Tyranosaurus fight was not in the original film or the 70's remake but there is a toy playset of this scene... I wonder if Peter Jackson has shares in Hasbro.
If he makes a film of the Hobbit then I predict two things:
1 - I will not see it
2 - Action Man and Barbie will appear to save the day.

As I said before The Fellowship of the Ring and (to a lesser extent) the Two Towers are accurate and true translations of the books. As an action film Return of the King is pretty good - as a version of the story in the book it is the biggest sell out imaginable.

I would buy the BBC radio 4 audio play versions (or borrow them from a library) as these contain a far more accuate version of the story and are really well acted - they are exciting and you get a far better feel of the books. http://www.bbcshop.com/
There is also an animated version of the first half of the story and although a lot is missed out all the parts that are there are really true to the books. I reccomend this very highly. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/

Answer 3

The films were reasonably accurate to the books but there were some quite large ommisions.
The biggest change would probably be the ending. In the novel Frodo and Co return to the Shire to see it enslaved by Saruman and have to sort that out.
Jackson also left out one of my favourite parts of the book where the Hobbits meet Tom Bombadil. It doesn't really drive the story so I can see why it was left out but it's a good part and some light relief from all the chasing and hiding in the first book.
There are lots of other changes but three films each touching four hours had to leave something out.
I loved the books and films.

Answer 4

Very well done. Peter Jackson made Lord of the Rings a real labour of love. Omitting parts of the books for the sake of keeping the flow of the film was always going to be an issue for the die hard fans of the Tolkien books, but people have to remember Tolkien wrote them with films in mind, he never wanted LoTR to be made into a film, bearing in mind if he saw what Jackson did with his books I believe even he would have been impressed, but at the time of his writing he made certain parts of the book virtually impossible for filmmakers of his period to even consider making his books film, ie the scene in Khazad-dûm, when they meet the Balrog, Tolkien made the Balrog so downright obscure in it's description that trying to create that on film, very hard...

I would have loved to have seen the return to the shire and the hobbit's battle at the end of the book, but all in all, a work Jackson will be remembered for...

Answer 5

I thought The Hobbit was readable and the LoTR were better as a movie. One of my podcast friends mentioned getting through the parts of the book that Professor Tolkien wrote to get to the parts that Tolkien the author wrote. Since I did not get for into the first Lord of The Rings books, I believe you should read The Hobbit and then watch the movies.

Answer 6

All in all, it was was a pretty good translation as far as book/movie adaptions go. Of course, some things were left out of the movies. Whole chapters and scenes of the first book(some of which I liked a lot) were nonexistent in the movies. The worst cut from the movies was the ending of the book series. The second to last chapter of the last book was ignored completely.

The movies had some weird things that the writers made up, but there wasn't that much. So, again, it was a good translation, but not, in my opinion, as good as it could have been.

Answer 7

To be mildly fair, the romance between aragorn and arwen is featured more in the back story of the shire but still does not have as much time spent on it in the books.
when i first saw the films i was dazzled by the special effects and i thought, and still think, the soundtrack was a masterpiece. however, after watching them again in the comfort of my own home it suddenly made me realise something, the entire series, with the exception of andy serkis, was completely miscast. the more i listened to aragorn the more he sounded like skeletor, if u dont believe me go and listen again. skeletor. samwise was awful he had no idea what accent he was going to speak in next, Gandalf was nothing like the wise old crone of the books, reading the books i always felt safe, somehow, when gandalf was there and when he kept disappearing i was terrified.
i think the first scene in the movie when gandalf came to the shire was everything i had imagined it to be but it ended there.
still, i dont know of any other director who could have pulled it off and the movies are and will always remain visually and musically stunning

Answer 8

It's about as good as an adaptation could be.
Like Harry Potter, the books contain so much that the film had to miss bits out, otherwise it would have been about 35 hours long.
Peter Jackson did a superb job, and they will stand the test of time as landmark films in the history of cinema.

Answer 9

There were entire story lines stripped out of the story for the movie, but keep in mind, the story was very expansive.

For instance, there is a whole section of Frodo and his friend's flight to Brandywine that was not included in the movie script.

In the book, you read about how the Hobbits stop to visit Tom Bombadill and his water-sprite wife, where the couple call up growing things just by the magic of the songs they sing. The couple protects the Hobbits very effectively from the Ring-wraiths. But Tom and his wife finally kick them all out when it is clear that the Hobbits are getting a bit too comfortable at their new hideaway... Beautiful alliteration, wonderful allegory, but not necessary for driving the action of the film.

So if you decide to read the books, you would not be disappointed. Tolkein's story is very rich and dense piece of literature. His story should be savored slowly like dark chocolate or a fragrant brandy.

Answer 10

Very well. I think it captured the /essense/ of the Lord of the Rings, more than the acctually details of the storyline. I am one to say that the Lord of the Rings should be made into a movie and done line for line, but that'll probably nvr fly. Why don't you just read the book and find out for yourself? Tolkien's work is way, way better than the movie ever could be.